Loading...
PC 2013 02 05 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 5, 2013 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Tim Tennyson, Kathleen Thomas and Lisa Hokkanen MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad and Bob Colopoulos STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Ben Gowen 6440 Hazeltine Blvd Bill Cook 3748 Landings Drive Frank & Theresa Gustafson 6250 Chaska Road Julie Prohaska 6242 Landings Court Marty Campion Campion Engineering PUBLIC HEARING: TH FRETHAM 15 ADDITION: REQUEST FOR A FOUR LOT SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION ON 2.29 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 6300 CHASKA ROAD. APPLICANT: CURT FRETHAM, PLANNING CASE 2013-04. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. As you stated this is a subdivision review for th Fretham 15 Addition. Curt Fretham, the Lake West Development Company is proposing this development. It’s a four lot subdivision. It’s located on the corner of Highway 41 and Chaska Road. It’s approximately 2.29 acres in size. Access to the site will be limited to Chaska Road which is a local street. There is access control and also city ordinance that precludes the access directly to arterial roadways which is Highway 41. Again this property is zoned single family residential so permits single family detached housings. Minimum lot sizes are 15,000 square feet. All of these lot sizes are in excess of 20,000 square feet on a net basis so the proposed development does comply with the standards in the RSF district. Again this is a 4 lot subdivision. Each of the lots has adequate frontage on Chaska Road and adequate depth. Currently they’re proposing to move the existing house which is located on proposed Lot 2 over to Lot 4 but that’s not been completely determined and so whether they would be required to meet our building permit requirements for any of those relocations. The entire site will be graded as a part of the initial development of the project to create acceptable building pads and also to build a stormwater pond to treat the runoff from this site before it discharges into the wetland which is located north and the east portion of this development. Lot 1 was the only lot that had any concerns on staff’s part because of the wetland we wanted to verify that they could meet all the setback requirements and locate an acceptable house on this site. The developer does have a house plan that he submitted as part of the development review and he showed how that would fit within all the required setbacks on Lot 1. It is a constrained building envelope for this site so that, we had to verify that they could put the principle structure and then any accessory structures within the required setbacks from, and it’s a wetland setback requirement in this specific locations that constrained the site. The driveway grade, we just wanted to verify that they could maintain the maximum 10% slope and they have provided us with additional information that shows that they can do it. And finally due to the sewer elevation within the roadway, Lot 1 will require that an ejector pump be put into the house and we want to let people know up front that this Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 5, 2013 will be a requirement as part of any building permit process so that there’s no surprises for anyone who purchase that house. They are providing landscaping. They’re going to create an additional buffer along Highway 41 out of landscaping. While this doesn’t provide great noise attenuation, it will provide some screening for the houses that do into this development so. And finally we’re recommending that the Planning Commission approve the subdivision subject to the conditions in the staff report and that you adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation and with that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Had there been discussion about the overstory trees? I know there were a bunch of the overstory trees, are they going to be removed or are they safe based upon the plan that’s been submitted? Generous: Well, they showed building envelopes for all of them and that would be removed and as part of any review of the actual building permits we’ll work with them to see if additional trees can be saved or exchanged if you will. Aller: Was there any more discussion on the water and sewer project and whether or not they’re going to be able to get in with us to do that concurrently or are they going to have to fend for themselves? Fauske: Chairman Aller, if I may speak to that. As we, staff did the review of this development, and even in the pre-submittal meetings the applicant was made aware that the City would be in with a resurfacing project proposed on Chaska Road so the applicant’s always been aware of what the City’s timeline is for the resurfacing project and had indicated that he would be out of the street area prior to the City mobilizing the contractor into that area. After that conversation had taken place staff viewed the televising, the sewer televising and we’ve indicated that there’s some work that needs to be done in the area for utilities and in order to better coordinate the contracts, get everything done, I called up the applicant and indicated that there might be an opportunity for the City to include the