Loading...
PC 1999 10 20CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 20, 1999 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7;05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Matt Burton, Craig Peterson, LuAnn Sidney, Deb Kind, and Kevin Joyce MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmin A1-Jafl] Senior Planner; and Roger Knutson, City Attorney PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FROM D JR ARCHITECTURE, INC. FOR A SIGN VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SIGN ON A NON-STREET FRONTAGE ELEVATION FOR RUBY TUESDAY RESTAURANT LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, VILLAGES ON THE PONDS SECOND ADDITION. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staflk Kind: Sharmin, I assume you've talked to the applicant and they're willing to give up the southern. A1-Jafl~ Correct. Joyce: Sharmin, just so I understand it. If an applicant came in front of us and had street frontage or main parking on all four sides of the building, they'd have the potential for four signs? A sign on each elevation, is that how I'm understanding this? A1-Jaflk It would be where the main parking lot is. If they had four. Joyce: I'm saying, let's say they were bordered by two streets. A street on each side and then had parking on either side of the building. Would that allow them signage on each elevation? A1-Jaflk Under this sign criteria, yes. But you won't have that situation within Villages. Joyce: But that's what the PUD says. A1-Jafl~ Correct. Joyce: Okay. Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999 Peterson: Other questions of staff'? Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Gerry Ruta: Good evening. My name is Gerry Ruta. I'm the President and CEO of RT Minneapolis and I live at 8391 West Lake Drive, Chanhassen. I believe the staff report speaks for itself and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have of me. Peterson: Questions of the applicant? Okay, thank you. This item is open for a public hearing. May I have a motion and a second please. Kind moved, Joyce seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Burton moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: The public hearing's closed. Commissioners, any thoughts? I'll entertain a motion. Sidney: I'll make the motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of Sign Variance #99-12 to allow a sign on the west building elevation for a 5,223 square foot building (Ruby Tuesday's) on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition, as shown on plans dated received August 16, 199, subject to the following conditions. Joyce: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Sidney moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends approval of Sign Variance #99-12 to allow a sign on the west building elevation for a 5,223 square foot nd building (Ruby Tuesday's) on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 2 Addition, as shown on plans dated received August 16, 199, subject to the following conditions: 1. Wall mounted signs will be permitted on the east, west, and north building elevations only. 2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a building permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: 2 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999 REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A DAY CARE CENTER IN AN OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL BUILDING LOCATED ON LOT 3, BLOCK CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 7TM ADDITION, EDEN TRACE CORPORATION. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff'? Kind: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Sharmin does Human Services have guidelines for how big the play area should be? A 30 x 100 seems small for 101. A1-Jaflk We can contact them and ensure that they meet all of the State standards. It is a condition of approval. They will review all of these issues so in addition to city approvals, they will need the Human Services approvals. They would need to meet all of their requirements. Sidney: I guess one question. Are there any ordinances having to do with the play areas? A1-Jaflk No. They only regulate the location and the parking. Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I have one question. Have you discussed with the applicant any alternative locations for a play area? I mean that doesn't seem like the most optimal place. It's right by loading docks and drive aisles. Is there any other option or have they looked at any other place? A1-Jaflk If you look at the site, it's pretty much surrounded by parking lot and we haven't discussed it. We did look, staff did look at it. But this seems to be the only area where they could attach some green space to the exterior of the building. Blackowiak: Okay. Peterson: Any more questions? I did have a question for you Kate. You mentioned rubber cyclone fence. Help me increase my knowledge of what rubber cyclone fencing is. Rubber and cyclone and fence don't go together in my mind. A1-Jafl~ Rubberized. Peterson: Coating? A1-Jafl5 It's a chain link coated with it. Peterson: Other questions? Joyce: Orange probably. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999 Peterson: I had that vision. That's all I can think of is that kind of a fence so. Seeing no more questions, would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so, please come forward. Mark Undestad: Mark Undestad with Eden Trace. We have worked with the State on this as far as the size of the play area out there. It's larger than what it needs to be. They don't put 100 kids out there at one time. They mn the preschool and the little guys and the different age groups out there at different times. The areas we looked around trying to get this to work, I think by flipping parking lot and changing drive aisles in order to get this off in a comer, we're also going to take the fence, which will be a rubberized. It's a cyclone fence and that's part of what the State again controls so that apparently it's the safest fence for the kids. But also that we would put increase in landscaping like arborvitae or something to screen up right around that comer from the loading area. I think it's, the daycare likes it. The State's been going through the plan with them and they like the way it lays out. To go anywhere else we'd have to cross driveways, parking lots, so they wanted to go right out your door into a play area and that works that way. That's it. I do want to say one other thing. I've been up here quite a bit all through the summer and I want to thank everybody here for putting up with all this. We've really had a busy summer here so thank you. Any questions? Peterson: Any questions of the applicant? Sidney: General question. You've got the daycare and then the loading docks. What's the space in-between that. Like a storage area or? Mark Undestad: Oh, right in here? Sidney: Where you first pointed. There. Mark Undestad: Here? Sidney: Yeah. Mark Undestad: Well actually what we've done is taken the loading dock out of this too so I mean it's a drive in door now.., so there won't be any semi trucks or anything coming in there. Actually they start back in here. This whole area back in here will be all the loading docks tucked in the comer there. We changed the parking configuration on there so no truck traffic will come up through here. We'll put the signs out there too, no truck traffic. We made the jogs down here so it's virtually impossible for trucks to make that comer. Peterson: Thank you. Can I have a motion and a second to open it up for public hearing please. Kind moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission please come forward and state your name and address please. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999 Burton moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Closed. Commissioners, any thoughts on this one? Kind: Sure. I liked the idea of having the daycare but.., they would be close to their kids during the work day. I think that'd be neat. As far as, as long as they're complying with State regulations. I was surprised to hear about the fence. My gut tells me that the cyclone helps little feet climb but if that's in compliance, I'll go with that so I'm in agreement with stafl's recommendation. Peterson: Thank you. Other comments? Hearing none, is there a motion and a second please? Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #99-4 to allow a daycare center in an IOP District, Children of Tomorrow to be located on Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition as shown on the plans dated received September 17, 1999, subject to the conditions 1 through 4 as shown on the staff report. Blackowiak: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Discussion? Burton moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission reconunend approval of Conditional Use Permit #99-4 to allow a daycare center in an IOP District, Children of th Tomorrow to be located on Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7 Addition as shown on the plans dated received September 17, 1999, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a conditional use permit agreement with the City. 2. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval. 3. Obtain all applicable state, county and city licenses. 