4 Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 14, 2000
Acting Chair Burton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacehet, Matt Burton, Ladd Conrad, LuAnn Sidney, and Deb Kind
MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Peterson and Alison Blackowiak
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Matt Saam,
Project Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
REOUEST FOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A 43,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/
WAREHOUSE BUILDING TO ALLOW ENTRANCES INTO THE BUILDING TO UTILIZE
PAINTED ROCK FACE BLOCK, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE
INTERSECTION OF MALLORY COURT AND LAKE DRIVE WEST, LOT 1, BLOCK 1,
CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 8TM ADDITION, ANDREAS DEVELOPMENT.
Public Present:
Name
Chris Loberg
Kristi Kuhnert
Michelle Arrondo Underdahl
Address
13650 Shannon Parkway, Rosemount
7525 Mitchell Road
· 25 Mitchell Road
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Burton: Any questions for staff?.
Conrad: Just one Sharmin. In your original recommendation, who's recommendation was that, the
element that we're talking about be a metal? Was that the applicant's making that?
AI-Jaff: That was the applicant, that's how it was proposed. And that's how we approved it.
Conrad: I could give you a hypothetical. What if it came in this way?
AI-Jaff: We would have recommended that they change it.
Conrad: Based on?
AI-Jaff: We want durable material that would not weather and turn into an eyesore after a while. There
has been applications that came in with painted block and we recommended that they either change that
into block with, into colored block rather than painted.
Conrad: Would there be other examples in the city of projects similar to this where you would have
expected that project to have this kind of accent? This kind of better facing?
Planning Commission Meeting-November 1_4,2000_
- Al-Jaff: Well all the buildingsthat have beenJmiit within
have been metal flashing or similar type ofac,ent__s~ No painted block.
Conrad:Okay. -
Sacchet: Mr. Chair, I want taclarifythisalittlelaittoo~ So tkemare, rightnow_it
because it's brand new. ~_ere is theheig~blook an~Ih~e~s theredblc~ka
· mean if a piece chips offit's still th~samecolor~ ~,whole-b!oekis that ~0
AI-Jaff: Correct. '-
- Sacehet: And the dark green or what that eolOris i~just-l~Iock-th~t's paintedover?--
AI-Jaff: That's just surface.
Sacehet; Now I'm not a specialist inpaint~g. Isllrat something that peels over
Do we know?, ~ . __
-_ AI-Jaff: Idon't know.
Sacchet: Okay. But we knowit peels?-
Burton: Any other questions for
Miehelle Underdahl:
Burton: Canyqu p
:-- overhead.
5 Bu~on: Excuse me. Maybe you muldput-~hetabte soth~t~-~peopl & ' ~._--.~'~f~7 :-::C
Plmming Commission Meeting - November 14, 2000
Michelle Underdahl: This is my first meeting so bear with me. First I just want to tell you how excited
we are to be a part of the Chanhassen, City of Chanhassen and we will do whatever it takes to make you
happy. So we'll honor whatever decision happens here today. We're very proud of our building. We're
actually duplicating this same, exact building in Sioux Falls, South Dakota so that's how happy and how
wonderful we think it is. We realize the issues and we find it to be extremely aesthetically pleasing. We
realize the precedence issue and the concern and I've had a conversation with Sharmin about that so.
What I would like to do is just give you those suggestions and then also tell you that as part of Andreas
Development, if we need to set up an escrow account that we would put funds in there and when you tell
me that the paint is chipped and you want us to handle it, we would do so. I mean whatever it would take
to satisfy the Planning Commission and the City Council, we are willing to do that. And whether it be
for the next 5 years, 10 years, or whatever the case may be, we don't have a building that we can take a
picture of that says the metal flashing doesn't look good or that the paint is going to chip. I don't have
something, ! mean I've looked around. I tried to drive around to take pictures. I couldn't find anything
so I don't have something I can prove to you that it's going to chip or that it's not going to chip or that it
will chip in a year or two. I don't have those answers for you. What I will tell you is I believe that it was
an honest mistake and I believe the building is extremely pleasing to the eye and we want to do whatever
it takes to make you happy because we want to be here for the long run and we are a developer in Eden
Prairie as well as in Chanhassen and we want to continue to build that relationship so. Those are the
comments that I will make and then I will turn it over to Chris Loberg with Lund-Martin Construction
who built the building for us and who turned in the plans to the building department. Thank you.
Burton: Thanks.
Chris Loberg: Hi, my name's Chris Loberg. I'm with Lund-Martin Construction. Like Michelle stated it
was an honest mistake that this took place and I'd just like to show you the prints. How we arrived and
what we have done here. Here we go showing there is a note pointing to all of the entriesl.. Which is a
note number 10 which refers to the pre-finished metal flashing and which is pointing to this area on the
building. And where the discrepancy comes in is when we go back to the details of construction for this
project and you look at the actual construction of the building, here above the entryways it shows a rock
face block which does not show a pre-finished metal flashing. Therefore my subcontractors, myself, all
parties involved overlooked this issue. And in error to remedy, to give this building the accent that was
shown on the renditions we went ahead and we painted it to give it that accent.
Burton: Any questions of the applicant? Do you have anything else to add?
Chris Loberg: I think as Michelle stated, there are some options that we would like to discuss. One
being an escrow agreement of some type that would be placed and if there was a problem with peeling
paint, the painting problem would be taken care of. For the record, this was not done to cut any corners.
As I've shown you, I think the prints, the prints were read two different ways.
Sacchet: I do have a question.
Burton: And the question please.
Sacchet: What color is the block actually before it was painted? Do you know?
Chris Loberg: Yes. It would have been this lighter tan color.
Sacchet: It'd be the tan. Okay.
Planning Commission Meeting- November 14, 2000
Chris Loberg: One of the problems and one of the decisions after working through this with one of the
owners representatives is that, especially on this radius entrance. When we go to do a panel around that
entryway, you can see at the very top it has a real jagged look and would have I guess you could call it
alligator bag look to it. Which I think would most definitely take away the appearance of this project.
Sacchet: Do you have any data in terms of how durable this paint is? Since that's one of the issues.
Chris Loberg: How durable the paint is?
Sacchet: Yeah.
Chris Loberg: I don't have any data on how durable the paint is with me. I looked at the option of trying
to sandblast this paint back off and that was not an option. Just because it is...but that is something...
Sacchet: Thank you.
Burton: Any other questions for the applicants? Okay. Well thank you. You can sit down and we'll
open the matter up for a public hearing. Can l have a motion please?
Kind moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Burton: Does anybody wish to comment on this application?
Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Burtou: Okay. Now we discuss it. Anybody have comments? Going to make me pick somebody?
Alright, I'll pick you.
Sidney: AIright, thank you. Mr. Chair. I guess you know I would like to support staff and I agree with
staff's recommendations for painted panels but listening now to the applicant, I guess I see there are
some fundamental problems trying to redo that type of structure, because it is stepped back into the,
toward the back of the building. And that would make it difficult. I do like the idea of an escrow
account for re-painting and I guess I would recommend that we look at that as an option. It does concern
me however like staff points out, that after a commitment was made that it has been changed. However I
do think that the applicant did make it clear that it was a mistake and it showed on the plans so I would
reco~nmend, like I said, to go the escrow route for re-painting.
Burton: Anybody else?