service installations under the City project and assess those costs back to the developer and he had indicated he would be interested in doing that so we’ll keep up those conversations so that we can have a smooth transition between the city project and the developer’s desires to get the services in. Aller: Great, thank you. And it’s my understanding they meet all the wetland setbacks. Generous: That’s correct. Aller: Okay. I don’t have any further questions. Anybody? Thomas: No. Hokkanen: No. Tennyson: No. Aller: Alright, would anybody like to come forward? Developer, presentation. Homeowner. Marty Campion: Good evening. My name’s Marty Campion. Project Engineer with Campion Engineering. I don’t have any additional information to add. Just let you know that I am available for questions, if you might have any. Aller: You’ve received the report. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 5, 2013 Marty Campion: I’ve received the report. We’ve had a couple of conversations with both Alyson and Bob and are in agreement with the report and don’t have any, don’t see any issues with the requirements or the request. Aller: Alright, thank you. Okay with that we’ll. Frank Gustafson: Hi, my name is Frank Gustafson. I live in the property that is just to the north. Aller: Okay, what I’m going to do is officially open the public hearing. Frank Gustafson: Oh, okay. Aller: And now you can step forward. Frank Gustafson: There you have it. Well my name is Frank Gustafson. I live at 6250 Chaska Road which is just north of there. Of this, of the property in question and I just want to give my support to this. I see no issues with it whatsoever. I looked at the plat drawings and it looks like it’s not going to affect our wetland areas at all, nor will it adversely affect our property. I have not talked with, I don’t speak for the rest of the neighbors. I haven’t heard anything negative from any of the neighbors so you’ve got my support. Aller: Great, thank you for coming forward. Anyone else wishing to come forward, either speaking for or against. Seeing no one coming forward, I’ll close the public hearing. Open for commissioner comments. No one? Thomas: No. It’s pretty straight forward. Aller: I think the report was really well done. I think it’s nice to hear that you have community support for the development, proposed development and hopefully it will be on it’s way so with that, I’ll entertain a motion. Thomas: Sure, I’ll make a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the th preliminary plat creating four lots for the Fretham 15 Addition, subject to the conditions of the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Hokkanen: I’ll second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Thomas: Nope. Thomas moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the approve the preliminary plat creating four lots subject to the following City Council conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Building Official: 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 5, 2013 1. The applicant must apply for the appropriate permit(s) required for the demolition or moving of any existing structures. 2. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits can be issued. 3. Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a professional engineer. 4. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services. Engineering: 1.If the Fretham 15th Addition final plat is approved prior to the assessment hearing for City Project 13-01, each lot within the plat shall be included in the assessment calculation. 2.The sewer and water services to Lots 1, 3 and 4 must be installed prior to the street resurfacing project, as noted on Sheet 4 of the preliminary plans. 3.Based on the elevation of the existing sanitary sewer and the proposed home elevation on Lot 1, this home cannot be serviced by gravity sanitary sewer. Staff requests that the developer disclose this information to prospective buyers. 4.Lots 1, 3 and 4 will be subject to the City sewer and water hook-up charges and the Metropolitan Council Sanitary Access Charge. These fees shall be collected in accordance with the City Code at the rate in effect at the time. 5.The developer must obtain a MnDOT drainage permit. 6.The drainage from Highway 41 must be included in the stormwater calculations. 7.The drainage calculations must be revised to model the storm depths stipulated in City Code. 8.The existing drainage area boundaries used for the runoff calculations needs to be revised to include all the area draining to the wetlands, including area outside of the proposed development. 9.Ensure that the post-development discharge rates to both wetlands do not exceed the existing condition. 10.It must be shown that the proposed swale along Highway 41 is adequate to handle anticipated flow volumes. 11.The curve number for the wetland areas must be 78. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 5, 2013 12.The grading plan must be modified so that the driveway grade for Lot 1 does not exceed 10%. 13.Spot elevations must be shown along the driveway to Lot 1 in order to calculate the cross slope. 14.Note the lowest opening elevation for the home on Lot 4. 15.If the proposed area to be disturbed is greater than one (1) acre, the applicant will be required to obtain a NPDES Construction Permit. Proof of permit and a Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be submitted to the City for review and comment. 