4. Show type of fence and landscaping for the outdoor play area. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FREE STANDING MONOPOLE TOWER TO BE LOCATED ON A CHURCH SITE BETWEEN THE MAIN STRUCTURE AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY~ AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN TO 5 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999 CONSTRUCT A 102 FOOT TALL MONOPOLE TOWER WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY FOR US WEST WIRELESS. Public Present: Name Address Diana & Dave Ferris Deb Reiff Mary Blue Bea Gemlo Scott Hines Pat Cenluo Dana A. Nelson Lorie Reller Kent & Sue Kollodge Mike Dalton Bobbie Headla JoAnn Hallgren 22891 Forest Ridge Drive 6750 Country Oaks Road 6770 Country Oaks Road 6780 Country Oaks Road 426 No. Fairview Avenue, St. Paul 426 No. Fairview Avenue, St. Paul 3967 Linden Circle 4020 Glendale Drive 6730 Country Oaks Road 4150 Hallgren Lane 6870 Minnewashta Parkway 3921 Maple Shores Drive Kate Aanenson and Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of stafl~ Kind: Mr. Chairman I have a question. Sharmin on this handout, there's this little box down here. Is that all that's required? The Stone Creek facility has a building. There's no building required with this... Were you able to review any drawings of what it would be like... Al-Jarl) The building is approximately 30 feet tall. To add a 75 foot steeple on top of that, in our opinion would not, it would have looked disproportionate. We haven't tried to put up a steeple on the building to see what it would look like. Kind: For example it wouldn't have to be all steeple. They have like a couple of things. On top of the church right now. That could be made bigger or more massive.., wouldn't have to be all steeple. I'd like to explore that option. If that would be a possibility. Al-Jarl) It might require reconstruction of the church. I have not investigated, no. Kind: Okay. Peterson: Other questions? Burton: Yeah, I have a question Mr. Chairman for the City Attorney. Over the past day or so I've looked into this a bit and one of the questions I had, well I reviewed a case from the 7th Circuit which had been referred to me by the City Manager and I was wondering about, in that 6 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999 case it says nothing in the Telecommunications Act forbids local authorities from applying general and non-discriminating standards in making these decisions. I'm just wondering, that was the 7th Circuit case. I'm wondering if there's anything different here. In the 8th Circuit or Minnesota. Roger Knutson: I'm not aware of any circuit cases. As far as I know there are no reported 8th Circuit decisions on it. But just to speak to the subject generally. I mean Telecom Acts require two things. First, you cannot unreasonably discriminate amongst providers a function to provide services. And your action, your regulations cannot have the affect of prohibiting the provision of wireless service. So if for example they need this location and they can show you that they need this location, then they're entitled to go with this location if in fact this is the location. They can demonstrate that that in fact is the case. If that is the case then your local regulations are trumped by the Telecommunications Act. And you can't discriminate and that's a question of fact as to whether you've allowed the competitors at locations which you would prohibit them from locating at similar locations. Joyce: But that brings up the question, have we done that? Roger Knutson: I guess I'm giving to the one on, they needed this site to provide. Joyce: But my question is do we, have we done a conditional use somewhere else. I don't remember. Do we have a similar case where it's an RSF area in Chanhassen right now? A1-Jaflk We have a conditional use permit located in our residential district. The tower is approximately 130 feet tall. It has, it's the lattice type of tower. Joyce: Did that come in front of us? A1-Jaflk Yes. However that was, the application was submitted in 1990 and the tower went up in '91. So it wasn't this planning commission. Blackowiak: Let me ask you something Sharmin, not only not this planning commission but prior to Telecommunications Act so that didn't even apply so that's kind of a moot point. Joyce: What I'm understanding the City Attorney saying, I mean I don't want to get into a dialogue here but I'm just asking. Are you saying that we can't discriminate against US West if we already have one of these situations in our city right now. Roger Knutson: You've allowed, you'll have to be the judge of the facts. I'll be the judge, I'll tell you what the law is. Joyce: That's what I'm asking really. Roger Knutson: If you've allowed a competitor in in residentially zoned property under similar circumstances, somewhat similar circumstances, then they would have an argument that you are 7 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999 discriminating against them. And you'll have to be the judge of whether these situations are similar. Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman I do, but the fact that it predates the, not only the Telecommunications Act but also our city ordinance, does that have any bearing whatsoever? Roger Knutson: I don't think it has any bearing that it predates the Telecommunications Act. There are no exceptions in the Telecommunications Act for that sort of thing. I don't know what the ordinances were substantially similar or different. I don't remember what they were like in 1990. So I can't answer that question. Were they that different in 19907 Blackowiak: We didn't have one, did we? Roger Knutson: We had ordinances on towers, sure. Aanenson: Sure we did. Al-Jarl) There was a height limitation. The standards would have to be met. Aanenson: I think our objective was to require more of them in industrial zones off of Highway 5. Highway 7, we allowed them... Peterson: As I recall we looked at that ordinance... Aanenson: Right, because we knew we were going to get significant number of them coming down the road so we wanted to look at spacing and where we would facilitate them going on sites where we wanted them. Our preference was existing facilities. Again, where there's high water towers, those sort of things. That's where we wanted to encourage them to look at those places first. And what were our second choices. Peterson: Not to split hairs either but this is a PCS tower which is a different kind of communications system that perhaps.., big umbrella for the telecommunications. However you communicate. Roger Knutson: Yeah, I mean there are analog versus digital versus that. They're all competing. Kind: Mr. Chairman. Roger, could you talk a little bit about the.., have the applicant comply with ordinance. Camouflage it... Roger Knutson: If it is a reasonable thing to do, obviously some churches are easier to integrate than others. I mean if you have a massive cathedral for example, you probably wouldn't, I don't know how high those reach but some of them probably reach up 60, 70, 80 feet. Some higher, I don't, never measured one. I don't know, there's some of them look huge from the ground anyway. Now that's obviously an easier thing, more feasible thing, at least easier to do. Whether it's feasible to do it on a church that's 30 feet tall, is that what I heard? About 30 feet tall. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999 Whether that is feasible, again that's for you to decide. How feasible, whether that is structurally possible too. I don't know what these monopoles weigh. Maybe the applicant can address that issue. Kind: So it's reasonable for us to expect the applicant. Roger Knutson: Or explain why they don't think they can. Peterson: Other questions? Hearing none, would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Dave Fischer: My name is Dave Fischer representing US West Wireless, Holy Cross Lutheran Church located at 426 North Fairview Avenue, Room 101, St. Paul, Minnesota. US West understands that the community has concerns regarding this site location. Located in residential areas so I'd like to take a few minutes to give a brief summary as to how US West identified this search area and why it is crucial that this site be located in this location. And I'd like to first give a little brief background of US West and where we've come to date as far as our system and our network. US West launched it's network in 1998 with 200 sites. And in 1999 has planned an additional 95 sites with sites that we call fill in sites, capacity sites and planned expansion sites. A fill in site is a site that is filled in between existing sites to fill a gap that we have. A capacity site is a site to off load another site that is, has existing high usage. An expansion site, which is the site that we are planning for, is an expansion site, is a site that allows us to expand the coverage throughout the entire network. And this is an expansion site that we are have planned for 1999 to be completed in the year end. We initially launched or issued a search ring for this location November 1st of '98. So we've been working on this for 11 1/2 months. Typically the time frame that a search ring is issued to the time frame it is completed and zoning and a permit is approved is typically 4 to 6 months. And obviously being that we're 11 1/2 months down the road, it's