Loading...
PC 1997 04 14CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING APIIlL 14, 1997 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Alison Blackowiak, Allyson Brooks, Bob Skubi¢, Kevin Joyce, and LuAnn Sidney MEMBEIlS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad STAFF PIlESENT: Bob Oenerous, Senior Planner PUBLIC HEAIIlNG: CONDITIONAL USE PEIIMIT IlEQUEST TO ALLOW TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWEIIS AT 7660 QUATTIIO DIIlVE, LOT 3, BLOCK 1, PAIlK ONE 3RD ADDITION; AND SITE PLAN APPIIOVAL FOIl A 135 FOOT AND 76 FOOT MONOPOLE TOWER, 12' X 24' EQUIPMENT BUILDING AND A 6 FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE; U.S. WEST NEW VECTOR GROUP, INC. AND AMERICAN PORTABLE TELECOM. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions of staff from commissioners? I guess I just have one overall one. We've seen this, I think this is probably the third time. I couldn't see any substantial changes in any of the conditions and/or recommendations. Were there any on this time around? Other than location. Generous: Just I believe on the first one. And also relocating the towers to the south part... Peterson: Okay. Sidney: Bob, I had a question about co-location. Does that mean that additional towers might be located on that site or when you say co-location it would be on that? Generous: It'd be on the pole itself. Sidney: Yeah, okay. Joyce: Bob, there's an antenna out there right now that I assume they're testing. Generous: Yes. That's called a cow. Joyce: Cow, yeah. That's not where they're considering putting the antenna though is it? Generous: That's the initial location and we're saying move it to the south. I believe they put some stakes in the ground... Planning Commission Meeting - April 14, 1997 Joyce: Okay, but the antenna that's out there right now is what, 80 feet tall? Generous: I believe that's the height, yes. Joyce: The one that we're talking about would be two-thirds, 60 feet taller? Generous: Yeah. Joyce: 55 feet taller. Okay. Does that, and the alternative location, do you know how far that is from the residential zoning of Eden Prairie, the residential line? Generous: We estimated it's about 385 feet from the properly line. Joyce: Okay, so less than 385 feet? Generous: Yes, if we move it on the south end. And this is, the ultimate location is about 100 or 110 feet south of the initial proposal. Joyce: So that wouldn't, you wouldn't know this but I guess in Eden Prairie their present ordinance they have is 4 to 1, correct? Generous: Proposed ordinance. Peterson: Yeah, they haven't passed yet have they? Generous: No. Joyce: So that's just a proposed ordinance. Okay. That's all I need to know, thank you. Skubic: Bob, I'm sorry I got here a little bit late. Did you say U.S. West withdrew from this application? Generous: Yes. There should be a letter from them to that effect. Skubic: Where does that leave them locating? Generous: They are trying to relocate to the water tower to the northeast of City Hall. And the City Council will review that as part of their hearing tonight. Skubic: Okay, thank you. Peterson: Other questions for staff'? Seeing none, does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? And if so, please come forward. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - April 14, 1997 Peter Coyle: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. Peter Coyle from the Larkin-Hoffman law firm, here tonight on behalf of American Portable Telecom, the applicant for the conditional use permit. I don't want to really make any comments as it relates to the site. We do have a temporary tower that is on the properly at present for the purpose of trying to verify the suitability of the location from a coverage standpoint. We are in the midst of negotiations with the City of Eden Prairie, as requested by the City of Chanhassen, to see if we can't put our antenna devices on the Eden Prairie water tower which is just somewhat to the north of the site that is proposed before you this evening. However, at the direction of the City Council, we agreed to lay our application aside some weeks back with their commitment and understanding that it was going to be back and go through a formal review by the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Council which is what we are about this evening. The use is permitted under the City's code. It satisfies the setback requirements of the City's code and it is the use that the Council has specifically directed APT to put on this properly in the event that we are unable to work out a suitable lease language with the City of Eden Prairie. Our hope is to be on the City's water tower. That's always been our objective to be on the water tower. We approached the City of Eden Prairie about that almost a year ago, is what I'm understanding, and at that time we were told that that was not something that the City was willing to entertain so it's regrettable that there are a number of folks who are now brought into this who have a legitimate concern, and I don't begrudge them that concern. But I do want to allay their concerns as to our willingness and our receptivity to going on the City of Eden Prairie's water tower provided we can reach a mutual understanding as to what the lease terms for that tower site need to be. Having said that, the City is out of time from a statutory standpoint in order to process this application so our only choice is to keep the application moving forward, which is what we committed to the City we would do, and so we are here tonight respectfully asking for your recommendation to the City Council for approval of the CUP with a full