Sacchet: I'm a little torn. I have a lot of my basic principles is that I try to do what I agree to do in my
life and that's one of the very fundamental principles that most people can agree upon. One of the few
principles as a matter of fact. But then on the other hand, right now it looks great. I mean I went out
there. I looked at it on the picture. It does look good and I have a little bit of hard time insisting that all
of this gets changed to metal if we don't even have any data how durable the paint is. I mean yes, paint
peels sooner or later but I tend to take their word that it was an honest mistake. That they were not trying
to cut corners. I mean it's pretty obvious how it happened with the blueprint. So I probably can be sold
on the escrow.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - November 14, 2000
Kind: We'll just continue down the line here. I agree with Uli's point about honoring commitments and
what was on the plan and I guess I'd like to see that commitment followed through on and the question to
me is when. When the current product starts looking bad or have them do it now. That's my only
question. I really don't like painted block and I really agree with that rule, that we don't have painted
block so I guess I'd like to see it changed to what they agreed to.
Burton: Ladd.
Conrad: I'm impressed that staff spotted the problem, number one. I think we always worry that what
we say and what gets done may be different. So congratulations to the staff for spotting that. I do
appreciate how honest and how you've come in here. That's, I'm thrilled that you're in town. Just
thrilled. That you gave us the presentation and your ears open. And that's a set-up I guess for a concern.
I think one thing could persuade me that we shouldn't do it and that's if it doesn't look good. I think as
you said, if it is the alligator look, I don't need that. Yet on the same building on the same front it looks
like you can bend the metal and make it look better so I think we have to, the real principle for me is what
we force others to do and I think that's what Sharmin told me. Now if that's true, if somebody, if we
forced other commercial development in town to do that, accent that kind of flashing, then I think we
should hold to the principle. If we don't, if we didn't, then I think we should allow this to go through
because it doesn't look bad and I think their escrow account is probably acceptable. So what have I said?
Do variances stop here? Are we the final say on variances or the City Council.
Al-Jaff: This is a site plan mnendment
Com'ad: It's a site plan amendment? Okay. So it will go to council. Okay. I think between now and
theu, my recommendation is to enforce the original design in the staff recommendation unless the
applicant, as it goes to council, can show that one, it's not going to be as attractive as we thought. And I
think I'd also challenge staff to ensure to the council that we have required that for almost every other
applicant. There may be a variation there but I think that should be our standard. And if we did, then we
should uphold to it and then as the applicant is requesting, if you can persuade the City Council that it's
not au attractive look that we'd end up with if we put that metal flashing on it, I think they'd pay
attention to that.
Burton: 1 guess I'm the tie breaker here. My initial instinct was that flashing, and I thought this was kind'
of a no brainer. But now I fear it's a little too bureaucratic just to insist on that, especially when the
building looks pretty good and there is, it seems a reasonable alternative. I don't like bending the
principles but I fall into the escrow camp on this one. So 1 don't know how we'd word that or how long.
I don't know how much it costs to repaint it. How long the paint would last.
Micbelle Underdahl: Do you want me...
Burtou: Well I think that's something maybe, I don't know how, can we leave that issue open for council
and maybe that could be staff, do you have any thoughts on if we went the escrow route? What we
would do?
AI-Jaff: We can have the applicant submit a bid as to what it cost to paint the block. Typically what we
do is we require 110% of the value. My question is, how many years would you like?
Burton: It can't be super expensive to paint I wouldn't think.
Planning Commission Meeting- November 14, 2000
Sacchet: If I may add so~nething Mr. Chair. I mean it seems like there are some data points missing from
the staff on what the cost to paint. That's not really the main one. The main one is, what's the context,
how is it being applied to others and if we can find something about the likeliness of this peeling. I mean
ultimately this is in such a prime visible spot that any reasonable tenant is not going to put up with this
peeling. Realistically you know. And that is an element that could swing into what's the escrow part
but, I think when it goes to council it'd be important to have more of that context in place. That's my
point.
Burton: Can I have a lnotion?
Sacchet: Yeah. Actually I wasn't planning to move that way but in view of our discussion I do move
that the Planning Commission, wow this is interesting. The recommendation is that we deny so I
recommend that we do not deny.
Kind: We approve?
Sacchet: So that, well. Are we really approving anything here? No we're not.
Al-Jaff: You're approving an amendment to the site plan.
Sacchet: AIright. I move that the Planning Commission approves the applicant's request to use painted
block at the entrances of the building located at Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 8th
Addition and that we don't direct. That's it. But I would add the condition, I would like to direct staff to
clarify to what extent this type of condition has been applied to surrounding similar buildings and if
possible, get some data on the likeliness of peeling on the block. And that would be in view of the
council making final decision.
Burton: Did you have an escrow element in there?
Sacchet: No. If somebody wants to add the escrow element. I think that would be, l'm basically passing
it onto the council with additional information.
Conrad: You haven't built up a majority yet.
Sacchet: I know. Do you want to add a condition about the escrow? Maybe we can fish some support.
Sidney: I don't think so. They're crossing their arms there. No, ! would like to add a condition where we
would direct the applicant to work with staff to establish a reasonable escrow account for repainting as
seen fit by staff to start to degrade.
Sacchet: Yeah that's fine.
Burton: Maybe this is a friendly amendment also that I would like staff to have the ability to insist on
repainting, and not to a certain. If they think the paint's going to last for like 10 years, if it looks bad
after 7, staff should have the ability to say it gets painted now. Not 10, I don't know how to word that
but. That would be something I'd like to see.
AI-Jaff: The city may require the applicant to repaint the block as deemed necessary. When it becomes
an eyesore.
6
Planning Commission Meeting- November 14, 2000
Sacchet: It gets awfully messy, doesn't it?
Burton: Well it could be, if you would include something like that, we could include that and it's going
to go to council. They can revise it and if it's a second look after they know more than we know.
Sacchet: You know the reason why I didn't add the escrow element is I think in the bottom line, if we do
something kind of halfway, it's neither fish nor fowl. It's just going to be messy. I think the reason why
I did not put the escrow element in there is simply because either we decide that the owners, tenants are
going to be responsible and given the responsibility, or other ways I think we should deny it. I think we
should be crisp about it. Personally that I feel very strongly about it. I don't feel kind of right of doing
this inbetween and then maybe you should paint it after 5 or 6 or 7 years. I think that becomes
unmanageable personally. So with that, let's leave this.
Burton: Did you accept her friendly amendment?
Sacchet: Yes. 1 do accept the escrow but I get really worried once we go into how many years
repainting.
Burton: That's fine. We can leave mine off and now we have.
Conrad: Well you've contradict, you said you don't want it but you're going to accept it.
Sacchet: No, 1 do accept it because it goes to council. I do accept the escrow thing but I don't accept
going into to telling them 7 years repainting or something like that. That's where I take my position.
Burton: Alright.
Sacchet: So we have a motion.
Burton: Anybody second the motion?
Sacchet: Anybody want to second it? No?
Sidney: Can you restate the motion?
Burton: Ca~ 1 second it?
Conrad: Yes.
Burton: I'll second it.
Sacchet moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
applicant's request to use painted block at the entrances of the building located at Lot 1, Block 1,
Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 8th Addition subject to the following conditions:
Direct staff to clarify to what extent this type of condition has been applied to similar
surrounding buildings.
7
Planning Commission Meeting - November 14, 2000
2. If possible, get some data on the likeliness of the paint peeling on the block.
3. Establish an escrow account to cover the cost of repainting when staff deems it necessary.
Ali voted in favor, except Conrad and Kind who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3
to 2.