16.The proposed culverts shall have filtration logs, appropriate to flow conditions, at their inlets and outlets until vegetation is established within the ditch. 17.A construction entrance shall be shown on the plan set and a detail shall be provided. 18.Silt fence or other appropriate sediment control BMP shall be installed along the frontage for Chaska Road. 19.All silt fence shall use metal t-posts. 20.Sediment protection shall be provided for all wetland areas including those areas off-site to which the site is tributary. 21.The buffer area disturbed for the creation of the pond and drainage, and any other buffer area unacceptable under Section 20-142 shall be seeded with an appropriate seed mix such as State Mix 36-211: Woodland Edge South & West. 22.The drainage and utility easement shall include all wetland buffer areas. 23.Wetland buffer monument placement shall be indicated on the plan set and shall be installed by the applicant before release of the final plat. 24.All drainage swales must be stabilized for the final 200 feet before exiting the property or entering a water of the state. The method of stabilization shall be indicated on the plan. 25.The estimated SWMP fees due at final plat are $8,841.00 Natural Resource Specialist: 1.Each lot will be required to plant one overstory tree in the front yard per city ordinance. 2.Building permit survey for each lot shall be required to show all inventoried trees and their removal or preservation status. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 5, 2013 Park and Recreation: 1.The developer shall pay park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final plat approval for three of the four lots prior to recording the final plat. Planning: 1.The shed located in the northeast corner of the property must be demolished or removed. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: UTILITY METER READER POLE: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN TO INTALL A 60 FOOT TALL STEEL UTILITY METER READER POLE ON PROPERTY ZONED OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT (OI) AND LOCATED AT 6400 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY (CHANHASSEN FIRE STATION #2) AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY AND TH 7. PLANNING CASE 2013-05. Aanenson: This item is actually, the City’s the applicant on this application. It’s a request for a Conditional Use and a site plan review to allow for a 60 foot tower with a 10 foot antenna on top of that for a utility meter reader. This application is a part of a request by the City to put at the fire station this tower. And the fire station that we’re looking at is on Highway 7 and Minnewashta Parkway, so that’s the subject site. A little bit of background on this. We did a radius search, they did some engineering on this kind of looking at where we needed to, it’s called a propagation study where we needed to have the meters in order to get coverage of the city and if I may I’ll just go, oops. Talk a little bit more about the actual why we’re doing the water meter and the City Council approved a contract to replace the City’s water meters. Right now how they’re being read is they’re actually, you have a vehicle that drives around and picks up all the radio feeds and in looking at the equipment that we had and trying to replace those as the batteries have expired, they actually chose to go with a different system after a cost benefit so that now requires these antennas to be placed throughout the city. So I’ll go through a little bit more detail but a majority of them are on water towers throughout the city. There’s 6 other sites. The two sites that will actually be on other features. There’s one at Bandimere Park which is on, there’s a siren on already so this is just an appendix to that but this is now the only free standing one again based on that propagation study where this needs to go so looking at elevations and public properties that it could go on, this appeared to be the best site for that so again the City does have the ability with the conditional use to follow through the criteria in the office institutional zoning district which the subject site is zoned to place it if it finds the conditions necessary in the staff report based on the fact that looked at the land use. The use by the City. What the purpose is and reasonableness. The City felt that it met that criteria so where it’s being placed is behind the parking lot. You can see the star on the slide there at the end of the parking lot so there’s no vegetation there. There is no screening. There is minimal equipment but that is actually going inside the fire station itself so then really what it comes down to is the visual impact so with that the engineering department took some slides from different positions and it’s kind of hard to see but I’ll try to do my best here to show you where you can see the actual antennas. So if you’re looking at the parking lot where it’s sitting so in Pipewood Curve it’s very hard to see back there. You can see one here on Meadow Lane. Site 3. Site 4, you’re coming westbound on Highway 7 and you can kind of see that off. Oops, actually over on this site in the distance. From the