expectation and understanding on our part that even if the Council grants the approval of the CUP, we will be prepared to rescind the CUP if we can reach terms with the City of Eden Prairie on the lease for the water tower space. So that continues to be our preference. We are prepared to do it and the CUP that's before you is a fallback but is that. A fallback. But it's one that we need to get action on this evening because as I say, the statutory time period that was agreed upon with the City has now run it's course. I'd be prepared to answer any questions you might have but I think the issues are fairly straight forward at this point. Peterson: Any questions of the applicant? Blackowiak: I have a quick question. Since U.S. West is no longer planning to be at that site, are you still going to be pursuing 135 foot tower with hopes of co-location with another company or what's your thought behind that? Peter Coyle: Sure, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Blackowiak. The City requires that we design a tower that is suitable for co-location. It is our preference, not a preference, it's a requirement of ours that we have that, the antenna structures that will serve APT, be it the 135 foot height level in order to get the coverage that we need for this geographic area. So that's what's driving it, not the notion that there's 1 or 2 other carriers on the antenna. We are willing, as an accommodation to the City, to accommodate an additional carrier if the worst comes to pass, which is that we are not Planning Commission Meeting - April 14, 1997 able to reach a lease agreement with the City of Eden Prairie, but it is our expectation that we will be able to do that. But it isn't done and we thought that we had given them 2 weeks for the purpose of getting it done. They weren't able to get it done so we need to move on about our business and that's why we're here. Blackowiak: Okay. And then a second question. Let me think. Oh! Since you've got this tower out there right now, if it's not against company policy, how is that going? Is it turning out to be a suitable location? Peter Coyle: I would just look for an indication. Do we know yet? The system is not yet operational. Blackowiak: Oh okay. I'm sorry. I'm sure you wouldn't know. Okay. Peter Coyle: The computer modeling tells us that that location is acceptable. You may know Commissioners that our first choice has actually been up along Highway 5. That was the origin of the application and it was really at the Council's direction that APT consented to relocating it's proposed tower to this property that's before you this evening under an amended application. So we've attempted to accommodate the City's request up to this point, including the scheduling requirements of the City, and we will continue to try to accommodate that as best we can. However, we do have to follow suit with the mandated procedures of the City in order to try to get some action on the application this evening. Any other questions? Joyce: I have one quick one. What is your deadline for the whole project with the tower being in Eden Prairie? What, from your standpoint or company standpoint, how long will you allow the process to continue with Eden Prairie before you call it quits? Peter Coyle: Well tonight, tonight for purposes of this process is the end of that line. I mean that's what this meeting is all about. The City agreed, we agreed with the City's request to continue the meeting one more time to give the City of Eden Prairie a little bit more time so tonight is the end of the agreed upon extension if you will. Joyce: So it's Eden Prairie's turn to come back and make a decision whether they want it? Peter Coyle: I think that's probably the fairest way to put it. And I don't mean that in a negative way at all. I believe that the City is acting in good faith at this point to try to reach an understanding with APT but it's not done and all we are intending to do this evening is to say to the City of Chanhassen, we've complied with your process. We've accommodated your process. We continued the process at your request and we've even relocated to other properties that hadn't been our preference. Let's finish this phase of it with an explicit condition on our part that if we don't have to build a tower, we would much rather not have to build a tower. But it's time for Eden Prairie now to step up the gas a little bit in order for us to get that project resolved on their side. Joyce: Thank you. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - April 14, 1997 Skubic: I have a question on the height. For your coverage purposes, you're making a tower 135 feet high. So if you have a co-locater, he would be located a separation distance of 10 or 15 feet. Peter Coyle: 15 to 20 feet below, that's correct. Skubic: So his coverage requirements would need to be different than yours in order to make that work. Peter Coyle: The reason that, Mr. Chair, Commissioner. The reason that U.S. WestNew Vector was able to co-locate on the proposed APT tower is because they needed a tower height something in the range of 75 feet. So our going to 135 automatically gave them that installation mount. There will be other companies that will need towers or antenna sites within this community or along this corridor because it's a high traffic corridor, as you know. So if not APT, it's going to be someplace, somebody. It's just a question of time because there are 3 or 4 companies in this marketplace actively trying to install services that many of your constituents want. Your residents. Maybe even some of you want. Maybe even some of the folks who live in Eden Prairie would like, and