Conrad: Yeah, you voted' in the positive. I think we would both vote in the negative unless. Unless the
applicant could prove different. Unless the applicant could prove that we have allowed metal, haven't
entirely enforced a metal flashing type of entrance throughout our community. I would have put the
burden on the applicant to prove that the look with the metal flashing wouldn't have improved the design
at all. That's why I would have voted to the negative.
Kind: I would just add that I wouldn't look around for examples in our community. I would look for a
recent example because our rules have gotten stricter in recent years. Because I'm sure there's examples
of painted block in this city that are not good examples either but, the reason I voted no is because I
oppose having painted block in this type of zoning and I agree with staff's position that asking for
forgiveness later is a precedence we really don't want to set.
Burton: Okay, so that item passes and goes to the City Council. Do we know which meeting that would
be?
Generous: December 11th.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REOUEST FOR A HEIGHT VARIANCE TO INSTALL MATERIAL SILOS ON PROPERTY
ZONED IOP AND LOCATED AT 950 LAKE DRIVE, EMPLAST, INC.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Burton: Any questions of staff?.
Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. Bob, the existing silos are 60 feet in height. In the background I don't see any
variance that was requested for that. How does that come about?
Generous: I'm not sure. I couldn't find anything. It could have been an oversight when someone
reviewed their building plans. As site plans generally they don't show that ancillary facilities. At that
time we may not have had an ordinance that limited the accessory structures. If you look at our
ordinance now it actually doesn't say that. It says one story for an accessory structure. These are
technically they're only one story but we're using the overall height of the district as a limit in this
instance.
Kind: So the new silos are shorter than what I drove by today?
Generous: Right.
Kind: Thank you.
Burton: Any other questions?
8
Planning Commission Meeting- November 14, 2000
Conrad: Yeah. Bob, let me give a parallel to what you're saying. If somebody had a non-conforming
deck that was within 5 feet of the property line and they wanted to expand the deck, and expand a non-
conformity but less, you're telling me we'd allow that. And we wouldn't.
Generous: Not necessarily, no.
Conrad: So your rationale here escapes me.
Generous: In this instance we were trying to encourage the developer or the applicant to consolidate here
in Chanhassen. We want them to be able to use their existing facilities. We thought that it was
reasonable to allow them to do that. Whether it's, they can do it with 50 feet, sure. With expense. So it
was more for a convenience and encouraging the expansion of an existing business in the community so I
was weighiug that against you know, whether or not this 50 foot height limitation would be.
Conrad: Okay, that's fine. My point is I don't buy the rationale in the findings. I don't buy the, I just
don't buy it. That doesn't mean we should turn this down. But I need solid reasons because
intellectually the words don't make sense. So if we vote in favor of this, we should encourage staff to
word the findings because they are not sellable. They're not legal. They're not accurate. And even, all
we'd have to do is find one, I'll stop there.
Bu~on: Uli.
Sacchet: Mr. Chair. Along the same line of your reasoning why, submitted a finding that I have an issue
with is the one that says literal enforcement of the ordinance does create a hardship. And it's probably as
much a question for the applicant, if the applicant is here as is for you Bob. We are basically saying that
they have existing equipment that they want to use which happens to be that size. And that's correct,
right?
That's what you were saying and we are trying to let them use what they have. I guess I'll have to ask
the applicant whether there's a way to use the equipment shorter or what the framework is, do you know
about that Bob? I mean could they cut 6 feet offthe silo?
Generous: Sure. The engineers can do anything.
Sacchet: But it's also put into a context in how they're using it but I'll save that question for the
applicant.
Generous: Right, that would be appropriate.
Burton: Any questions of staff? Any more? Okay. Does the applicant or their designee wish to address
the Planning Commission? Can you please state your name and address.
John Whipps: I'm John Whipps. I'm a production manager at Emplast. The silos that we are wishing to
bring up here to Chanhassen are 56 and 57 feet. I think it would cost a considerable amount of money to
cut these off and re-weld them and probably even weaken them. So I just think it would be, being that
we have 60 foot silos now, you're not going to notice the extra height difference or be an eyesore or
anything like that so ljust think it'd be throwing away a lot of money to cut them up and being those are
the existing silos that we have in Shakopee. The silos give us the efficiency to bring materials into our
injection molding machines so, to bring down the labor and stuffso it's a big cost savings and we can
9
Planning Commission Meeting- November 14, 2000
buy bulk material a lot cheaper than we can bring in with the dealers and stuff so we would really like to
bring the existing silos here if we could without cutting them.
Burton: Any questions of the applicant?
Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. Just to continue the questioning that I started with Bob before. You're saying
that yes, that could be cut down if they have to.
John Whipps: Well I guess I can't say that. I would think, like you say with any.
Sacchet: Obviously you prefer not to.
John Whipps: I would prefer not to, yeah but I don't know. I haven't looked into it. I didn't think there
was a problem I guess. I'm filling in for John Hosford which this is his project. He's on vacation so it's
caught me a little off guard. I thought this was going to.
Sacchet: Would be easier, yeah.
John Whipps: Right, so I'd have to look into that but I didn't think.
Sacchet: Now if I understood the writing correctly, there is really an aspect of it also of efficiency. I
mean it gets put into the context of efficiency at, it sounds like you need that height in order to be
efficient in what you're doing, and that's the part I'd actually like to understand a little better I mean, it
puts it into context if I'm right of taking a train cars full of these pellets and then loading them into the
silo. And I don't know to what extent that is of importance. I mean if the silo's less high you could just
put a little less into it or is there more to it?
John Whipps: I've got to be honest with you, I don't think the 6 feet would be that much more efficient.
It's just.
Sacchet: That's the way they are.
John Whipps: I think the cost thing, being that they're already at that height, being we have 60 footers
there and I'm not saying that was right to begin with but.
Sacchet: Right, it's the context.
John Whipps: I guess, I don't think it will be an eyesore or nothing. I think you would, the other one
would still offset it and you wouldn't see it from the main roads.
Sacchet: So in terms of the hardship, the hardship that it would create is that you cannot use the ones
that you already have. Or that you would have to spend expense to cut them down.
John Whipps: And we're just about, I think the project is due to be done around Christmas. I've been in
charge of moving the presses over there. I've just about got them over there. I think I've got 3 more of
them to move next week and then we really need these silos and we have the pad is already, the 4 foot
cement pad is already in place and I need to move these like in the next couple weeks and if something
like this come up, then it will put that off and give us a lot of problems too so.
10
Planning Commission Meeting- November 14, 2000
Sacchet: So that would be an additional hardship, the scheduling, yeah. Okay. That's my questions.
Burton: Any other questions? Okay, thanks. May I have a motion to open the public hearing?
Kind moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Burton: Anybody wish to comment on this?
Conrad moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Burton: Okay commissioners, comments.
Conrad: Well I think we should do this but I think we should have staff reword the Findings of Fact. I
think there are some things that, you know the railroad tracks make a difference to me. I just wanted it
worded so I can substantiate the next time somebody comes in with something that's not, there's a whole
lot of integrity on how we react to variances. We've got to have a real good reason and I have no reason
to have a silo cut down 6 feet. Not at all but I do have to have a reason to be able to substantiate it with
the next person that comes in and asks for less ora variance, because that doesn't count legally. So I just
need staff to reword this so we have some hooks on it. So I can say well, we did grant the variance but
because this and right now I don't have it but I think we should pass this.
Burton: But do we need to state the reasons here so that we can pass it or?'