lift station, number 3 looking across. Again now what’s sitting over there is actually a bucket ladder so it’s actually physically, it’s got the height correct but actually the bucket itself is quite a bit bigger. So this is actually if you go down then to the fire station itself where you would see, what you would see going down Minnewashta Parkway. The 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 5, 2013 monopole quite a bit smaller. It’s actually 1 foot in diameter so it’s quite a bit narrower. And then when you get to some of the neighbors across the street on Landings Court, a little bit less visual impact when you get over there to see that. I did hand out from you, there was some letters from some of the neighbors that were concerned about the impact of that and wanted to share that with you regarding some health risk impacts. Included on the City’s website are, is some information regarding that electromagnetic field. Again this is being read right now via the same method as now there’s a tower and just to make, not to make it too complex, how this works is at night it just, there’s a frequency that goes out once a day at night and has a very short duration to get that read and bring it back. It’s not a constant read so there’s also additional information on the City’s website under the home page under what’s new. There’s an engineering site there that talks about, you can go into and learn a little bit more about the questions you may. Any of our residents may have on electromagnetic field. So with that, a little bit more close up on the visual impacts. You can see a little bit closer here. There’s the one on Highway 7 coming quite a distance away. Again less visual impact when you’re on the landing side and again the one foot in diameter on the, by the fire station there. So with that we put the findings for the conditional use in there. We do believe it meets the intent of the city’s ordinance. Again because we didn’t have another apparatus that we could have used there that met the height requirements for the propagation study, we had to put the monopole in so we believe that it meets the intent of the findings of the conditional use so with that we are recommending approval of the conditional use. It is also approval of the site plan. We left it, we didn’t color paint it. Sometimes those are maintenance issues. Kind of leave it, trying to blend in and actually there’s a lot of different type of vegetation so trying to paint it blue might not have been the best so leaving that with a site plan. Again the rest of the equipment’s inside the fire station itself so a conditional use and a site plan so again with the attached Findings of Fact we are recommending approval for this to go to the City Council. So with that I’d be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Aller: Am I wrong in assuming that the reason the City Council went with this new program is that it would be not only more cost efficient but EMF efficient. I mean the whole process is more efficient. Aanenson: That’s correct. It’s, the battery life is longer and then it’s also more efficient as opposed to having a vehicle going around. Having the stationary sites so it’s double efficient, yeah. Thomas: I guess I have a question. Are we planning on putting in more within the city as we you know, more of these as we go to be able to net the whole city? Fauske: As I think Kate had indicated, touch on, that the other areas of the city where this would be required they’re able to put it on existing equipment like a siren or a water tower and it was just in this particular area of the city they didn’t have anything that was high enough to get above that tree canopy. Thomas: Sure. I guess what I’m saying is we’ve got these in other locations. Fauske: Yes. Thomas: Around the city. This is not the only spot. Aanenson: Right. Thomas: And it’s also not the only, we’ve got other ones currently out there is what I’m getting at, right? Hokkanen: This is the only free standing one. Thomas: This is the only free standing one? 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 5, 2013 Aanenson: That’s correct. Fauske: Correct. Thomas: But we have other ones that are attached to things and are currently submitting so we can get the entire city. Fauske: Yes. Thank you, yes. Thomas: Okay. Aanenson: And as we move south, as population increases and if we have other infrastructure, we will take it into consideration when we provide, there’ll be additional water towers as we move south of Lyman Boulevard, Pioneer Trail so we’ll look at, if there’s a coverage area based on that propagation study that we need to based on certain elevations, we’ll try to accommodate that on an existing facility, which is always our first choice too. Aller: How long have we had the other towers operating? The ones that are on the sirens. Fauske: Just recently. Council approved the radio reads, I believe it was fall last year. I don’t know if that was included. Aanenson: Yep, September of last year. Fauske: Okay, thank you. September of last year so they’re now just starting to implement it and as they started looking at the implementation plan they identified this site as need for an independent structure. Aller: And as of yet we haven’t received any public comment, which was adverse or receive adverse reactions