our job under our licenses from the FCC is to find those locations as best we can hoping not to pick any fights along the way, and this is an example where we've tried to accommodate the process as best we could, including going to Eden Prairie early on and it's unfortunate that we find ourselves here this evening but that's. This is still a new technology and so people have lots of questions and lots of concerns and that's part of the process and I accept that. Skubic: Well 135 feet, that may prohibit someone else from co-locating because of the height limitation. Peter Coyle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, I suppose that's possible but I couldn't even speculate. I couldn't even speculate. There may be some other company that would prefer a higher standard than that. That's possible. But they wouldn't be able to go on top of this tower if it were approved and installed. Skubic: Okay, thank you. Peter Coyle: Sure. Peterson: Other questions? Peter Coyle: Thank you Commissioners. Peterson: Thank you. This is a public hearing. I'd like to have a motion to open it to the same and a second please. Joyce moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - April 14, 1997 Peterson: Anybody wishing to address the Planning Commission, please come forward and state your name and address. John Mack: Good evening. I'm John Mack. I live at 18847 Twilight Trail. Have been in contact with the City of Eden Prairie relative to this process. It's my understanding as well that the parties are fairly close to reaching a lease agreement. I would like the representative for APT to speak exactly what are open issues so that the Council and the Planning Commission can understand exactly where we are relative to negotiations in Eden Prairie from an official standpoint and understand what needs to be done tomorrow. I guess from my perspective what is a little bit concerning is that if the Council moved to approve tonight with this understanding that Eden Prairie will work out a lease with these guys tomorrow, I just want to make sure that there's no confusion that essentially that is providing I think some difficulties potentially in the negotiations. It's my understanding that there's really only 2 or 3 items that are at issue at this point and I guess I would re-invite the representative for APT to get up and state what those issues are and. Again, it's my understanding that Eden Prairie is negotiating in good faith and APT is as well but I think it's important for the Planning Commission and the Council to understand exactly where these guys are at. Peterson: Thank you. Maybe we'll continue on with the public hearing and then go back and see if there are any further questions for the applicant. Anyone else wishing to address the Commission, please come forward. Lynn ?: My name is Lynn... I find it somewhat concerning that the Commission as well as the City Council... taken a look at putting this tower out along Highway 5. And apparently at some point.., concern to me that you consider putting this tower close to a neighborhood where it will really have a negative impact, especially a visual impact on our neighborhood and yet there seems to be more of a concern about the visual impact that this tower potentially would have on Highway 5, but not on the residents. I think, it's hard to say but.., if we were a Chanhassen neighborhood that you would have to be as concerned about you know our concerns if we were Chanhassen residents about having this tower right in our neighborhood.., open our doors and windows and look out at this thing. And yet the concerns have been more about how it will impact the visual affect of Highway 5 of having a tower there and not of a neighborhood. I'm really concerned.., take our feelings into consideration. It sounds as though you know potentially the tower won't go up here but at the same point in time, just like Mr. Coyle felt that.., as kind of a fall back. We still are going to feel threatened by the fact that maybe it will go through, maybe it won't but if it does go through, it doesn't go through it needs... Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Randy Lebell: My name is Randy Lebell. I also live in the same neighborhood. I wanted to address also the fact that in your City Council Minutes of the past few meetings you've addressed each of the Chanhassen neighborhoods and said in mm that this would affect their property values. We called several local real estate agents and just asked them to submit letters back to us as to what the effects might be on our area. We have a Pam Erickson from one of the local real estate companies, Burner, who wrote my wife and said today that this is to confirm our conversation 6 Planning Commission Meeting - April 14, 1997 today about the proposal for the communications tower. Yes, I do have concerns for the properly values when the home has direct sight of a tower. It has been proven time and time again that the buyers shy away from such properties. It would not be inaccurate to say a price adjustment of 5% would be necessary to compensate for a sight line. Most of these homes are right around the $200,000.00 range so that will give you some idea of what 5% would be. And a second one from a Chuck Abrahamson who's a sales manager for Bumet also told us, in our opinion the addition of a communication tower would be in direct view of an existing home would most definitely have an adverse affect to the property's value. As an example, if two identical homes were priced the same, in one case the tower and the other did not, a buyer would certainly prefer the home with the unobstructed view. The second home would need to be priced somewhere between 3% and 5% less under the same. Now as you address your own areas you took this into account and determined that you wouldn't want to decrease the properly values in the neighborhoods in Chanhassen. But when you turned and looked at our neighborhood you made the decision that it had no price, no affect. And I just think that these, there are many other real estate agents that have also volunteered to say that they would also, and if need be, we'll take them to an attorney and see how we can stop this but we aren't going to let it go up without a fight. So that's what I have left to say. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Ron Carlson: Hello. I'm Ron Carlson. I live at 18821 Twilight Trail and our house is roughly about 2 houses adjacent to the house that will be, this tower will be directly behind and our living room faces the tower area. And the tower itself that's up right now, the temporary tower we can see from our living room right now and we also did proceed with checking with a realtor ourselves just to see if this would have an impact on us because we were planning to move a little further west this fall or winter and we were concerned that this would impact our funds for moving so we did get a letter from Bumet Really in writing on how this could possibly impact and it's addressed to my wife. Dear Tracy. In my opinion the addition of a communications tower which would be in direct view of an existing home would most definitely have an adverse affect on that property's value. As an example, if two identical homes were priced the same and the one faced the tower and the other did not, a buyer would certainly prefer the home with the unobstructed view. The second home would need to be priced somewhere between 3% to 5% less to attract the same buyer. And we're very, very concerned about this because our house is roughly about $200,000.00 so this probably taking about $5,000.00 to $10,000.00 out of the bank, my personal bank, and it upsets me quite a bit because to me it's like stealing. If anybody takes money from me, I see that as personally, personally theft almost. Taking the money out of my pocket. And I am with the last gentleman that I would take some legal action to try to get those funds, you know that were taken from me because I think any of you if you had money taken from you would seek legal action to get that money back. So I am very concerned about this. The company in question that's putting up the tower, APT I believe ifI have the name correct. I am very concerned about them as well because I work for a large corporation out west called Hutchinson Technology and I feel for them because I feel that between Chanhassen and Eden Prairie they've really been jacked around a lot between the two cities as far as locations go so I think when they started with Eden Prairie and Eden Prairie turned them down with the tower and then they came to Chanhassen and said we'd like to propose this tower along Highway 5, I 7 Planning Commission Meeting - April 14, 1997 think that that was a reasonable proposal on their part. And then they were told by Chanhassen that they had to move this tower to a different location, I think they went through a lot of effort to study that site and they probably put a lot of money into it and a lot of time and I really think that they're being jacked around on this whole thing as well. Where Highway 5 should have been more of the consideration in my mind. It seems to be the right place to put things like this. That's where electrical lines go. Telephone lines go. Other towers are put in places like that. You drive down 494, you see electrical towers and telephone towers and such and I think when our fore fathers planned out these highways and freeways, they had that in mind to keep those towers and things like that along highways and freeways because they didn't want them running through their neighborhoods and houses so I'm just hoping that the City of Chanhassen will reconsider this and look more at a site more reasonable for all the neighborhoods along Highway 5 and take a no vote on this. And I do believe from what John said earlier that Eden Prairie is working on this in very much good faith and I think that both the cities can work this out so that the neighborhoods are not impacted by this. And I hope also in the future that the cities of Eden Prairie will come up with some procedures and policies to make this a much simpler process in the future so there's at least some guidelines on what size of tower could possibly impact a neighborhood as far as their market value and aesthetic value and things like that. I don't think those details have yet been worked out well enough in my mind. I appreciate... Audience: ... APT needs to get a continuance out.., negotiations are truly going in good faith, why not just... Peterson: Yeah, let's have one conversation going on at a time. I think you got your point made. Ron Carlson: But that's about all I had to add here but I just hope that the cities can work together on this problem, as well as in the future for future towers. If my wife and I decide we want to move to Chanhassen from where we are now, I don't know if we want to take the chance of another tower coming up 300 feet from our house again. I'm not sure if we want to do that. As I end here, would any of you care to see what I got from a realty company at all? Peterson: I think we got the general perspective from the comments. Ron Carlson: Okay, thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Robert Effing: Hi, my name is Robert Effing and I also live in the Twilight Trail area. And the question I have is, right now the focus is on Eden Prairie and their lack of coming through as far as providing space on their tower. Was the tower just to the, just behind this building, was that considered as an alternative or was that outside the scope of the range that you were looking for? It was outside the scope? So you needed to concentrate on the Eden Prairie side? Okay. So it wasn't a choice between towers? Between water towers? It was the choice between you had to be west of, or east of here? APT: Correct. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - April 14, 1997 Robert Effing: Okay, thank you. Peterson: Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? Tammy Lunch: My name is Tammy Lunch and I live at 18... Our house sits directly.., consider the fact that even though we are Eden Prairie residents, we do an awful lot of shopping, we do a lot of our retail business in Chanhassen. Your retail district is a lot closer to us than Eden Prairie... and I think you should take that into consideration because we're not... Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Ann Johnson: My name is Ann Johnson. I live at 18711 Twilight Trail. My piece of property is adjacent or right next to the.., in Chanhassen. We go to church in Chanhassen. I now have a son who started in employment in Chanhassen this evening so although you don't directly represent us by jurisdiction, I think you have a moral obligation to consider our neighborhood. Our properly values. Our quality of life. It's interesting this quality of life because hey, cordless phone. That's pretty much a quality of life. Everybody, if we can afford one, wants one. So the coin is two sided here. So I do believe that you do have a moral obligation to consider what we, on the other side of the railroad tracks. Oh, are we on the wrong side of the tracks? Perhaps so. I didn't think of that until right now but perhaps we are. But please consider us because we do go to church, we are employed, we shop, we utilize the recreational facilities that you have so although we're not taxpayers in Chanhassen, I think we consider ourselves part of Chanhassen nonetheless so if you please consider that, we truly would appreciate that. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else wish to address the Planning Commission? Peter Miller: Hi, Peter Miller at 18904 Twilight Trail. I think strategically, if you look at the map that you have actually up on the wall, that you can see kind of the juts that you have outside of your community. Not only just our neighborhood might not be showing up to shop in Chanhassen, but you might want to consider neighboring communities who are going to look at this as an example of where a tower would go up in the farther comer of the city. And kind of the message, I don't think the neighboring communities are going to think about dead zones or what not. Instead they're going to think about tower placements and what might end up on their border and so it's not just our neighborhood. I think you're sending a message here to all the neighboring communities as far as placement of towers, placement of undesirable things. Thanks. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? As you're walking up I'll make a couple comments. I think we've got a consistent theme beginning here so I would off'er that we do have a City Council meeting tonight so if you don't have anything new to add to the comments made by your neighbors or other constituents, maybe I'll ask for a raise of hands for all those people that are opposing the mono tower after your comments. Resident: Okay. Well my theme is correct but I want to add one more thing. If you're in a border neighborhood and some other Council did it to you, how would you feel? Is this what I'm going 9 Planning Commission Meeting - April 14, 1997 to teach my kids about government? That it's self serving. That's pretty much what upsets us more than anything I think is the self serving Chanhassen. They wouldn't do it to their own community but they'll do it to us... Peterson: Thank you. IfI could get a raise of hands. Raise your hands, all those that are opposing the tower going up as it is. Let the record show that I believe the majority of people, if not everyone, has raised their hand. With that in mind, is there anybody that would like to make additional comments? Thank you. May I have a motion to close the public hearing? Joyce: I'll make that motion. Peterson: Second? Audience: ... you were going to have the person from... Peterson: Oh, yeah. Pardon me. Would you care to comment on the situation with Eden Prairie and to the status of that sir? Peter Coyle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I appreciate the question. It's a private contractual matter that we're in negotiation with the City on and I'm not able to comment on. Suffice to say that we've had steady contact with the City and we've exchanged documentation proposals if you will in terms of the lease language. Mr. Barstow who is with me this evening from APT is part of that negotiating process but I'm not at liberty to comment on the particulars of those lease items. Peterson: Thank you. Joyce: Can I ask one quick question I forgot to ask before? Peter Coyle: Sure. Joyce: Whatever happened to the location at 80 West 78th Street? Was that our City Council that was against that or was there a problem with that? Peter Coyle: I believe, Mr. Chairman I believe that that original proposal was relocated at the request of the Chanhassen City Council. The original proposal was for that site. Joyce: 80 West 78th Street? Peter Coyle: Right. And at the request of the Council we agreed to lay our application aside and to find a new location, which they directed us to, and that's what's before you this evening. Joyce: Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. May I have a motion again please, and a second. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - April 14, 1997 Joyce moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Kevin. Your thoughts? Joyce: Well, the only problem I have with all this is that it seems open ended. We're having this special meeting here and I feel for the people at APT. I know they've gone through this process. I see Mr. Littlejohn sitting over here. He must really be sick of coming out here to Chanhassen. So I appreciate the time and effort they've put into this process, but I guess in my last question to Mr. Coyle I don't still understand what happened to that 80 78th Street. I don't know why. That was the place... It's my mm now. I thought that was a good location. So now I pass it onto my colleagues up at City Council. I still think that's a better location for everybody concerned. The people in Chanhassen and people in Eden Prairie. We went through a long process of trying, the Planning Commission and the City Council in Chanhassen went through the process of defining what we were going to do with these portable towers, and there were a lot of conditions that we made in Chanhassen that we didn't want them at certain places and I think where this might abide by our ordinances in Chanhassen, I think if this neighborhoods that is Eden Prairie was a Chanhassen neighborhood, I don't think we'd pass this thing and that makes me feel uncomfortable. I will tell the neighbors I do disagree with you as far as the impact of this thing. You can disagree with me however. I don't have to live next to it, I'll grant you that. I just disagree with you okay. I think if that tower was erected before your homes were built, I don't think, you wouldn't even notice it but when something's new, brand new and it's erected up in your back yard, yeah. You notice it right away so I appreciate that. But I'm very comfortable passing this along. Passing in favor of this right now because I don't think, I think of these people in Eden Prairie, or rather as a Chanhassen neighborhood, we would try to make every effort to put it on the 80 West 78th Street and I actually think that's a better location so I'm right now, I could live with tabling this thing further, which I'm sure these people don't want to do. Wait and see what happens in Eden Prairie. See if they can put it on the tower. I'm not, I don't feel that we have to run into this thing. I mean I can wait. Personally I can wait. I don't know how fair that is to APT but I think we can wait a couple more weeks. So those are my comments right now. Peterson: Bob. Skubic: I share most of what Kevin said here. I think the applicants have been more than patient and helpful in sticking in here and waiting to get this done and I think the time has come. I think there is some legal implications here or some time lines that we're looking at here so we need to take some action on this. It's unfortunate, this has been a difficult area to locate an antenna and a tower. We need, the tower is needed. We have a dead zone there. Many of us use the cellular phones and there's a need and it needs to be fulfilled somehow. I would vote in favor of this if it met the proposed Eden Prairie setback requirements and it appears to me it falls slightly short of that. And also I'm concerned that it may have limited value for co-location because of it's height. If APT needs to locate at 135 feet, I don't know that another provider wouldn't also need to locate at that height or higher so I'm a little concerned about future considerations here. There are more providers in the area. I think there's 4 or 5. What's going to happen when they apply for a tower? Will there will be more sites available on the water tower or are we going to be right back here talking about the same thing again? So I'm a little concerned about what's going to happen 11 Planning Commission Meeting - April 14, 1997 in the future. And I do think better sites exist, specifically on the water tower. And on 78th Street. I don't see a lot of value in antagonizing the residents of Eden Prairie. I think we probably have enough residents right here in Chanhassen to deal with. Unless it serves a purpose and I think what is behind all this is to find the best solution for this, which I believe is the water tower and by having this sort of proposal, maybe it furthers that objective. But nonetheless, I would not vote in favor of this. Peterson: LuAnn. Sidney: I agree with the Commissioners comments. I too feel somewhat uncomfortable about this present proposed location being so close to a residential neighborhood. I too feel that the 80 West 78th Street location is what I would prefer for the location of the tower. I do agree with Commissioner Joyce in that I think the impact, if this tower would be built, might not be as severe as we're anticipating it... However, at this point I guess I would not vote in favor of the proposed tower. Peterson: Alison. Blackowiak: Well can I ask a question? Thank you. What is our current ordinance for site location in terms of residential distance? How does it compare to the Eden Prairie 1 to 4, or 4 to 1 qualification? Do we have anything similar to that? Generous: Yes, we provided... Blackowiak: So that would be. So if it were in Chanhassen, that it could be 135 feet from the properly line of a residential area. Okay. All right, well that makes me feel a little bit better since it's not like we're doing