Com'ad: I need staff to word that for us. I thinkjust having the railroad. I don't think it's a visual
impair, I don't think it's a visual thing but we would be concerned that a 50 or 60 foot deal would, the .
ordinance would tell us that the reason we don't want a 60 foot structure is because it's such, and this is
not that you know, so I think we just have to word it so we feel comfortable that this is a different
situatiou than what our ordinance thought it might be. Or would rule.
Kiud: I'm wondering Bob if, or fellow commissioners, if it makes sense just to delete that first sentence
and change the findiug to the request is reasonable because of it's location?
Conrad: See location wouldn't matter. I could hang a lot of my rationale on the railroad track being
there and the fact that.
Kind: Because of it's proximity to the railroad tracks.
Conrad: Right, absolutely. Then it's sold me.
Kind: And theu continue with approving the variance will not increase the non-conformity of the
accessory structure, etc. So if we could just change the finding to that, I can make a motion.
Burton: Well any other comments?
Sacchet: Yeah, I want to comment about it too. I think the context is the carrying thing. I mean it's in
an industrial park. There's a railroad. There is the high tension wire and all that. I drove around a little
bit to see how visible the 60 foot towers are since they're taller than what they're asking us to approve.
Because I've never really noticed them to be honest with you. But as I was looking for them, I realized
that adding those other 4 there that are slightly less, I mean from the east side it won't make a difference
11
Planning Commission Meeting- November 14, 2000
because they're hidden. They're somewhat visible if you go north on Powers and coming south on
Powers, north of TH 5. I mean if you're far enough away you will definitely notice, if you look for it,
that there is more and with there being kind of twice as wide, it's more likely that this, again in the
context I felt it was not an issue. However what I do think is an issue, and I would like to consider it as a
possible condition on this. There is a really short stretch, if you drive on Powers and you look over, that
you see behind the building and you will be looking right up these things and that's, I would like to see
some landscaping. Some evergreen buffer type of thing that makes a visual buffer and I think that, with
that in the picture I think it's a very reasonable request.
Burton: Good comments. LuAnn?
Sidney: Yeah, I agree with the landscaping. That would be a good condition to have. I guess I was
trying to think of ways to state the recommendation and well I guess more the findings. I'm Wondering if
silos have standard sizes? If we were to ask them to put in a 50 foot one, if that's a non-standard size and
that would be a hardship. And then if 56 feet really is the requirement for a train car load of resin pellets,
if that's what's needed, and if less would not work so ! throw those out as ideas.
Burton: And I agree with the other comments. Essentially I think that this is something that we should
approve. I'd like to make sure we've worded it appropriately and that we have the support to
differentiate this from other requests. And I do agree with the landscaping provision. I think that was a
good addition. And I'll leave it to one of you to make the motion.
Sacchet: Mr. Chair I move that the Planning Commission approves the request for Variance #2000-13
fora 6 foot variance from the 50 foot height limitation on the construction of up to four 60 foot storage
silos subject to the following conditions. 1 and 2 as they're stating and then number 3, that the applicant
provides a landscape buffer planting, how will I make it sure how we say that it's clear what that is.
Kind: Alon~ Powers.
Sacchet: Along Powers Boulevard.
Kind: To screen the silo area.
Sacchet: To screen the sil0 area. To screen the area behind the building with the silos. That's my
motion.
Kind: And I would add that landscaping should be year round, meaning evergreens.
Sacchet: Evergreens. Yes, let's be specific as for evergreens.
Kind: And I know Uli just misread it. It's actually 56 foot storage silos. I think you said 60 in the
motion.
Sacchet: Oh, yeah okay.
Kind: I just want to make sure we've got that right.
Burton: So that conglolneration is a motion, and is there a second?
12
Planning Commission Meeting - November 14, 2000
Kind: I'll second that.
Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission approves the request for Variance
#2000-13 for a six (6) foot variance from the 50 foot height limitation for the construction of up to
four 56 foot storage silos subject to the following condition:
1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit from the city prior to the installation
of the storage silos.
2. The applicant must provide the city with a $50.00 recording fee prior to the issuance ora
building permit.
3. The applicant shall provide year round screening along Powers Boulevard to screen the
storage silos.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Kind: Excuse ine Mr. Chair, we didn't talk about in the motion, do we talk about restructuring the
Findings?
Burton: We did not. Perhaps we can still amend our.
Conrad: Well the variance stops here. That doesn't go to City Council so, what's required for the
applicant to get. Do they apply for a bUilding permit and we have control.
Generous: We actually record this against the property in Carver County with those conditions.
Conrad: Okay. And you're going to reword the Finding of Fact because...
Kind: ljust want to make that clear.
Conrad: Deb's comments were probably.
Generous: For the approval, the location of the site is such that the alteration of the, or the provision of a
taller silo will not have a negative impact.
Conrad: Work the railroad track in there. You have to do that.
Generous: Okay. It was discussed in the report. It just didn't.
Sacchet: That's not really part of the motion. I mean that's...
Kind: Yeah, staff direction. The request is reasonable because of the proximity to the railroad tracks.
Sacchet: And that it's an industrial.
Kind: And that it's in an industrial park area.
PUBLIC HEARING:
13
Planning Commission Meeting - November 14, 2000
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A
COMMUNICATION TOWER AND 75' MONOPOLE AND EQUIPMENT PLATFORM
LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 77m STREET WEST AND QUATTRO
DRIVE, 7700 QUATTRO, LOUCKS ASSOCIATES AND SPRINT PCS.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Burton: Any questions for staff'?
Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. Do we know that 60 foot does not accommodate co-location? It's the
common sense wise I came to the same conclusion. I mean if we're saying they need to be at least 20
feet apart, then nobody's going to want to put in an antenna up at 40 foot in that location. 45 foot. While
55 foot generally is still a used height, but do we have some solid data on that Bob?
Generous: In discussions with their engineer they said that they can go closer and there is an opportunity
but i'd wait for them to make a presentation.
Sacchet: Okay.
Kind: Mr. Chair, I have a question. Do we know the reason why Eden Prairie doesn't allow them on the
stem of their water tower?
Generous: Same reason as City of Chanhassen doesn't. It's a maintenance thing. It could have
significant impact on the structural integrity of the tower itself. Plus painting, maintenance things. It
makes it more difficult and more expensive to paint your towers. That's why we're looking at, when we,
the City of Chanhassen will be doing at least two more ~vater storage tanks in the future and as part of the
design we may look at designing the exterior of those towers so that they can be located in over on those
rather than on the top.
Kind: Because water towers just seems like the ideal location to me.
Generous: Oh yeah. And then also we're becoming more aware of that. You know this wasn't an issue
when we...
Kind: I like my cell phone so.
Burton: Any other questions?
Conrad: One that's sort ora tangent to what we're talking about. The City, I think we recommended to
the City Council that the Gary Brown tower not go through, and their reaction was? They approved it.
Generous: They approved it. They didn't want to.
Conrad: They just felt they had to.
Generous: Right. Because it complied with the ordinance.
