PC Minutes 02-05-2013Chanhassen 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