something to Eden Prairie that couldn't happen in Chanhassen. This is a tough issue. I really don't know what to say. I agree with what has been said more or less. I feel that we're being asked to approve something that's really not finished yet. I mean we've got an approval wrapped into, approve something that is contingent upon something else happening and that kind of scares me. I like the straight forward, yes, no. This is going to happen type issues. I would like to see the cities of Eden Prairie and Chanhassen get together and make a final decision and if at that time the water tower in Eden Prairie is not available, then I would like to see this issue back before us and then I think that the questions for both the City of Chanhassen and the City of Eden Prairie and all of our neighboring residents would be a lot clearer. And one thing that I'm a little off'ended by is that people of Eden Prairie would think that Chanhassen residents are trying to do this to Eden Prairie. It's not something that anybody's trying to do to anybody else. I think that if it were in a Chanhassen neighborhood, that the same, we'd get the same issues. I don't think the fact that it happens to abut an Eden Prairie neighborhood will affect the Planning Commission's opinions and outcome and that probably off'ended me a little bit but I guess I have to get a little thicker skin. I would prefer to see a more concrete resolution or a concrete proposal and I'm still not sure what I'm thinking, sorry. Peterson: Allyson. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - April 14, 1997 Brooks: Well, I do not think this should be approved tonight. I would like to see what happens with the Eden Prairie water tower. I don't like the idea of approving something and allowing the applicant to go forth in negotiations thinking they have a good fallback. I'm not a fan of these towers. I don't like them. I think they're a blight on the landscape and I would prefer to see something on an existing facility rather than another stand alone over and over again. And maybe that if not fair to the company but I do believe that the quality of life issue is a big issue. I strongly, I empathize with the residents of the Eden Prairie neighborhood. I don't think you should have to look out your living room window and see a tower. I think people have the right to have a business in the United States but people have a right to live as well. And I believe that at this point we, it's not ready for approval. I agree with Alison. I think if negotiations whereby we can't locate on the Eden Prairie water tower falls through, then I think the lwo cities should come together for the best case scenario but I, I was not off'ended by the neighborhood residents and I think there were a lot of good points made. I think this should be tabled for the time being. Peterson: Thank you. My comments are, as a commission and for fellow commissioners, we are obligated to make a decision tonight per city ordinance so I would ask that we do that. We can either approve or deny what is presented in front of us this evening and I would like to preface my comments by saying that. With regard to the proposal in front of us, I probably differ a little bit with my fellow commissioners. I do think this is a more appropriate site. I don't like putting it in any neighborhood. Chanhassen, Eden Prairie or any one but unfortunately I think one of the issues you have to take into consideration is it's going to affect somebody wherever you put it and then you look for the smallest number of individuals that it would affect. I think the consideration to move it where, from West 78th Street was a number of people that would see the tower on a daily basis from Highway 5 and maintaining the Highway 5 corridor that we've worked hard to maintain was the driving force to considering that. I think what you have heard from fellow commissioners, and hopefully will carry it on to the Council this evening is that the number one priority and recommendation is that it go on top of the Eden Prairie water tower. I think there's a high probability of that happening. I think it's also important to consider those residents in that neighborhood, that they are abutting an IOP area which means industrial office park so that you are going to have something in that area and it maybe not necessarily won't be... houses. It may not be fully built out as you're well aware now. So I guess I am in approval of it on those basis. Any further discussion? Can I get a motion? Can I bribe somebody into giving me a motion? Skubic: I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion that we deny the conditional use permit #96-6 for a telecommunication tower and associated equipment at 7660 Quattro Drive subject to conditions as outlined by stafl~ Brooks: I'll second the motion. Peterson: There is a motion that has been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Skubic moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit #96-6 for a personal communication service (PCS) wireless telecommunication facility, including site plan, for a 135 foot monopole tower and associated equipment at 7660 Quattro Drive for American Portable Telecom. All voted in 13 Planning Commission Meeting - April 14, 1997 favor, except Chairman Peterson who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Peterson: I would oppose based upon the previous comments made by myself. The motion carried. It will go in front of the Council in half an hour, or so. Okay, appreciate all your comments and thanks for sticking with us. The Planning Commission special meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 14