Conrad: Okay, and this one would too and we really don't have, that one also was primarily servicing the
Eden Prairie area for a void as I recall. Little bit of Chanhassen but again we continue to have all the
14
Planning Commission Meeting- November 14, 2000
towers that service primarily Eden Prairie. At least the last two. We shouldn't have any more here. Not
here. You know, and I don't know how we put an end to it but, given they're legal but whatever we do
tonight should say there shouldn't be any more. At least in the real close to the downtown Chan area. I
don't know what everybody else thinks but we're not, obviously not wild about them and especially
when they're not really serving our community as much as they are a different community. So the other
communities that we don't have, they can't do it or doesn't fit. I don't know. And it's not that I don't,
you know it's not that I don't want to serve all their residents. I don't care where the boundaries is but
again, there should not be another tower going up. And so Bob your point is, this tower better be able to
service others without being an objectionable eyesore to, you know it's going to be close to Eden Prairie
residents so I think it's a compromise but there should not be another tower in this area.
Burton: Any other questions?
Sacchet: Yeah, one more quick question. You were talking about this 12 foot wide opening to the south,
and I think the plan actually shows some sort of an access. Do we know, is it something we still need to
find out more what they want to do with that?
Generous: Right.
Sacchet: Okay, I'll save that question.
Burton: LuAnn.
Sidney: Well I'm still questioning why Eden Prairie wouldn't allow the antennas on the water towers. Is
it actually that you drill into the side of the water tower and that's going to cause problems? So you'd
have to really redesign a water tower to be able to use one?
Generous: Yeah. Initially you would want to design it so that you'd have these couplings. Of course
when you do that the couplings will probably be at the wrong height and... That's what we're talking
about when we do future bids for construction that we let the cell companies know that we're going to be
building this and help them with their design for heights. So, but that only helps us in the future. It
doesn't help us now.
Sidney: And there's no way to use an existing water tower and retrofit some kind of.
Generous: Sure. You can always do that. You can engineer anything.
Sidney: Right. As you know, how much does that cost though and is that an option because it seems like
building a tower is an expensive thing to do. But if you could convince the city that we'll give you a
certain amount of money for use of the water tower and then a certain amount that you invest in
refurbishing a tower. ! don't know. It seems like that would be an option, unless there's some
engineering problem.
Generous: Maybe the applicant can address.
Burton: Any other questions for staff?. Okay, does the applicant or their designee wish to address the
Planning Commission? Can you please state your name and address?
15
Planning Commission Meeting- November 14, 2000
Roger Behrens: Good evening members of the Planning Commission. My name is Roger Behrens. I'm
at the law firm of Faegre and Benson. I'm representing Sprint PCS tonight on their application for a
monopole at 7700 Quattro Drive. By way of background, Sprint PCS...personal communications,
services by building, and nation wireless network using wireless technology and what's proposed before
you tonight is an example of that wireless technology. Sprint has made actually every effort to find the
best location for this particular site for this particular monopole, taking into consideration their radio
frequency needs as well as land use decisions as well. In fact I want to take you on a little journey
tonight showing you the Other locations they have looked at and have tried and show you some of the
radio frequency issues that were associated with those sites and why they were not chosen as opposed to
this one. This site tonight as you know cotnplies with the zoning ordinance. The setbacks are at least
double. In some cases they're more than 8 times the required setbacks and it also meets the height
requirements of the code. Before I begin, as staff pointed out, we're proposing a 65 foot monopole plus
the antenna and a lightning rod. The commission recommended a 75 foot pole. We're actually almost
there with the 65 foot pole when you take into account the lightning rod. Under the ordinance anything is
essentially included on the antenna. However we would like it to read a maximum of 75 feet to allow
more flexibility there. Because the lightning rod could add anywhere from let's say 4 to 7 feet to the
pole. Now to begin, there's two issues when trying to determine a site for radio frequency purposes.
One is a coverage issue and one is capacity. The coverage issue is a little bit easier so I'll begin with
that. And when 1 say coverage, l'm simply meaning the range, the area that the signal would cover for
purposes of making calls. This proposed facility would improve the existing marginal strength and
service reliability on Highway 5, near Highway 101 as well as throughout the area shown on this plot.
Okay, the center area there is the areas of the strongest frequency and it kind of extends out by the yellow
and red. Our site would be of course in the center there. To show you a general layout of the radio
frequency areas, in other words the gaps I should say that are currently existing in Chanhassen and Eden
Prairie, I'll go to this map here. The white shows where the areas are a little to no adequate frequency.
The green areas are sufficient frequencies. You can see this is where our proposed search, the center of
the search ring would be, is that dot there in the center, if you can read that and you can see the gaps that
we have to fill. It's the white areas there. So that's essentially the map that Sprint was looking at for
coverage. That's the first concern with radio frequency and this site had to fill in those gaps as much as
possible. The second issue, as I mentioned, was capacity. Now capacity's a bit more complex. Capacity
involves the overloading of existing antennas. When traffic overloading occurs, calls are blocked and
customers simply can't make calls. Their calls are dropped. Without such traffic overloading, the
existing site or blockage of calls will cause of course more dissatisfaction with customers. If the new
antenna site were located too close to another existing site, it will fail to achieve what's called signal
dmninance. That means the existing site would not essentially switch over to the new site and the calls
would drop or cause that existing site again would be over capacitated, if that's a word. Likewise if it's
too far, the signal won't switch over either so essentially the capacity issue is actually involved in the
location as much as the coverage issues. And at this point I will try to take you through a tour of the sites
that we viewed, which both had capacity and coverage issues as well. And the first one I'll go over is the
Eden Prairie water tower that we were discussing tonight. Again, Sprint made an effort to put an antenna
on that water tower. Not on the top because on the top, for reasons I'll explain later, it causes capacity
issues. But they tried to put it in an area not on the top and it was rejected by the city earlier. Let me
show you the plot now. Okay, you can see in this box here. That's our proposed site. Spot, dot A there
was the Eden Prairie water tower. The problem with putting this site on top of the water tower is that
would be 150 feet high. That would not work because the, while the signal would interfere with the other
existing sites, ! should leave this map up there. Again, if it's at the top, 150 feet in the air at the Eden
Prairie water tower, it would cause interference with these existing towers and again as I mentioned
before, it would cause, it's a little close to this site here which I believe is 7825 Fuller Road in Eden
Prairie and this site over here I believe is 1455 Park Road in Chanhassen. Again, because it's so high it
16
Planning Commission Meeting - November 14, 2000
would go to a greater area and would cause capacity problems in both sites 1 and 2 there, so that would
not work. And again Eden Prairie would not let us go lower than that on the water tower. That was
rejected by the city. Another candidate that we used was the Eden Prairie NSP tower located on 78th
Street, east of Highway 101. And I'll show you the plot issues with that. This was another capacity
issue. As you can see, Point B there was the NSP tower, and again it's too close to the Chanhassen site
and the Eden Prairie sitel again causing capacity problems and dropped signals. Sprint also looked at
another NSP tower at 78th Street east of Highway 101. And again as you can see it's getting lower and
lower and closer and closer to the other two existing sites, causing the same capacity problems I
mentioned before. And finally Sprint looked at the AT&T Brown site located at Great Plains Boulevard
and Highway 5. And again that's at Point H and again that's too close to the 4550 Chanhassen site there,
again causing the same capacity problems I had mentioned earlier. Again, the point of that little tour was
just to show the two radio frequency issues that Sprint was dealing with in selecting this site. It was very
intentionally selected and fortunately it also works from the land use perspective as well for reasons that
I'll show you now. I have a couple of photo sims here for you to look at. Again this is, the first one I'll
show you. This first one is a view from Highway 5 of the site, and as you can see, where's the antenna?