from the operation of those. Fauske: Not that I’m aware of but I could certainly follow up on that if the commission would like. Aller: I just want to give due deference to the concern that’s been expressed by the people that have contacted us about the EMF. Aanenson: Yeah, and again there is information on that on the City’s website. About the level and so I think if we can direct anybody that’s interested in that information to the City’s website, it gives you a little bit about the frequency and the amount. Hokkanen: Is it clear on the website Kate that it only does it once per day? Per night. Aanenson: Yes. Hokkanen: It’s not a constant, I mean I apologize. I didn’t look at it. I didn’t have time but. Aanenson: That’s alright. I’ll just quickly look at it. There’s a couple of questions regarding that, will interfere with anything that you may have as a personal, any other device you may have. Cell phone and it says that the transmitting device operates in a licensed band in compliance with the FCC regulations as such. Thank you. As such the devices are for local territory so no other radio technology devices operate in the same frequency so it shouldn’t interfere. And then the other one about the associated risks, so with RF, again this is very low, even less than similar bands so like a television. This discussion came up too 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 5, 2013 when we did the National Weather Service regarding use of the gamma rays and how the frequency and duration of that sort of thing so again we’re reading right now by radio frequency so it’s not a new technology how we read. We’re just putting them stationary as opposed to a vehicle driving around and so again the City’s home page has a lot of those things on there too and if anybody has more questions on that I’m sure our City Engineer would be happy to talk to somebody about that too. Aller: But otherwise it would have to comply with and does comply with the normal tower requirements? Aanenson: Yes, and then the radio frequency stuff too also has to be in FCC compliance too so. Aller: I don’t have any further questions. Anyone? Alright, I’m going to open up the public hearing portion of this meeting. Anyone wishing to come forward, speak for or against. Please state your name and address for the record sir. Bill Cook: Yep. My name is Bill Cook. I live on Landings Drive. 3748 so in the neighborhood where this is going and I just found out about it today so I haven’t done a lot of research. One of my neighbors sent me an email. I think he sent an email. Aanenson: Yep, I passed it out. Bill Cook: Okay. I think our concern is that, not against the technology because I’m not a luddite. I embrace technology but just in terms of this one is different than the other ones as I understand it. It’s not on a water tower. It’s essentially at ground level in our neighborhood and we’re concerned about you know the health, possible health impacts of that and I know as you mentioned there’s stuff on the City’s website but as you saw with my neighbor, there are a lot of other, there’s another view on that in terms of these transmissions so this isn’t up in the air. It’s essentially in our neighborhood. Aller: I think my understanding is that the reason for the tower, what we’re doing is we’re, with the request here would be to put in a tower to put it up. Bill Cook: Yeah I understand but that’s 60 feet. That’s 5 stories. That’s not a water tower. Aller: What’s the difference? I think they’re equivalent. Bill Cook: Well there’s elevation of the houses in our neighborhood as well so. Aller: Oh okay, I got you. Alright. Have we looked at the impact of that or? Fauske: I’m sorry, could you clarify the question? I don’t know that question. Bill Cook: I understand all, if I understand correctly, the rest of these are on water towers. Aanenson: No, there’s one other one that’s on a monopole that’s in a park. Bandimere Park in a residential area. Bill Cook: So this is the only one in the neighborhood that’s essentially not on a water tower closer to ground level? Fauske: It’s a stand alone, the Bandimere Park one is on an emergency siren so it’d be of a similar height, yes. 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 5, 2013 Bill Cook: But this is in a neighborhood. Fauske: Yes, and there are water towers in neighborhoods too. Downtown Chanhassen has a water tower. Bill Cook: Okay it’s, from my house it will probably be essentially at eye level, okay. Fauske: Out of an upper story, okay. I understand. Well I guess it would depend, I apologize. I don’t know the elevation that your house sits at with respect. Bill Cook: Well you know and I’m not going to, I’m not arguing the elevation. It’s just in terms of the possible health risks. That’s the question that we’re raising, some of us as neighbors and you know he sent a number of references expressing that concern so I mean I’m not sure what that the solution is. I just went here to sort of speak for myself, my family and for some of the other neighbors that we have a concern about it. Aanenson: And Chairman I can follow up on that. Before this item appears before the City Council additional information, again I’ll relate back to when we did the National Weather Service. Same kind of you know when we were doing that. This has once a day is when they’re doing the, and my understanding it’s going to be around midnight that they’ll do a very short blast to get the read, once a day but I can provide some additional information for when this item goes to the council or try to contact the residents with the information to the question we have. Aller: I think that would be a good thing for the City Council to have before they make their final decision on it. And we certainly appreciate the concern. Bill Cook: Alright, well thanks for the opportunity. Aller: And I appreciate your coming up and giving us your opinion. Bill Cook: Okay, thanks. Aller: Thank you sir. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against? Julia Prohaska: Hi, my name is Julia Prohaska. Aller: Welcome. Julia Prohaska: Is this okay? Aller: Yes. Julia Prohaska: And I think my husband had sent an email. Aanenson: Yes. Julia Prohaska: He is in, out west at a business meeting and I’m just rolling in from a client appointment so unfortunately I left my notes in my car but I think Bill and I live in the same neighborhood. We are directly across the street. Our back yard looks out to the fire station and I spent a lot of time doing a lot of research on it and I definitely have significant concerns about it. If you look at other states in the country, California, Wisconsin, Florida, Michigan have all had major debates over this and they’re trying to have 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 5, 2013 laws changed that not only about towers, which are even much more, have a much more possibility of health dangers, but actually people talking about the actual meters being on their homes and a lot of states now they’re trying to have where you can opt out of it so, and I looked at, there was a study that was, or a letter that was written in 2012. I don’t remember what time of the year it was last year, by 50 different well, very well respected doctors. I think the main one was from, one of the main ones that wrote the letter was from the University of New York in Albany but they were doctors and scientists from all around the world and really talking about, and it was on my husband’s email that he sent. Really they don’t agree that these, the frequency is not causing health problems and there’s a lot of people that were talking about if they lived, for instance one I just remember reading is, a husband and wife that lived in a house that had a meter on it and then they had a second home and she had a lot of health problems when they were in the house that had a meter and then when they would be at their house the other half of the year that didn’t have, so I think the thing that bothered me was all of the evidence of health problems was, they would only say to date we’re to seeing significant things you know and that doesn’t make me feel very comfortable because we all know that as they find out more on things that you know they find out dangerous but it takes sometimes years of studies to do. Another thing was you know, I know the World Health Organization had a, was one of the backers of saying oh no, it’s you know, these aren’t a problem but when I looked at their research, the research was from, the most recent was from 2002. It was 1998. 1996. I’m going that’s over 10 years ago and so I am very concerned and our house is, our house and our neighbors next door are by far the very closest to it so my husband and I really, with it being a conditional use I guess I thought I understood that that has to be the condition met is that there are absolutely no conditions where it does threaten people’s health so. Aanenson: Can I just make a clarification? I think they’re being read by radio frequencies today. That’s how they’re operating. So there is a beam going out. It’s going to a vehicle that’s driving around so there is. Julia Prohaska: Right. Aanenson: There is, so it’s a radio frequency. I think we, I want to make sure that that’s clear. Julia Prohaska: I’m sorry, can you state that again? Aanenson: Right now your meter is being read by radio frequency. Yeah. Julia Prohaska: I understand. Aanenson: Yeah, yeah. So what’s moving from a vehicle, what we’re doing is replacing what, there’s a short 10 year battery that’s not replaceable so they’re changing it to a different type. Instead of using a vehicle to do the cost effective and doing a stationary site that it can be read by. Julia Prohaska: And that bothers me even more because like in some states where they are not trying to pass laws, and I’m not sure that they haven’t already passed that you have the ability to opt out of having one of the readers on your house so you have a choice if, most of them they charge a fee if you’re going to opt out of it. With a tower, I don’t have a choice. I live there. I built my house there. I can’t say well I’m going to opt out of that tower so you know now I’ve got a tower which they talk about in the articles has a lot more potential for danger than just one meter on your house. So now I’ve got a meter on my house and a big tower so that’s what really bothers me and when they say they’re going to be reading them at midnight, well of course that’s when we’re all also home you know so I just think there must be other locations in the area. Whether it would be at the park across the lake. The Arboretum. The, we have a little park you know several parks down the street from us. Roundhouse Park. Freeman Park. Another one on Highway 7. Why not put it where people are not living so close to it? 