very important that we try to get this completed as soon as possible. I'd like to just kind of explain the site acquisition process so that you're aware of all the work and detail that is involved in trying to identify a site and why it is important in the location that we're applying for. Firstly, a coverage objective is to find, the specific coverage objective for this site is to provide coverage along Highway 7 corridor and the surrounding community. It will connect to the Tonka Bay water tower that provides us coverage east of Holy Cross Lutheran Church on Highway 7. Then we also want to connect our site to a site located to the south off of Highway 5 in Chaska located near the Chaska water tower. And also to connect west on Highway 7 to our site located along Merrywood Lane. The next thing that we would do is issue a search area. As I mentioned this was issued November 1st '98. And what they would do, after they issue a search area they determine an estimated mounting height that would meet our criteria. They base this on existing terrain, foliage, and existing sites surrounding the network in order to achieve our radio frequency design objective. Once the contiguous sites are in place surrounding the location that we're pursuing the site, the locations that were flexible to move in that search area diminishes as other sites are always put in place. Another reason why it's difficult to move our location within that search area. Then what we do is define a search area. This search area can be defined anywhere from a block radius to a mile radius depending on the terrain, the existing sites and the coverage objective to achieve our design. Since we have issued this site in November we have had two 9 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999 adjacent sites, one to the north. Or one to the south and one to the west of the Holy Cross Lutheran Church that are now existing sites which is even more critical of why our movement is limited in the location that we're at. This specific search area is a quarter mile wide by halfa mile long. Once we have identified a search area, what we do is we identify existing structures to co- locate our antennas on within the search area. As we noted and as staff mentioned, there were no existing co-locatable structures within our search area. We did identify the Shorewood water tower but it is a mile and a half outside of our search ring. This would not work for two reasons. One being that it would for one not meet our objective and being that it's outside of the search area would cause a gap in the location that we're looking to provide coverage. Secondly, it would interfere with our next site located on the Tonka Bay water tower. Thus disallowing us to achieve our objective. Once we've identified that there's no structures available, what we will do is determine that the ground build would be the next necessary item to pursue. Then basically once we've decided that we're pursuing a ground build to construct a monopole we'd meet with the city planner to identify the zoning code and the zoning map and identify the zoneable locations that will also comply with our RF design criteria. Once we do this we'll drive test various locations that may meet our objectives and all the locations that we have tested that do not meet the objective we would disqualify these sites. Then we would try to identify sites that meet the RF design criteria that also complies with the zoning code. And after that we would try and meet with the planners to again discuss the locations that we've looked at that meet our objective as well as in compliance with the zoning code. Once we've identified a location that we feel will meet all these criteria we will pursue a lease for the ground space with the landlord for the site that fits the criteria. Then we would proceed with the location and we had determined that the Holy Cross was the preferred location and once we had done that we completed an agreement with the landowner and we identified several locations on that premises. We first located a site to the northwest that was the furthest away that was in some wooded area just located south of Highway 7. Unfortunately that was a complicated location due to many construction issues and the fact that there was not access available from State Highway 7. Thus causing us to have to do an access road parallel to Highway 7 and remove several trees, and we don't feel that it's in the community's best interest to remove a lot of trees if we can avoid that in a different location that the landowner would be willing to accept. The second location was just northwest of the church but there was a sewer mn that was in conflict with the location so that did not work as well. The next location that we looked at was a location that the church recommended to the southwest comer. And they felt that this would be the least impact on the neighbors and the future sanctuary plans that they had and avoid conflict with the sewer line again. After that we had had a neighborhood meet to address any concerns or questions of the community and asked them about the location. They gave some comment and feedback that they would prefer to have the location as I have depicted on the easel, behind the church so that it would be screened. At least the base of the tower would be screened. So to appease the concerns of the community we decided to move the location and put it behind the church for those reasons. This parcel is 8 1/2 acres and it provides the largest parcel indicated in the search area. It's atypical from other parcels in the residential district and we felt due to the fact that it does comply with the setbacks and has the least impact within the search area, and the fact that we have a ground lease with the landlord, that this would best meet our objective and be the most suitable site for US West in this search area. I'd like to thank the city staff for all their help. This has been an ongoing process for a while and just want to thank for all your help and we'd be more than happy to answer any questions. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999 Peterson: Questions of the applicant? Dave Fischer: And what I would like to do is in greater detail pass this along to my RF engineer who can greater explain our design to give you more of an idea from an RF perspective of how we came about this site. I'm not an RF engineer myself so I'd kind of like to hand it over to Scott Hines with US West. Thank you. Scott Hines: Good evening Chairman, staff} commissioners. I'd like to thank you for your time and patience with us tonight. I'd like to kind of show, I met with Sharmin the other day and kind of explained to her how we came about this site and why this site is crucial to our network design. So I've brought a map and I think Sharmin has also distributed that to you so if you may. Kind: We have it but they don't. Scott Hines: I made copies for the commission but I don't know. A1-Jafl2 I can run. Scott Hines: Should I continue while we're going? Okay. I'd like to point out that the first thing that US West has co-located on several sites surrounding this search area. We do make it a point to try to co-locate on structures, existing structures. We have co-located on the Tonka Bay water tower site, which is located at 24200 Smithtown Road. We have co-located on a site at Merrywood Lane. There currently is no other carriers on that site but there is tentative agreements for additional carriers to locate on that site. We have co-located on a self support lattice tower on Chaska located at 141 Jonathan Boulevard North. And we have located on a site in Chanhassen at 1455 Park Road. So we do take this very seriously that we try to find an additional site or structure that we can co-locate on. So make that evident that we're not trying to stick a tower in just in a residential neighborhood. We're trying to find additional areas and then we pursue a ground built. But I'd like to start, sorry to the community that we haven't provided them with the map here and obviously I expected this to work. The Tonka Bay water tower here.., very dense and wooded with mature trees.., pursue an additional site and we don't feel that's in the best interest of the residents to pursue two sites when we may use one. If we were to move this site east say to the Chanhassen Fire Station, you'd have a gap further west on Highway 7 and not provide continuous coverage along Highway 7 to make the connection with our site... If we were to move the site north, it's going to provide even worse coverage along Highway 7 to the west due to the fact that... To the south there's more terrain... If we move the site too far to the west we're going to... coverage gaps to the east on Highway 7 so it's very difficult being an engineer to place.., right location, as well as to get a zoneable location... We feel that the Holy Cross Lutheran Church we feel is a site that's in the best interest of the community as a whole to place a tower. It's not always the best to place a tower but there are no feasible co-locatable structures. No parcels in this area that we can place a tower so. We did pursue drive tests on the Chanhassen Fire Station. The results of those drive tests showed that it did not meet coverage objectives. RF coverage objectives which is why we need the site further to the