Where's the antenna? Very hard to see. I'll point it out to you. It's right there in the center. As you can
see there's adequate trees and other things obstructing it very well. I think it's a very well hidden site, so
like I say, it's an ideal site from a land use perspective, as well as a radio frequency perspective. I'll give
you another view as well from Dell Road and 77th Street. And the tower, you can make it out right along
there. Again, I think the view is very well hidden by the existing trees in the area. And finally we took a
view of the residents over in Eden Prairie, just northwest of the site. What was done here, on the bottom
picture a red balloon. Now this antenna is not going to be red. Was hung at 65 feet above the ground
where the site would be, and this photograph was taken and I will attempt to point out where the red
balloon is on this picture. Okay, the red balloon is right there. Kind of hard to see. We actually traced
where the antenna would be here. Up to that, where the height of the red balloon would be. As you can
see, the wooded as there I think disguise it quite well. We actually attempted to put, simulate the
monopole there. As you can see, that's where the actual monopole would be when constructed. Again,
it's a wooded area from the residents and it makes it quite well hidden. Finally I'd like to point out that
the antenna, the 65 foot pole is co-locatable. Another user can go lower than 65 feet. The problem with
this site if we go higher than 65 feet, it would call, there was a capacity problems that I mentioned before.
65 feet is adequate to cover our coverage gap that I showed you on that first block. If we go higher, again
it creates capacity issues for the same reason that the Eden Prairie water tower was bad at 150 feet.
Other than the wording of the 75 feet, we would ask for a maximum of 75 feet. We agree with the staff's
findings of the staff report and the conditions that the staff recommended as well, and would be willing
to again problem the grading plan and there's seven total conditions I should say that staff recommended
and Sprint is willing to go through with all seven. Thank you and I can answer any questions that any of
you may have.
Burton: Any questions of the applicant? Deb?
Kind: I've got a question or two. What is the distance for co-location between users? Is that the right
word? I don't know. Between you and your competitors. What's the distance?
Roger Behrens: Within the pole?
Kind: Are we talking 15 feet or 20 feet? There seems to be not an agreement on what that figure is.
Roger Behrens: I think that depends, I would say 15 to 20 feet I think is fairly accurate.
17
Planning Commission Meeting- November 14, 2000
Kind: So here's my question. If the pole was built at 85 feet, I bate to be advocating a taller pole so this
is a what if scenario. That doesn't stop you from putting your stuff at 65 feet, but at least it would be at a
height that would be perhaps more reasonable that someone could co-locate in the future.
Roger Behrens: What Sprint could do, and I can verify this with them, is allow. We can build the 65
foot pole with a structure which could support an additional extension on the pole for another user to use.
They would come before you of course with a permit to build on that pole, and Sprint could provide a
letter, actually it was a condition of the staff report for you saying that they won't allow them to co-locate
on the pole.
Kind: Right.
Roger Behrens: Lower or higher too. As it is now, it's perfectly fine to go lower.
Kind: I like that idea. Okay. That's all I have.
Sacchet: 1 have questions. First of all, thanks for taking us through this tour things. I have to say
though, I don't buy your rationale for B and C. I'm not an RF engineer but it's, they're so close to where
this tower is. I think the reason that I see is that it's closer to where your hole is in your coverage but
that's besides the point. That's just, needed to air that. I think the locations are very nicely tucked away.
! mean there's absolutely no question there. Now you're saying you want your's at 65 and I think it's
common sense wise, you couldn't have antennas at 50 or 55 in that location. I mean you'd basically be
interference with the house and all that. Would you agree with that?
Roger Behrens: I don't know the answer to that question. Another user could very easily fill in their
coverage gaps if it's going away from the trees. It depends on the other users coverage plots. They'd
have to take you on a tour as well I think in that situation.
Sacchet: Yeah. Now my main question really for you is this 12 foot gate on the bottom and the
passageway to the south. Because I don't get it. I really don't because for one thing I don't see why
there needs to be a path all the way down to the road because there's a path between the buildings. And
then there's a berm down by the road with landscaping on it, so what's the point of that southern gate and
why is there kind of the sort of path and it's not quite a path? What's the intent there?
Roger Behrens: That's to provide access for maintenance on the tower, which occurs I would say once a
month. Once every 2 months I believe.
Sacchet: So why wouldn't you go between the two buildings? Why are you right there? Why all the
way to the road?
Roger Behrens: This is Joanna Dumera of Sprint.
Joanna Dumera: We tried to negotiate that with the landowner to go between the buildings as the
access. He currently stores trailers there and he was unwilling to move his trailers. So we created a
walkway access.
Sacchet: Well to the north is the walkway, but to the south it looks like an access with vehicles. Is that
correct? ! mean you would need a 12 foot gate for walking access.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - November 14, 2000
Joanna Dumera: That is probably for the construction or for, we do have a construction easement
agreement with him during, like if we need to do... replacement or anything along those lines, we have
the...and he'll move the trailers for a period of time. And that access, that gate would be solely for the
construction and maintenance issues where we would have to bring in heavy equipment.
Sacchet: So that's just when you construct it and then very rarely after that?
Joauna Dumera: Right.
Sacchet: And you're saying the owner doesn't want you to go between the buildings for that?
Joanna Dumera: We can go between the buildings for that occasion only. For our standard maintenance,
just to go out and service the site, he does want us to use the walkway along the north edge.
Sacchet: So I want to be real clear about this. So for your standard maintenance the walkway's
sufficient?
Joanna Dumera: Yes.
Sacchet: So the only reason why you would need access to the 12 foot gate is when you would, to
change something massive that you need to get there with a vehicle?
Joanna Dumera: Correct.
Sacchet: And for that you're saying you do have the permission to go between those buildings?
Joanna Dumera: Correct.
Sacchet: So you don't really need that path all the way to the south?
Joanna Dumera: Yes we do.
Sacchet: Why?
Jomma Dumera: Well I'm not sure what you're talking about with a path. 1 believe that is just an
easement.
Roger Behrens: That is just a utility easement.
Sacchet: That's a utility easement, not a path?
Roger Behrens: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay.
Joanna Dumera:
Sacchet: Okay.
No, I don't believe that we had planned any improvements.
So in terms of vehicular access, you would go between the buildings and then that's just
an easement. Yeah, that was what I'm trying to find out.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - November 14, 2000
Roger Behrens: It's described as an easement on the plans.
Sacchet: Easement for?
Roger Behrens: Utility. Private utility easement. I'm assuming electrical.
Joanna Dumera: Right, electric and telephone.
Roger Behrens: It kind of looks like a path because the gate's right there. I see how it can be confusing
but...
Joanna Dumera: There's actually no path there.
Sacchet: Good. Well I wouldn't want one there. No, that answers my question very well. Thank you
for catching that. I believe that's my question. Thank you.
Burton: Okay, any other questions for the applicant?
Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. I guess 1 still am wondering about the water tower and what, did someone just
call up Eden Prairie or what was the process of them, how did you go about approaching Eden Prairie
about the water tower?
Roger Behrens: I was not there for that occasion. I believe we did a full fledged application. This is
Dave Hagen of Loucks and Associates.
Sidney: Did it go before a Planning Commission and City Council and variance or what was the
process?