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 5, 2013 Aller: It’s range. Thomas: It would still, yeah it’d be range but it would still come and come to the house to check, you know what I mean? To check the meters even if we moved it. You know what I mean? It would still be at the same level, right? I mean we’re putting these at about, so I’m assuming being that I, we do transmitters at my place of business so I understand about networks and what not. I assume we’re putting these about the same height around the city to be able to capitalize on the range we’re trying to create, because we’re basically creating a net which is allow it to feed out and read the signals and bring it back, right? Aanenson: Correct. Thomas: Okay. So if we moved it. Aller: …signal should be the same. Thomas: Should be the same, yeah. So if we moved it, it would still be the same. Aanenson: That’s my point. I’m saying it’d still be a radio frequency. I guess that was what I was trying to explain. Whether it’s be a car driving around or if it’s a stationary pole, it’s still coming to your house to read the meter so I think that’s the part we need to understand and communicate. Thomas: So I mean I understand what you’re saying and I understand the concern and I did a lot of research about it as well back and forth just to understand about, I mean I kind of basically understood the things because no one seems to have a good consensus as to whether it’s a health risk or not. They’ve been studying this since 1990 and no one has a consensus and we’re using it for many other things you know. Julia Prohaska: Right, and that’s the thing too. Thomas: Cell phones. Your microwaves, you know. All these other things that people are using daily you know what I mean? Julia Prohaska: Right, and so now we’re just adding another layer and that bothers me and I’m sorry but I don’t agree because in one of the articles by these scientists and doctors, you know world renown people they were, some of them worked at different cancer institutes. They were public health, all sorts of different things in the first, I think it’s the first link that my husband had on there, they do talk about how people that actually because in some states or in some areas, I don’t know maybe even in Minnesota, they actually have them inside their house and they said that is, you’re getting, you have more of a problem there than if they’re on the outside wall so our’s are on an outside wall but they compared having them inside your house to having again a tower close to you so if, already now I’ve got one on the outside wall of my house and then I have a tower across the street from me so you know, that up’s it for me. So I guess like I said, we really spent a lot of time reading it and there’s, it’s kind of like listening to a weather report. Tomorrow it may be this. Tomorrow we hope to this. It’s that and when you read the information from the doctors and scientists, they can never say 100% we know this is not going to be you know, they know that there’s levels and actually I had a sister that had a, so maybe I’m a little more sensitive to it. She had a tumor, a acousticneroma and the doctors said these are the kind that they feel like they’re going to be seeing from cell phone use and she’s lost a lot of hearing from it and if you look at some of what people are saying the health hazards to these, it is. It’s brain cancer. It’s you know ringing in your ears all the time and so to me if there’s some out there, why do I want to subject even the 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 5, 2013 tiniest possibility of adding another layer of all the technology you know to my house so I guess that’s you know I just feel like can’t they find a different place to put it where people are not, where it’s not that close because there’s something about being the closeness because they didn’t send it to people that live 1,000 feet away. They only sent it, I think the notices to people that are within. Aller: The notices in the statute only go to 500 feet. Fauske: Yeah, it has nothing to do with range. Aller: No matter what we’re doing, it only goes to 500 feet. Julia Prohaska: Okay. But I do know that when you read the article the closeness of being by the towers is something that they talk about so. Aller: Okay, thank you. Julia Prohaska: Thank you. I appreciate your time. Thank you very much. Aller: Okay. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against? Seeing no one stepping forward I’ll close the public hearing portion of the meeting and open for commissioner comments. Having any thoughts? Hokkanen: I have a question. Kate, is there any, can you explain the difference between the meter that’s in our house and this, the meter that’s going on the tower? Is there, they’re emitting the same? Thomas: I think you’re talking about two different things. One’s on the house. One’s the. Hokkanen: Okay, and one that’s in the car. Thomas: Yeah, I think you’re talking about the car versus the tower, correct? Hokkanen: Okay, that’s what I mean. The one that’s… Thomas: …in the car. Hokkanen: And the power, do we know that? Fauske: I don’t have those numbers at my fingertips. I apologize. Aller: I think what we’re looking at is the contract’s been approved. We’re running this system and the only question is, how do we, do we allow for a tower to go up, similar to. Aanenson: Right. Aller: It’s a matter of we’re doing it because they want to put this on it but the question before us, is whether or not the tower is appropriate and under these circumstances we’re doing it, they’ve looked at the locations. They’ve decided that this is the best location so with the understanding that the City Council will receive more additional information about the EMF’s so that they’re well versed in that, I don’t see any reason why we shouldn’t approve it and move it forward. Thomas: I agree with you. It’s being used within the city. It is currently everywhere. We’re looking at building, putting a tower and that’s what it is. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 5, 2013 Aller: Any further comments? Tennyson: The issue is confined to zoning for us and that’s our role so, there are other concerns and the City Council can, they should hear them. Thomas: They should yeah. Yep. Look at it and see if. Aller: And in their conversations and communications with the vendor, if these things come up, then I’m sure that they’ll take appropriate action. So with that, anyone like to make a motion? Tennyson: I’ll make a motion. Aller: Okay. Tennyson: If I can find it. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan to allow a 60 foot tower with a 10 foot antenna for a utility meter reader and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Thomas: Second. Aanenson: Can I get clarification on the motion? Did you want to add the additional information regarding EMF’s be provided at the City Council? Was that part of your? Thomas: Yeah, let’s put that in there. Just because I think it’d be good to have them have it in their packet. Tennyson: So adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, including recommendations and additional information regarding EMF’s to City Council. Thomas: I second that new motion. Aller: Okay. Any further discussion? Tennyson moved, Thomas seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan to allow a 60 foot tower with a 10 foot antenna for a utility meter reader and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, including that additional information regarding EMF’s be provided to the City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. th Aanenson: If I may, this item is scheduled to go to the City Council on February 25. Aller: So all those at home or present who wish to follow this item, the hearing on that will be before the City Council on February 25, 2013. You’re welcome to attend that proceeding and we would welcome you to do so. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: th Aller: Do I have someone to note the Minutes of January 15? 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 5, 2013 th Thomas: I would like to note the Minutes of January 15. However I have a change to them. Aller: Okay. Thomas: Because while I was here probably in spirit, on page 4 it shows 5 to 0 and unless we have a, you know I know you missed me. Hokkanen: It says you were absent. Thomas: It says I was absent but on page 4 it says 5 to 0 so unless. Aanenson: Thank you for catching that. Thomas: Yeah, no problem. So we can, I will so note the Minutes if we can just change page 4. Aller: As amended on page 4 to show that the vote was a motion carried unanimous with a vote of 4 to 0. Thomas: Yes, please. Hokkanen: That was a good catch. Thomas: Yes they’ll be the best Minutes ever. Commissioner Thomas noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 15, 2013 as amended to change the vote on page 4 to 4 to 0. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE. th Aanenson: On the 28 they approved, the Wynsong Final Plat was tabled. That’s going to our next meeting. Next Monday and then the Preserve at Rice Lake, they did concur with you on the conceptual PUD so now we’re moving forward trying to put that complex project together so you could be seeing that in a month or so. Aller: See it come back. Great. Anything else before the commission? Aanenson: Yes, I’ve got a couple other things, if that’s alright. Aller: Okay. th Aanenson: At your next meeting on February 19 we were planning on doing Planning Commission interviews so hopefully we do need a couple of people so I think if you are stepping down you have to find somebody to. Aller: Alright, and anyone out there watching who’s interested. Aanenson: Yes, thank you. Aller: In working with the city, please come forward. 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 5, 2013 th Aanenson: So then also on the 19 we do have the Crossroads retail building. That’s down by the Lyman/101 intersection. Just south of Kwik Trip. I did want to let you know that there is a neighborhood th meeting on that scheduled for next Wednesday, the 13. And that will be at the Chan Rec Center so anybody that’s interested in that one. That notice did go out to the neighbors and then, so you will see th that on the 19 again so that will be a site plan which we haven’t done for a while. Aller: Great. Alright. Anything else? Motion to adjourn? Thomas moved, Hokkanen seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 16