west, so. We've also evaluated additional sites with concern from the community. We've evaluated sites outside of our search 11 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999 area, one being Shorewood water tower which is a mile and a half outside of our search area. Approximately. Mile and a half is a significant distance away for our frequency and our base station equipment. Our typical sites, I'm expecting the coverage area of this site to be approximately a half mile radius so you can see that a mile and a half away just isn't going to cut it for us. It's going to provide significant gaps in coverage that we'll need additional sites. We also looked at several parks surrounding the area. These parks we disqualified as well. The parks, one of them being Round House Park is obviously surrounded by residential community. Felt that it was not a good choice. It also has terrain issues that will prevent it from providing the coverage that we need. We've looked at Cathcart Park. It has the same issues that Chanhassen Fire Station does. Where it's too far to the east. It's going to cause coverage gaps to the west and it's also going to cause interference to our site on Tonka Bay water tower. So we have evaluated several options and we think this is the best location to place a site to provide optimal coverage for us and not have to... another tower so with that, on behalf of US West Wireless I'd like to thank the city staff for their help and Planning Commission for taking time to listen to us. We'll be available to answer further questions of the Planning Commission and staff and the city as well. Thank you. Peterson: Other questions of the applicant now? Burton: I have a question Mr. Chairman. When you were talking about trying to put the tower on the fire station you stated that it did not meet your coverage objectives. I'm wondering if that means that the signal, I don't know if there's a signal or how the technology works but does that mean that it's not as, I guess as good a signal throughout the area as you'd like or that you'd lose, you'd have a gap in coverage. Scott Hines: That will mean we'll have a gap in coverage which we'll need to, we would need an additional site to provide coverage. Also the fire station did, we would need to apply with three variances for the fire station. The fire station is in a residentially zoned area. We would have to apply for a variance between a principal structure and right-of-way and also a variance on setback requirements for the fire station. So the church we are applying with two variances. The fire station we need to apply with three variances, as well as it would not meet our RF objectives. Coverage objectives. Burton: When you say that there's a coverage gap, does that mean if you're driving say west on 7 that you would, and you're using your cellular phone that you would just lose your connection and be cut off'? Scott Hines: You would lose the call, yes. You'd drop a call and have to wait until you made it around the bend here to initiate another call when you were able to pick up a signal from our site on Merrywood Lane. Burton: And one last question. I assume that you guys reviewed the city ordinances in applying for your variance and I mean it seems pretty clear that you're required to put it in the church structure and I'm wondering if you explored doing that and if you did, why you're not pursuing that? 12 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999 Scott Hines: I don't think it is feasible to put a structure of this sort on the church. We would have to, in order to maintain the structure, the structural integrity of the church, we would have to redo the foundation essentially to maintain the structural integrity of the church to support such a tall structure so. We did look at that but we don't think it would also fit with the premise of the church. Aanenson: There are two sections of the code that address that too. Our ordinance only allows 15 to 25 feet above the principal structure for an antenna. It's always anticipated these would be tall and churches that have existing steeples such as St. Hubert's, so it would require another variance. 15 to 20 feet. That's Section 20-1504 and that's addressed again in Section 1515 where it talks about maximum height above the building roof. Again 15 feet so there's two areas where we did address that when we anticipated this ordinance. Peterson: Other questions? Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman I have a couple questions. Could you explain to me a little bit more about your search area. What, how do you define search area? Scott Hines: Search area is defined, in this case, this was a planned expansion site so this is defined by market analysis and where we would like to provide coverage to our customers. We go through a strict process of defining where the search area needs to be. Particularly we need to take into account where our existing network is. Where we're trying to go and in this case our existing network ended at Tonka Bay water tower. We were trying to provide coverage to along Highway 7 to the surrounding communities and make the connection to a site at Merrywood Lane. Initially we have some flexibility because our sites aren't set in stone. Due to the time length in this site, we did acquire additional sites, two additional sites surrounding this which allows us, forces this site to be less flexible as to the location of where we need it to provide coverage without having the absent coverage. Blackowiak: Based on the search area you have right now, you've defined there, are you saying that this is the only location you can be at or it's the optimum? I mean how would you define this location? Scott Hines: This location would be the only location we could be at without adding additional sites. Blackowiak: So you couldn't for example be across the road without. Scott Hines: This search. Blackowiak: I mean that specific? You couldn't move 100 feet this way or 100 feet that way. You have to be. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999 Scott Hines: 100 feet that way doesn't matter but within the search area we need to be, depending upon what we have with other sites and our drive test results. We do provide drive test results to see if this will work for us. We can move 100 feet here and there. But if you start talking a half mile here and there, no. We can't do that. Blackowiak: Could you move like 500 feet or 1,000 feet? I mean. Scott Hines: That depends on the foliage. As you know this area has varying terrain. If we move, even moving the 150 feet, we've lost 5 feet in terrain. If we moved another 25 feet, we're going to lose another probably 10 or 15 feet in terrain which means that we're going to need a taller structure to provide adequate coverage. Blackowiak: Okay. In our packet we were provided with US West sites which showed all the existing US West Wireless sites. A couple of future wireless sites and I'm curious where the other providers such as Spring or you know, where they fall in. Scott Hines: I can't speak for the other providers. I'm not an engineer for their companies and I don't know their network. That's typically proprietary information. We don't typically supply this information. It is proprietary to our company. Blackowiak: But I mean if you went out and drove around you could certainly find the towers. I mean they're not, you're not hiding them or anything. Scott Hines: No, we're not hiding them by any means but I'm saying, I'm not an engineer for Sprint. I can't speak for where their network is and how their network is designed. They use completely different equipment than us. Blackowiak: Because at this point you show seven existing and one future site on the map that you provided and I'm curious if different companies would have a similar number of sites in the same area. Scott Hines: Another PCS provider at our frequency, similar to ours would. A cellular provider at, in the 800 or 900 megahertz range would not need as many sites. They would need, we need about 2 to 3 times the amount of sites that say a cellular provider in the 800 to 900 megahertz range. Companies such as Sprint would need probably a similar amount but I can't speak on their behalf. They do use a different equipment manufacturer. A different output power than us altogether. Blackowiak: I guess I'm just curious as to what their future sites are and if there are any opportunities for co-location and if you've explored that at all. Scott Hines: We are building this tower as a co-locatable tower so that if another carrier needs coverage in this area, they can co-locate on this tower. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999 Blackowiak: Well I'm just curious if you've called the other carriers and asked them if they've got plans in this area so you could co-locate. Scott Hines: They typically approach us. Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, and then finally you talked about the structure of the church and you said that it wasn't structurally feasible to add a tower. Is that just, is it your opinion or have you talked to a structural engineer and you know for a fact that it's not? Scott Hines: Our structural engineering department believes, I mean they haven't done a structural analysis but they do deal with this so they believe that it wouldn't be. Blackowiak: So it's a guess at this point in time then? Scott Hines: Without doing structural analysis, they couldn't say definitely but they do structural, you know we did speak with a structural engineer and you know he said off the top of his head, and he is a professional engineer. This wouldn't be feasible to do this. Blackowiak: Okay. That's his opinion. Okay, great. Thank you. Peterson: Other questions? Kind: Chairman I have a question .... located on churches, church steeples in other locations? Because it seems like... Scott Hines: We have located on several, at least a few other church steeples, yes. Much taller than one that would be say 30 feet on, or 45 feet on this one. We've located on several that are closer to 75-80 feet tall. Kind: Were structural measures taken to? Scott Hines: These were steeples that were already existing and typically had a stairway going up so it wasn't the issue of building a steeple on top of them. But we do a structural analysis. We typically do a structural analysis on every site that we're going to build. Peterson: Other questions? Joyce: I have a couple questions. If you had not come to an agreement with Holy Cross Lutheran Church, would you be looking at some other location in this, be looking more seriously at the Chanhassen Fire Station? You're talking about optimum coverage and obviously if they didn't allow you to be on that location, you'd have to look at the optimum coverage because you wouldn't have that option. Scott Hines: We would pursue other landowners to find another location within our search area, yes. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999 Joyce: We have a rendition of what this thing is going to look like. Is this what it will look like with the co-location on it or would there be a difference in appearance? Scott Hines: That is a rendering of what it would look like for only our equipment. We can't say what it's going to look like for another provider's equipment. Joyce: Is it going to have more antennas? Scott Hines: They would obviously need additional antennas. They can't utilize our antennas to provide service. Joyce: So what we're showing here is, we're discussing a co-location and if that is successful, this is going to look a little different than what we have here. Scott Hines: We're building a co-locatable site yes. If another company needs to co-locate on this site, it will look different. Joyce: I had one other question and I, oh. I know what it was. As far as the Chanhassen Fire Station, was the structure tall enough to put an antenna on it? I'm not familiar with the location. Scott Hines: Their structure was not tall enough. We would have had to do a ground build at that site as well. Joyce: So that would have been a ground build as well? Scott Hines: Yes. There were no sites in this search area that could be co-located on. We would have pursued that first. Joyce: Okay, thank you. Peterson: Other questions? Sidney: Mr. Chair. Just to back up, you're talking about RF test, drive test. Could you just briefly explain the process of conducting these tests and how do you extrapolate from your test to the need for a 102 foot? Do you actually erect? Scott Hines: We do. We go out to a site that we have a tentative agreement, or a willing landlord and we either take a crane or we have towers that we can erect and hoist up an antenna and then we go around and collect data on this antenna transmitting to see, just to get an idea of what we can expect from this. This gives us a very good idea of what height we need in this area. And each area is different. There's different terrain and foliage and what not so that's. Sidney: On this site... 16 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999 Scott Hines: Yes. Sidney: And you would not need to build any additional towers? Scott Hines: We would not be, in this area, no. Peterson: Other questions? Burton: Mr. Chairman. Now suppose you did not have a willing landlord here or the site was otherwise unavailable, you'd still try your best to provide service to that corridor without a gap in coverage, right? Scott Hines: We would try to pursue some other means of additional towers or what not to provide service in this area. If we can't get a tower in this area, unfortunately our customers would have to suffer.., if we could but without a tower in this area. Burton: Well you could put two towers in different places then you'd cover the whole area. Scott Hines: Yes. But we'd have to...two towers in stead of one. Burton: Without this site you could provide coverage to the corridor. You'd just have to do it a different way. Scott Hines: We would have to build two towers in this area to provide coverage to the corridor. Peterson: And of similar height in all probability or not? Scott Hines: Most likely at different heights. It depends on where we would be able to obtain willing landlords and zoneable areas. Peterson: Any other questions? Thank you. Scott Hines: Thank you. Peterson: May I have a motion and a second to open this for a public hearing please. Kind moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Kent Kollodge: Good evening. I'm Kent Kollodge. My address is 6730 Country Oaks Road. My house would abut, or one property over, one yard over abutting this church property. So this tower would essentially be in my back yard. I strongly oppose this tower and don't support it at all. And I can best sum it up by asking who would want this tower, 102 foot tower in their back 17 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999 yard. I heard the terminology search area. Well I have a term too that I call a play area. A family area that, this neighborhood is loaded with kids. We play outside. We're outside all the time and to look at this tower in our back yard is unreasonable. Heard talk about this being the ideal area or the search area and again I don't know that the communications act and the law regarding this but I don't think there's any obligation here to provide the ideal area, and it sounds like there are other options available and I've heard no talk tonight about what those options are and they sound like there are several that we haven't heard any study about or any tests about and I have to believe there are other options. We talked about appeasing the community. A meeting held at the church. Obviously it appeasing the community would be move it somewhere else. I've heard of no really severe hardships that would be placed on US West to looking at other options and moving to other sites. And we have variances for this very reason. I bought a house in this neighborhood knowing that homes would be built, families would be around, and we have variances to disallow this very kind of thing. Building big towers in neighborhoods, we said that's a bad thing so we made laws and we passed ordinances and we said, this isn't what we're going to do. This isn't what we're about. This is how we are going to govern ourselves. And now we're asking for variances and what's the point of having variance laws if we just push them aside and say well it's inconvenient for this company to put it somewhere else. This is optimal. This is most convenient. Let's put it here. Well it gives our variances, our ordinances, our laws a very little substance if we're that willing to put them aside. That's all I have to say for now. Again, I ask that you not approve this and voice again my strong non-support for this request a variance. Thanks. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Mike Dalton: Good evening. My name is Mike Dalton. I live on 4153 Hallgren Lane and as some of my neighbors who I have not met. I've just moved in several weeks ago and little disheartening to find that, you know I've heard about it and I've been told that maybe the thing isn't going to come together. Now it's closer and closer to being a reality but as I sit here tonight I'm a little more concerned that we may erect this pole which, you know in the big scheme of metal towers, isn't really all that offensive. But as we co-locate so to speak, they're going to attach who knows what onto this thing and it just gets uglier and uglier and uglier so. Obviously I don't want it in my back yard, and it really is in my back yard. I have an idea where this gentleman lives but I can tell you where I, I mean I could tie a clothes line to this thing but I think there's a variance for that so. I wouldn't want to have to get into that but the laws are in place to keep communities looking like communities and not letting big business roll over us and I guess I don't know the law. I'm not going to pretend to know it but I certainly don't want it in my back yard. Who does? I don't know how many of you have a pole in your back yard but I'd guess a percentage is very few, if not zero. And I just want to make sure that, you know they've explored other sites because it doesn't really sound like, you know I guess I would have several questions for the engineer. You've got a search location so to me a search location means that any spot in that search location would be an acceptable area. But yet the, you know when they draw these lines it all seems to meet on the church but I find that doesn't make any sense to me. Why would you have a search area if the areas located in there were not optimal? Or not even functional. You know the church steeple, you know if the thing