Dave Hagen: My name is Dave Hagen and I'm an employee of Loucks Associates and we're a
consultant and contractor to Sprint in building out their wireless system in the Twin Cities. I personally
made contact with a number of people at the City of Eden Prairie to seek their approval to attach the
Sprint antennas to their water tower. I talked to the public, or attempted to reach the Public Works
Director directly. Left a number of messages. Didn't receive responses back from him. Did talk to a
person who works on wireless communication issues with the City, Jean Johnson, their Zoning
Administrator and was told by Jean after she checked with other people within the city that they had no
interest in leasing space on the tower below the reservoir. That the only place they would consider
leasing was on the top as Mr. Behrens indicated and that there was neither space for antennas there nor
would that work for Sprint to put the antennas in that location.
Sidney: Yeah, I guess I would like to see some kind of documentation concerning that.
Dave Hagen: I did seek documentation from them in writing and was told that they wouldn't provide
that. I did confirm my conversations with them in an e-mail to the Community Development Director for
the City ofChanhassen. I think, I don't know if you have that in your files. If not, I can provide that to
you. My e-mail confirming my conversation. And the Community Development Director indicated that
she felt that would be adequate documentation that the City would not allow us, the City of Eden Prairie
would not allow us to be on that water tower at a location that would work. So we did thoroughly check
that alternative out. That's always Sprint's preference to use an existing structure wherever possible.
20
Planning Commission Meeting- November 14, 2000
Burton: Other questions? Okay. Thank you. I'd like to open this matter up for our public hearing. May
I have a motion please.
Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. Thi~ public hearing was opened.
Burton: Anybody wish to comment on this matter? May I have a motion?
Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Burton: Commissioners, any comments?
Sacchet: Yeah, I can start. I'm pretty clear about this. I really don't have a problem with that tower
there. I think it's a great location for the tower. I agree with some of the comments we heard before that
we start having a little more of those type of towers than is necessarily desirable but I consider that an
element of our time and I think it's a good location for a tower. I did take exception to the fact that
bringing it lower impacts the potential for co-location but I wouldn't insist that it be taller for that reason
because technology changes so fast that I mean I feel we're just way out of our league trying to make
conditions in that context. That's just my personal opinion on this. However, where I don't think it's out
of our league is, the Colorado Spruce is not a good choice of conifer. I think we would want something
that lasts longer than the Colorado Spruce so I would say an evergreen other than Colorado Spruce.
There are two plantings on the south. I'm happy to hear that that's not a path, but an easement because
that I would not agree to. And I wonder whether I would want to add...condition number 5 condition
that says the proposed use for the 12 foot wide gate opening must be shown on the grading plan. I would
like to clarify that. It's for access from between the buildings, just to clarify it's not going to be access
from the south side. From this route there all the way, which makes common sense. But I mean that
context l'm inclined to recommend approval of this. That's where I'm at.
Burton: Okay. Deb or Ladd, do either of you have comments?
Kind: Sure Mr. Chair. I would really like to see the applicant pursue this more with Eden Prairie. !
don't know, it bugs me that to me, was clearly their first choice from what I've gathered. Which by the
way this is the best wireless presentation we've had. Good job. As far as my understanding of it. It was
far better than the other previous ones but that's besides the fact. The Eden Prairie water tower is
bugging me. That that was not pursued fully and I don't know if it makes sense to, what our step would
be here. To say that this is Plan B for them or how to approach that. I'd be interested in my fellow
commissioners comments on how to approach that. Because I do agree with Uli that of all the sites that
we've looked at recently, that this Quattro site is acceptable and the visibility from the neighbors is great
so, those are my comments.
Burton: Ladd.
Conrad: I think we have to be convinced that this site can have co-location on it. I'm not at this point in
time.
Burton: LuAnn.
Sidney: Well I'm still bothered by the water tower issue and I guess, I still don't feel comfortable that
what was done. You know if they said well we did go to City Council and City Council of Eden Prairie
21
Planning Commission Meeting- November 14, 2000
rejected it, then I'd feel better about it but we stop with staffand that was it. I guess I need more
information about that. I would like more information and 1 think the, Ladd's comment you know,
making sure that it is co-locatable. We can co-locate on it is important so I don't know if we have
enough information right now to really send this forward. I don't really feel comfortable.
Burton: Okay. Well my'comments are that I think it's a good plan. It fits well here. I guess I'm close to
Uli. I'm okay with actually the 65 foot monopole. The applicant actually suggested a condition where
the structure could, must be able to support an extension for co-location and I think that would be
important as a condition to include and that would solve the co-location issue for me. ! personally am
satisfied with their explanation regarding the Eden Prairie site and my recollection was that Bob said that
Chanhassen wouldn't allow this either on our towers if somebody came in.- Is that right Bob? What you
said earlier. And it seems to make sense to me that if it doesn't work, it can only really work on top on
the older towers and these aren't configured for antennas below the water, whatever you call it. I don't
know what you call it. The under side of the tower.
Kind: The stem.
Burton: Okay. So I think I'm convinced that Eden Prairie is not going to work so with that in the
condition, that the structure should be able to support co-location, 1 would favor approving this.
Kind: Mr. Chair, I have a question of Bob. If Sprint had come to our staff requesting a location on the
stem of a water tower, would you have strongly discouraged them from creating an application and
coming before the Planning Commission?
Generous: I wouldn't, but Teresa would. Burgess, our Public Works Director is the one that is
advocating that when we do future designs that we incorporate these type of couplings or what have you
in the design because of this attachment can have an impact on the maintenance.
Kind: Did Teresa review this application and does she agree that the Eden Prairie water tower is that
same type of water tower as what we have?
Generous: I don't believe she's reviewed this.
Saam: No, ! reviewed it. I have no information on the Eden Prairie water tower. ! don't know if it's an
older one. Newer one.
Kind: Because there's no reason given to the applicant as to why it could be on the stexn. The reason
was just that they weren't interested from what I gathered.
Generous: I believe that was, the same thing our Public Works Director said no on the bottom. You can
go on top but.
Burton: And you can't force the City to allow you.
Generous: It's like any lease agreement.
Kind: Thank you.
Burton: Any other discussion? Then we need a motion.
22
Planning Cmmnission Meeting- November 14, 2000
Conrad: I make the motion but Bob, before I do, what is the staff's recommendation at this point in time?
What you put in front of us was a 75 foot monopole. And have we changed it to 65 Bob? What is it?
Generous: I sort of liked their idea of permitting it to be expandable up to the 80 foot so that, that would
seem to satisfy some of my concern about the co-locatability of it.
Conrad: So is that copied some place that says expandable or how do you want?
Generous: No, we would have to add that as part of the motion.
Conrad: So do we need that number in the motion?
Generous: I don't think necessarily you do. If there's a maximum height you would want it to, you
would want to put that in there. Because under ordinance you can go up to 120 feet.
Conrad: So ifI ride with your motion, the way you've worded it at 75 feet Bob, you can probably bring
it back to the City Council with a different number if that makes sense.
Generous: lfwe can find out what the...
Conrad: Yeah, okay. I'll make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
conditional use permit number 2000-6 to permit installation of communication tower and a site plan
approval for 75 foot monopole and equipment platform Sprint PCS, prepared by AEC Engineering, dated
8/30 subject to the conditions in the staff report with condition number 8 stating, the tower be designed to
be capable of being added to for future co-location. Condition 9...rejection by Eden Prairie of the site on
their water tower.
Kind: Oh, 1 should second that motion.
Sacchet: I'd like to add to condition 5. The proposed use for the 12 foot wide gate opening must be
shown on the grading plan and will be used for access through the passage between the buildings.
Existing buildings.
Conrad: Okay.
Sacchet: That would be a change to number 5. And then I'd like to further add a condition number 10.
That the two conifers proposed for landscaping are other than Colorado Spruce.
Burton: Well, do you want to say what they would be?
Sacchet: No. I think that's sufficient. I think in another motion we looked at, that's what it says so I
think that's enough.
Burton: Okay. Ladd, do you accept those? Okay. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second?
Kind: I seconded it. I'll second the friendly amendments too.
23
Planning Commission Meeting- November 14, 2000
Burton: Okay. I wasn't sure if we needed to do that if you accepted it but, that's fine. I don't know the
procedures.
Conrad: Only ifI don't, then you vote on them separately. But as long as I do.
Burton: I don't think we'have to. But in any event we can vote on the whole package.
Conrad moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Conditional Use Permit #2000-6 to permit the installation of a communication tower and site plan
approval for a 75 foot monopole and equipment platform, Sprint PCS, plans prepared by AEC
Engineering, dated 8/30/00, subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit is required to construct the platform and tower; the tower must be designed for
an 80 mph wind load and include the effect of one-half inch of radial ice.
2. The plans must be signed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota.
3. The contractor shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan
review and permit procedures.
4. The applicant shall submit a detailed grading, drainage, and erosion control plan for staff review
and approval.
5. The proposed use for the 12 foot wide gate opening must be shown on the grading plan and will
be used for access through the passage between the buildings.
6. The tower shall be ora color that blends in with the sky.
7. A letter of intent committing the tower owner and his or her successors to allow the shared use of
the tower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for
shared use shall be submitted to the city.
8. The tower be designed to be capable of accommodating future co-location.
9. Confirmation of the rejection by Eden Prairie of the site on their water tower.
10. The two conifers proposed for landscaping are other than Colorado Spruce.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REZONING REQUEST FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) TO OFFICE AND
INSTITUTIONAL (OI} FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6400 MINNEWASHTA PARKWA¥,
FIRE STATION NO. 2, CITY OF CHANHASSEN.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Burton: Tell me there are no questions.
24
Planning Cotnmission Meeting - November 14, 2000
Kind: I do have one actually. Sorry.
Burton: Go ahead.
Kind: I usually do. I thought this was a no brainer, and it really is but, if we granted a conditional use
permit for the fire station, would that be sufficient to bring it into compliance?
Generous: It's not permitted in the district.
Kind: Okay. I'm just thinking what if it's not a fire station in the future, is this the zoning we would
want for that parcel?
Generous: High visibility. We could use it for a library.
Kind: l think it's probably appropriate because of it's proximity to Highway 7.
Generous: We're actually looking for, in the future we'll probably have a Fire Station 3 that's location
more south. Long term to help serve that area of the community as it develops. It's a long way from
downtown to the north side of Lake Minnewashta.
Kind: It makes total sense to me. It was just another way i thought that we could legitimize. the use.
Generous: No, it's not permitted in the district.
Kind: Sorry Matt.
Burton: That's alright. I kind of expect it. Any other. I'd be disappointed if you didn't have a question.
Any other questions for stafP.. Okay, and I don't think we have an applicant here because you are the
applicant. I guess we'll open it to public hearing.
Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Burton: You didn't want to comment on that did you?
Debbie Lloyd: ...future use, you question it. Just one little piece of land but.
Kind: It seems appropriate to be office industrial, it really does.
Generous: Institutional.
Kind: Do you want to come up here?
Debbie Lloyd: No.
Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Bmlon: Okay, any discussion? Okay, no discussion. Then can I have a motion please?
25
Planning Commission Meeting - November 14, 2000
Sacchet: Move to, the Planning Commission recommends approval of thc rezoning of the Chanhassen
Fire Station located at 6400 Minnewashta Parkway from single family residential (RSF) to Office
Institutional (OI).
Kind: Second.
Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
rezoning of the Chanhassen Fire Station located at 6400 Minnewashta Parkway from Single
Family Residential (RSF) to Office & Institutional (OI). All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
Burton: That concludes our public hearings. Any old business?
Generous: No.
NEW BUSINESS: RECEIVE INPUT REGARDING LEASE REVENUE BONDS FOR LAKE
ANN PARK MAINTENANCE BUILDING.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: So we're basically saying what we decided before is indeed what we decided?
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay, that should be easy.
Conrad: Well we decided where it would, we said it could go there but we didn't agree with the design.
Kind: Right. Right. But it's in compliance with our zoning. Bob, just out of curiosity, what was the
approved design for the Lake.
Generous: Building with the block.
Kind: So it didn't get upgraded or changed or beautified as we recommended?
Generous: Right.
Kind: Bummer. I'd like that on the public record.
Conrad: The standard holds true for others but not for us.
Burton: So we're being asked to approve this resolution that's attached?
Kind: Mr. Chair, do we just make a motion at this point?
Burton: That's what I would envision I guess.
26
Planning Commission Meeting- November 14, 2000
Kind: I'll make a motion. That the Planning Commission finds that the Lake Ann Maintenance Building
plan is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning and the guide plan and approves the
attached resolution.
Sacchet: Second.
Burton: Bob, is your belief, I haven't looked at this that carefully. Is your belief that it does as staff's
opinion, that this does comply?
Generous: Well it is. It's a guide for parks and open space. It's a park maintenance facility so bonding
for that would be consistent with the comprehensive plan and zoning oftheproperty.
Burton: Okay. I just haven't looked at this very carefully.
Resolution #2000-01: Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission adopt the
resolution prepared by Briggs & Morgan, and that the Lake Ann maintenance building plan is in
compliance with the comprehensive plan and zoning and guide plan. Ail voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously.
Burton: Is there any other new business Bob?
Generous: New business. Pulte as you know is dropped. We're still working in discussions with
Presbyterian Homes in the Villages. They've shown some really nice elevation to the City Manager so
we hope that it co~nes to fruition and helps that project build out and get enough so we can finally see
conclusion and some of those holes filled in and the community like that we all envisioned take place
there.
Burton: As a heads up on that one too, I know my law firm's representing the developer so I'm probably
going to have to recuse myself from all that regarding the Presbyterian Homes and not participate. I
don't want to perceive a conflict. Any other?
Generous:
graduate.
Our new planner starts tomorrow morning. Her name's Julie Holcomb. She's a Mankato
She is working on her master's degree right now and she'll actually finish that in May.
Burton: Okay. Any other items of new business?
Sacchet: One question. There was one package...about administrative section and I kind of wondered
why it wasn't in our package. It talks about some new law being passed and it was quite entertaining to
look at it. How words are put together but 1 couldn't quite figure out what it does for us. So I figure
since it was in our package, there might be some significance that I'm missing.
Generous: Just so that you're aware that there have been changes in the law regarding religious
institutions. You can't make it overly onerous for them to locate in the community.
Sacchet: Okay.
Generous: Which would have been applicable to Eckankar most recently.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - November 14, 2000
Burton: What else do we have on December 5th? Because I would envision that the Pulte matte will take
a lot of time.
Generous: I don't have my, but I kmow that there's not a whole lot on that one. That should be enough.
Conrad: I'm gone that day.
Sidney: Me too.
Kind: Can you get out of it?
Conrad: No, it's a big deal. It's a big deal. I get to work with the Mayor of St. Paul that night.
Kind: I think you've got your priorities screwed up.
Conrad: I'd like to be here.
Burton: We can chat about that here in a second.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Deb Kind noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated
October 3, 2000 as presented.
Conrad moved, Kind seconded to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was
adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
28
Ill