has to go there and that's the direction it's going, I think there ought to be a more scientific analysis as to can a church withstand it? Does 18 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999 the church want it? Can it be made to increase the beauty of the church? I mean you know if this thing's going to, if in fact nothing else matters and this thing's going to go there, have we looked at that option? Have we looked at options further west in the woods? I know that there is a DNR snowmobile trail there. I don't know what kind of access you need. I don't know how often you have to be back there. I mean the thing should be self sufficient, I would guess. You know hide it in the trees somewhere. There just seems like lots of other options other than just sticking it where there's no trees. It's a, the church is a nice enough building. There's a playground there but to put this pole there is, goes against every landscaping concept in the book. So I guess I won't take a lot more time but I certainly wouldn't want it to go in my back yard. I would just want to make sure that as you folks sit there and decide on this matter that you're thinking of that but also that you're thinking down the road where this is going to lead and the co-location worries me even more so I guess I'm glad I came but I'm sort of wish I hadn't because I don't want to know how it can get any worst. I thought it really couldn't, but it sounds like it could. But I just think that all options needs to be exhausted before we go ahead and let this thing come up because I think I haven't heard a good clear argument as to that this is the only place that it can go. Yet optimal seems to be the word. There's never, it will not work. I don't know, you know does it happen every time when somebody drives down the road, do you lose coverage right on that spot? How can 200 feet make a difference? 300 feet. As a consumer who has several cell phones you know, they go out. Big deal. But that doesn't, you know I don't want a tower in my yard for it. I can just redial so that's about all I have. I appreciate your time. Peterson: Anyone else? Deb Reit) My name is Deb Reifl~ I was here at the original meeting regarding this and I live at 6750 Country Oaks Road which is truly in the back yard of this tower. We would be out on our deck and be looking at this tall pole from our deck which as the other two gentlemen have said, who wants to go outside and have to look at that. One issue that hasn't been brought up here yet tonight and I feel is a driving force behind everybody's motive in being here, and that is the money portion of it. The church is doing it to gain money. US West is doing it to gain in their customer base and we are here because we don't want to potentially lose money in our property values. And in doing so I guess my question is, in the search area I have noticed that all locations that they are talking about as other potential sites are public owned locations and there again I would like to know what the cost factor is putting it on public property versus the church's property. If they would have to pay substantially more by erecting this tower on public property versus the church's property? Does anyone have that answer? Peterson: No. We don't have the answer for you tonight. Deb Reifl~ You do not have that answer? Because I myself, going past that fire station every day cannot understand why that would not be a feasible location. And right now we are just putting our trust in US West as to saying that that is not a good location and I would like a non-partial party to tell us that that is not a good location because it's so close by. It's right on Highway 7. I cannot understand how that could be any worse than erecting it in the Holy Cross lot. And the other thing, money motivated too, is I am somewhat disappointed in this variance process. I agree with Mr. Kollodge is we have these ordinances for a reason and if, I don't know if it could 19 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999 potentially create a lawsuit for the City of Chanhassen but it kind of throws out the purpose of having those ordinances in the first place is my feeling if they can do variances out of fear of paying for it financially because of discrimination and I would like to know where our rights as the landowners and people that live in that area are. And so I respectfully request that this not be passed because it will not be built within the structure of the church. It's a very, very short church in height, 30 feet, and no matter where they put that pole it's going to stick out like a sore thumb. Thank you. Peterson: Anyone else? Mary Blue: Hi. My name is Mary Blue. I live at 6770 Country Oaks Road. My back yard is in direct view of the alleged pole that may be going up and I too wonder why we have ordinances to maintain the intactness of the neighborhood when in the eyes of asking for a variance it can be cast aside. Where I see the church gains financial bit out of this, as well as of course US West does. And for those people who may be driving down Highway 7 using the US West service, they gain. The rest of us who are there day in, day out, 27 hours a day, who live in the community. Who moved into the community because of the neighborhood, are put at a disadvantage because what are our rights? And I don't see that anything has been discussed in favor of the intactness of the neighborhood and what our rights are there. And I do support the intactness of the ordinance and would kindly ask that the variance is not approved. Pete Keller: Good evening. My name's Pete Keller and I live at 6760 Country Oaks. Right between Mary and Deb, the last two speakers. I was pleased on September 1st when we unanimously denied the application. It's very obviously that it doesn't meet the ordinance and when you look at the variance ordinance that they're, the criteria that you have to meet to get through the ordinance, it doesn't meet that at all. The main biggest item would be that third criteria that we're granting it strictly for the income producing pleasure of the landowner. And a point that I found kind of interesting, and Deb had brought up an interesting point where we need to look, we should probably look at, before we make any precedent setting moves here, is to really seek the advice of an outside of this circle expert. I'm sure that generally, and I'm not involved in your afl'airs of this commission but I'm sure generally it's pretty easy to take an applicant's word on an issue and be able to look at it and see whether it's going to make common sense or it's reasonable. Something like this, I'm sure we're all the first to admit we're not RF experts. We don't really know every single landlord there. Land owner in that search area and their opinions on these types of things and it's my belief in the short time that I've been involved looking into this, I've run across two other areas that, two other landowners. One is in the search area that of course variances would need to be granted, and others just out of the search area. I hope they speak up this evening. That are interested in having the tower. If it comes to the conclusion that after a third party's looked at this, an expert, that truly there is, their search area is accurate. Holy Cross really is the very best place, I think the only thing that would be reasonable to do is to locate it in the trees. It's a heavily wooded lot .... I've walked through this many times. It's very.., it's comparable elevation. It's very accessible. The DNR spends a good amount of time and money maintaining a wide trail. It's very derivable. You're going to smack a few branches as you go in and without a doubt some trees would have to be removed. I have pictures and I have them with me. I'd be happy to show you of other sites that have very similar towers. 2O Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999 They take up very, very little space. I'm sure we need a few trees around it removed but I think they said something like 20 x 30 is what they're looking for and that seems more than twice the amount of space that needs to be taken out. So I would very much, should we, I don't want to see it at all and I would love to see if we're going to grant variances, we should do it on properly like at the fire station. That's far more appropriate for this kind of a structure before we start granting them in a residential community at the church. But should our expert outside of this realm say that actually, truly that is the only space, we need to do it in the trees. I'm glad that staff has asked for the 150 foot setback at least to hide it. We're, the three of us back, we're all right along here.., and I think that's the absolute, very, very bare minimum that should be done. As you are considering this, and I'm sure Roger has briefed you on the Delafield suit, or Scott at least has given you some information on it. But there was one part that just kept sticking out and it appears that one of our dilemmas on this is that we feel, that it appears that the City feels obligated to comply. We don't have an appropriate piece of land in the search area that's going to work with a variance. However their saying that it has to be there. When you look at what that suit was, the Delafield suit was Air Page was looking to get a tower and the City was saying no. And on page 6 of that brief it says, and I'll just quickly quote, that this may not mean however that every municipality must have towers wherever anyone wants to put them. In many areas, in small communities, I'll just paraphrase a little bit. Small communities that are closely together, that municipalities abut one another geographically and in many instances they share public resources. We do not need to decide here how broad the duly is, the duly of any given municipality entity to ensure the wireless service remains available. Air Page, and we could for the sake of conversation substitute US West, concedes that it, and it's competitors will be able to continue providing us service with the existing service network. Again, a paraphrase, albeit somewhat inferior service compared with what the proposed tower would make possible. And the City of Delafield's decision to deny the tower doesn't mean that it's an end of PCS communications in the Chanhassen area. We therefore do not need to decide whether Delafield, or Chanhassen, has a duly in it's area to ensure that such a result does not come about. I don't think we need to, you know we shouldn't feel overly pressured just because they say we have to do it. There are other options and pieces of land that are out there that we need to look at before we just sort of succumb to it but any questions of me? Okay, thank you very much for your time. Peterson: Anyone else? Seeing none, is there a. Go ahead. JoAnn Hallgren: I haven't been to a meeting before on this but I have received the notices because my name is JoAnn Hallgren. I'm representing myself and Barbara Headla. We own a piece of land right on Highway 7 that I contacted Mr. Fischer about thinking that, since there was so much opposition, that it might be a feasible area for this tower. But he says it is not. But I believe it is in the search area. I'm not real familiar with the boundaries of it but if you know where the trail is that crosses Highway 7. The properly abuts to the west the trail. And it's, the total properly is an acre and a half or so but the useable piece is about 15,000 square feet because of trail and highway easements. The other thing was that it's wooded. It's not an easy place. It would have to require a lot of work probably to take down some trees or whatever. I don't know the elevation but I know I have it at home. I was just wanted to let you know that there are other areas and Bobbie and I have owned this little piece for many, many years. It was just a cut off from another 21 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999 larger piece that we had split and we just thought it might be a feasible site for whatever. So anybody have any questions for me? Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Motion and a second to close the public hearing. Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners, we have a delicate and a... issue in front of us that we'll have a hard time deciding on I assume. Comments. Anybody? Burton: I'll take a crack at it. Well I guess the first thing I would do is apply the variance standards, and I don't think that the applicant meets our variance standards. There are a number of issues that we look at and one of them is the undue hardship issue. And the focus there is on a reasonable use and in this area, a church and residences are reasonable uses and the test in my opinion is not whether a tower can be placed within 500 feet. There's no right to a tower. It's whether a reasonable use can be made of the property and here it clearly can be made, a reasonable use can be made of the property so there is no undue hardship. The second is the income potential of the land and as some of the neighbors have mentioned, and I agree with them, that here the owner is the church, in my opinion is that the purpose of this variance is to generate income for the church and.., the focus is on US West. I also agree that the result is the same. The intent is to increase income for US West. Another factor you look at is the detriment to the public welfare. And I take the neighbor's comments to heart there. I agree that there's hardship on the neighbors and in my opinion I guess I agree with them that it's injurious to the neighborhood and that probably would decrease property values and their use and enjoyment of their property. Then we also have the Telecommunications Act hanging out there and I guess there's three real areas of focus there. The first is that we can still apply our own standards, and as I stated I guess, I don't believe they've met our standards. They're not entitled to a variance. Another issue is that we can't discriminate and there's no evidence that's been presented to us that we're discriminating. I don't believe that there are similar situations that exist so, and from what I can tell from the record there is no discrimination if we were to deny this application. And then there's the issue that we cannot deny the utility's ability to provide coverage, and I don't think we are. If we deny this. There are, they could use other towers. I asked questions of the applicant directly towards that. They could find other towers. They could use two towers. They could be shorter towers but they could get the job done with that. So there are other arrangements which could suffice and I was looking through the ordinance here with Alison and she pointed out, it seems to be the intention of our ordinance 20-1510 that the applicant should be required to co-locate wherever possible. And there is no evidence that the applicant here even tried to co-locate. They seemed to reference that you know the other providers typically call them. Well, I know there are other providers out there and there may be other towers that they could use but I don't know that and it didn't seem to me like they made a case that they've tried to co-locate. So I guess from the end here, if I look at it, if they were applying to be in the church structure itself and complying with our ordinance I don't think we'd have a choice but to approve it. But they're not, and I don't, again I don't believe we're denying coverage. Other options may be more costly and be more work but that's not a basis by itself to grant the request so I'd be against it. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999 Peterson: Thank you. Other comments? Joyce: Well I guess I could really just echoing what Matt said because that's exactly how I looked at this process. We've gone through this already with looking at the ordinance. It doesn't qualify for our ordinance so I looked at the variance and I don't think they've met those criteria either as far as, to have a reasonable variance. Then I did exactly what Matt said, looking at the Telecommunications Act because I think it's kind of a three pronged idea here. And my concern is, I'm trying to interpret and Roger said to judge it the way, like judges. The way I'm judging it is that the tower that we had there in 1990 really doesn't qualify in my eyes as a tower that would be prejudicial towards having this other tower here. It was before the Telecommunications Act. It was before our ordinance. The ordinance that we set up as a response to the Telecommunication Act. So I guess my biggest concern about this is really precedent setting. Is that if we were to allow this on this piece parcel of land without a structure, then Sprint or whomever else is out there comes to us and says well, you did it here. We want something now on this piece of property. So I think this is a bigger issue really because if we do approve this, it will come back in our face. That's my feeling. I don't think we're denying them coverage. I think what they're looking for is optimum, optimal, optimum coverage and I don't think they have a right to that. I mean they surely have a right to do business but I don't think it's our position here that we need to make sure that they have absolute coverage for their product. And if it doesn't meet our ordinances and it doesn't fall under our variance schedule, I just don't see how this can fly. So I'd be against it. Peterson: Other thoughts or comments. Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I'll jump in here. I agree with what the commissioners said before me. And bottom line in my mind, it does not comply with the ordinance and that's, I have not heard any compelling reason to grant a variance. I asked specifically about other co-location opportunities and whether or not they had sought out other carriers and they said well they hadn't been contacted by those carriers. And to me simply because you haven't been contacted by a carrier doesn't mean that there aren't either existing or future possible sites that would be acceptable. So they haven't shown me that they've exhausted all their opportunities. Specifically Section 20-1510 talks about co-location requirements. Matt brought that up too. I don't think they've shown that they have gone through and checked through their one-half mile search radius for co-location opportunities and I can't believe just because somebody didn't call them they can convince me that they've done their due diligence. I also.., their interested and have a site available and I think that there are other opportunities that can be explored. They may require more variances but again that might be just a palatable location for all people concerned. I don't think strictly number of variances should be the determining criteria for which location you choose. Well let's choose the church site. They only have two variances. The fire station would have three. Doesn't fly with me. I need to hear that it's going to be in a location that works for a lot of people and I want to hear from US West specifically that they have checked out all other co-location requirements or co-location opportunities and I haven't heard that tonight so I would be inclined to deny this because it does not comply with our ordinance. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999 Aanenson: Can I just get a clarification? Are you asking have they tried to find someone else to go with them or have they looked to go on somebody else's. I'm not sure what you're saying. Blackowiak: If they looked to go on somebody else's. I asked specifically with in the map that they had shown us, if they had sought out the other people in this area, specifically asking if there were any existing or future sites and they said well no. That that was proprietary information and the other companies probably wouldn't just give a map out. My argument is, they should be calling them and saying do you have an existing or future site planned and they have not convinced me that they have done that. Peterson: Kate can I assume you guys have done that? Aanenson: Yes. Absolutely. That's thenumber oneyou do. The first thing. First you check zoning and you look for co-locations. Absolutely they did that. That's why I'm so confused. Peterson: But it's not necessarily them but you helped them do that so. Aanenson: Of course. The map he's showing you is proposed locations. They don't disclose what other sites they're looking for. That's why I was so confused as to where you were going with that. Also they, we would never know exactly what the other use is going to be but as soon as one gets up, it's out on the market. People know that there's an opportunity out there for another site. Do we know exactly how long and what shape they're going to be? No. We don't know who the user's going to be but absolutely, they looked for a co-location site. Blackowiak: Well I asked the question and he. Aanenson: I didn't understand the way you asked that and I don't think they did either. What I heard you say is can you show me where the future sites are. That's the way I heard the question and he said we don't disclose other sites of what other people are looking for because that's proprietary. That's the way I heard it too. Blackowiak: Okay, no. I was asking on the existing and future sites that US West is showing, do you have comparable information for other carriers? Aanenson: That are in that area, yes. Blackowiak: I did not hear that answer, but that still doesn't change my feeling that they don't meet our ordinance requirements so. Peterson: Other questions, comments? Kind: Mr. Chairman, I'll echo fellow commissioners. I agree with everything they said before and I would add that I would really like to see the applicant, more of the option of camouflaging this in the structure somehow. Either a bell tower or... In fact I talked with Pastor Bob earlier 24 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999 today and he likes the idea off in fact Pastor Bob's here. I see him waving. He likes the idea of a steeple so I'd like to see that. Peterson: I guess you're the only one left. Sidney: Yeah I've been waiting here and thinking because actually I have a different opinion about this application and I'd first like to thank the neighbors for their comments. Your participation and input is really important and indeed you get to know your neighbors when you come to things like this. It's kind of an offshoot of the process. But since the Planning Commission first reviewed this application I think Roger mentioned that pieces of information came to light about the Federal mandate for wireless telecommunication systems and although we've set really high standards I think for types of towers, I'm not sure based on federal act whether or not as a city can take actions that can impose restrictions on the towers like we're talking about. And I think based on our ordinances, I'll try and the best job we can with the fed ex and location of structures and sites. But it really depends on availability of land and the land uses surrounding towers. And I was listening here and I think part of the problem is maybe the presentation. I was hoping for a technical proof in terms of data collected and locations and that type of thing and I do believe US West has done their due diligence in terms of making sure they selected the best site possible. And I think maybe it was partly maybe a problem that way. So I think what I'm trying to say is that you now obviously we have a conflict between the city ordinances and a scheduled mandate which I really don't know too much about but I do believe and I do think Roger and staff have done a good job on this application and I would follow the staff's recommendation on this application. I also can appreciate the existence of two towers in Chanhassen can set a precedence. In fact I do look over a tower myself at Stone Creek. It's not exactly my back yard but it seems like a necessary part of the community as we grow, though it may not be as aesthetic. So in summary I guess I reluctantly agree with staff's recommendation on the process and I hope staff and US West will do the best job possible in screening the tower and impact to the tower and any future similar structures. Peterson: Thank you. Tough one. Clearly nobody would want to have a tower in their back yard. Unfortunately our federal officials have, must have better wisdom than perhaps us here tonight that says that they can go in. In reality they need to go in. Whether that's progress or not, I don't know. But we will, if we change sites, there will be other neighbors that will be in raising the same issues. We face the same thing. Somebody is inevitably going to have that in their back yard. The only question that I have tonight is have we exhausted the fact that there are no areas within that zone that have less of a residential impact and I don't have a good feeling about that tonight. That's my only concern of not approving this. To that end I'm somewhat biased to get more information to be sure that if we put in two sites versus one, that those towers be lower. They'd be located in more of an area that's conducive for towers versus the church. I don't like where it is. The question is, is there a better alternative and that's what I don't know tonight. I heard US West say that they've looked but I didn't hear a real compelling thing that they've exhausted all the alternatives and presented alternatives for a secondary or third choice so my concern is that we as a community have to own up to the fact that they will be in our community. Have to be in somebody's back yard. Those are the tough decisions we have to make too. With that, is there a motion? 25 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999 Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'll move that the Planning Commission deny approval of Variance #99- 17 to allow a free standing monopole tower to be located on a church site between the main structure and public right-of-way to construct a monopole wireless communication facility for US West. Joyce: I'll second that. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? My only discussion point to that, I think if, as I vote to approve that motion.., approval for that denial on the basis that I'd like to see other alternatives. Burton moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission deny approval of Variance #99-17 to allow a free standing monopole tower to be located on a church site between the main structure and public right-of-way to construct a monopole wireless communication facility for US West Wireless. All voted in favor, except Sidney who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Peterson: Comment vote that would be? Sidney: As stated before. I think staffhas done a good study of what's needed. Peterson: Thank you. Thank you all for coming .... Any other things we have to discuss? Aanenson: We do have one item.., we will have one item on the next. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Peterson: May I have a notation of the Minutes of the previous meeting please. Blackowiak noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 18, 1999 as presented. Kind: Mr. Chairman, do we need to note the Minutes from September 15th meeting still? Have we seen those? Peterson: Don't know. Can't note them if we haven't seen them. Make a note of that. Kind: Kate? Aanenson: Yes. Kind: Have we seen the Minutes of September 15th meeting? August 18th meeting was in our packet. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1999 Aanenson: I'll check on that. Kind: The most recent meetings were not. Aanenson: Well we had the work session last time but you're talking the one before the work session? Kind: Yes. Aanenson: That was the night I was in the. Kind: September 15th was the meeting date. Aanenson: I'll check on that. Thank you. Peterson: Any other discussion points tonight? Motion to adjourn. Burton moved, Blackowiak seconded to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 27