Loading...
1987 01 14 CHANAHSSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ~.January 14, 1987 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad, James Wildermuth and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart and Howard Noziska STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner. PUBLIC HEARING: R.L.S. Subdivision of 83,100 square feet into 2 lots on property zoned R-l, Single Family Residential, Frank Bed'CfOr, ""'APPllc~ This item was tabled indefinitely by applicant so the applicant could have a chance to talk to the neighbors about the proposed subdivision. PUBLIC HEARING: ... ~~minary Plat Request to Subdivide 13.5 Acres into 2 Lots on a Property . ~oned R-1A, Agricultural Residential, Sam Mancino, Applicant.-- Public Present Mr. and Mrs. Sam Mancino Jim Wilson Olsen: The property is located on Galpin Blvd. just south of Lake Lucy. The applicant is proposing to split a 13.5 acre parcel into two lots. One a 4 acre and one a 9.5 acre. The applicant owns the adjacent property to the west and the purpose of the split is for them to purchase this property to buffer them from further subdivision and they want to acquire road frontage. On the 4 acre lot, the lot lines will maintain all the required setbacks for the existing structures. Staff did not require them to have soil borings because the applicant stated that they were going to have Lot 2 combined with their property to the west so Staff let them go ahead without doing the soil borings on the condition that they will combine their legal description when they record the final plat at Carver County. Also, at the time when Staff first met with applicants, they wanted Lot 1 to be under 5 acres so it couldn't be resubdivided. At that time the proposed Ordinance was not yet approved by Council. As of today, the proposed Ordinance has been approved by Council. It just has to be published and therefore there would not be time for this lot to be further subdivided. Staff is therefore recommending that they shift the lot line ..-down to give Lot 1 the required 180 feet of st!eet frontage. The applicant as stated that they would prefer not to do thIS because they have gotten Planning Commission Meeting January 14, 1987 - Page 2 e as far as the Purchase Agreement and this would mean a lot more legal changes. Headla: They said they didn't want to do it? Olsen: Right, I guess they are ready to sign on the Purchase Agreement and that means another legal description. They also are concerned about having the driveway access. They want to keep it on their property. Even if they do meet 180 feet of street frontage, the driveway will still be on their property. The lot line would have to be shifted down to right about where the driveway begins. The applicant is here. Conrad: Jo Ann, can you go through the rationale one more time for me as far as 4 acre, 5 acre minimum lot size? Olsen: When they first came in, you could split lots into 2 1/2 acre parcels so they came in with a 4 acre parcel so that it can not be further split. A 5 acre parcel could be split into two parcels. Now, by the time that this plat would be finalized the parcel could not be subdivided. The new Ordinance will have been published. Conrad: Which is? Olsen: Which is the end of January. e Conrad: Which restricts it to what? Olsen: To one unit per 10 acres so it only has 4 acres, it already has an existing structure, it could not be subdivided. Conrad: So Staff's comment is let's make it? Olsen: Conforming. Conrad: Conforming while at the same time it will still not be subdividable protecting the interest of the applicant. Chairman Conrad opened the meeting to the public for comments. Sam Mancino: We've been living in the lot behind it for about 2 1/2 years now, almost 3. What with all the subdivision going on around us, we thought it would be a good idea to buffer ourselves from the subdivision adjacent to our land. At the time that our neighbor Jim Wilson decided to sell the property, he began inviting inquiries among a few people as to what is the best way to divide the land to sell it and the best input that he got was that maybe it would be a good idea to break it up into 2 1/2 acre parcels and sell it off and then sell his personal residence individually which wouldn't work very well for our needs so we offered him e Planning Commission Meeting January 14, 1987 - Page 3 e a very good price so we can protect it and keep it in the condition that it is in now which is rolling meadows and trees. We've been working on this I think since probably September, August maybe. A long time and we kind of arrived at these boundaries looking at all the various laws that were in place trying to come up with the best way to do this. We had no way of knowing when the final 10 acre minimums would be passed. That has been in the works for a long, long time so Jim, at his expense, went out and had a survey done and had Schoell and Madsen go and describe the property, stake it, measure it and everything else like that. We have written a Purchase Agreement, we've written legal descriptions, we've drafted the roadway easement, we've done topographical paperwork with this configuration. I believe it is 167 feet of road frontage which at the time when we presented the plans seemed, evidentally the Staff could be the lesser of two evils in an acceptable scenario but now that the 10 acre rule has been passed and I understand Staff's need to put it into conformance but it is kind of a hardship on us because it effectively keeps Jim from offering his house to market until we go through the process of replatting it, resurveying it, and then signing a new agreement, then getting approval to pass everything and then he can put his house on the market. That seems to be a bit of a hardship. e Jim Wilson: I live on this parcel right here and I concur with what Sam has said. I've gone to a good deal of expense and as Sam mentioned, we have been working on this since August. I feel when we first started I was informed that the 10 acre minimum was quite a ways off in the future so I did proceed with the idea of possibly selling off a couple of lots. The house has been on the market with 14 acres for several years without too much acceptance. Nobody really wants such a large parcel because it is basically a large house with a lot, about 7-8 acres of lawn so because of some financial difficulties, having just gone through a divorce, I am very interested in trying to have it considered the way it is drafted now for several reasons. One, as Sam mentioned, the additional cost to Schoell and Madsen to redefine the boundaries. I also feel that it might down value the purchase price that we have agreed to at the presen time. Particularly with the new set of guidelines that are in effect with the 10 acre minimum which I frankly think is a good move because of some of the things that I have seen happening around us but I feel it would be a hardship to me if it would not be considered as drafted. We're both in agreement. I know that you have your recommendation and we certainly want to conform with any recommendations that you have. We are requesting that a variance be granted to permit us to go ahead and subdivide the way it has been drafted. Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Headla: What was the rationale again for going 180? Olsen: The 180 is what is required for street frontage now for lots and the reason that they didn't first come in with that 180 was they wanted to have the lot line shifted up to the north to keep this under five acres. e Planning Commission Meeting January 14, 1987 - Page 4 - Headla: I thought it was 90 feet. Olsen: This is in the rural section, the unsewered lots in the rural section is 180. Conrad: The thought, Dave is for future subdivision purposes. If you get a larger lot, you know that sometime there may be some pressure to develop so if you've got 180 feet, then you can put a driveway in and possibly subdivide that. Siegel: I have a question concerning the access, the driveway currently goes through the new lot and I'm not sure if I'm clear on what could happen. Jim wilson: There currently is a recorded easement that actually is not very well defined in the present legal description. We have redefined that according to Schoell and Madsen which said, basically even though we think there is an easement, it isn't very well defined so we have gone to the expense, legal expense with the engineers of redefining the easement. Basically, the way it exists now, there is a common driveway. The 14 acres that I'm on, the Mancinos do drive up through my property and then back into their property and it basically, the way we have written it, is much more defined. It is more protectable from what we can gather. We have had two different attorneys work on the legal description as far as easement on ~ the driveway. The Mancino's interest is basically to prevent, as he ~ mentioned, further subdividing. Houses going up, I guess we're both a little concerned with some of the homes are very, very small homes. We have Prince a block away and then you have a house with 1,100 square feet a block away and that is nothing we can control. I know the Mancino's are interested in that and they did present a very good offer to buy this property and we're just requesting the possibility of a variance. Sam Mancino: Maybe I can address that easement a little bit more. The easement that we have drafted provides easement for all three properties. Through Jim's property and the back property. They are all addressed in the current easement so it is entered into the property. The appropriate filing documents and we will run...and there is also a maintenance agreement. Emmings: Has anyone inquired of the engineers what it would take to redraw this so that there would be the 180 feet? Sam Mancino: Not at this point. Mrs. Mancino: We just found out on Monday. Emmings: Because it would seem to me that they wouldn't have to come out and do anymore surveying but it would just be a matter of altering the drawing. I also don't know why that line had to be straight. I don't know why you couldn't have gotten 180 feet on the road frontage and still stay under 5 acres for that matter. Did anyone think of that possibility? e Planning Commission Meeting January 14, 1987 - Page 5 e Jim Wilson: We had some negotiations. Our original offer was to draw a straight line something like this and then straight out. I felt that to lose the tennis court and a three car garage here would down value the existing property. Emmings: I guess what I had in mind, why didn't they just back this line like this back out to 180 feet. Jim Wilson: It was originally. They are interested in preventing subdivision and that would have given me enough acreage to get one more site. Mrs. Mancino: We didn't know when you were going to pass the ordinance. Jim Wilson: We thought it was years off and it was requested for whatever buyer bought this property. Basically, it was on the strength of the offer that I was amenable to doing it frankly. Emm i ng s: I guess for me I can't see tha t there is any reason why we shouldn't enforce the 180 foot frontage as it is. Conrad: By granting the variance, Jo Ann what kind of precedent are we setting? - Olsen: Again, it has been done before but normally when there hasn't been the ability to meet the 180 feet. It is jumping up to 200 feet with the new Ordinance. Conrad: This is outside of the MUSA line. Olsen: Just outside. Jim Wilson: What type of timeframe would we be looking at if we did meet the boundary minimum? I know Mancino's are interested in closing. Is it possible to put this back on the docket for next meeting and when would that be. Olsen: You could still go ahead with approval to the City Council with the condition that you do adjust the lot line. Jim Wilson: You have the final, this is the preliminary, does it show the final plat? Emmings: In another packet that we have here tonight, they put in here the conditions that should exist for the issuance of a variance and it says that the hardship has to be more than a mere inconvenience and a hardship should be caused by a particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical conditions of the land and the condition or conditions upon which your request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other properties. Under all of those, we can't grant a variance. There is no reason to. e Planning Commission Meeting January 14, 1987 - Page 6 e Conrad: What do you think about when the City is changing their Ordinances? They are trying to meet one set of specs and the City changes it to another. You know the intent. The intent is very clear, so it is not subdividable. That ordinance is changing and therefore... Emm i ng s: I guess my response to tha tis tha t piece could ha ve been made smaller than 5 acres and they still could have kept 180 feet of frontage. I don't know why that wasn't done? Jim Wilson: My intent was to keep the tennis court. Emmings: No, like I say, who said this line had to be straight? didn't they start at 180 feet and just jog it back to this line, keeping this parcel under 5 acres. Even if you had to push this a little bit. Why still line over Jim Wilson: To have a crooked line? Emmings: It's crooked anyway. Mrs. Mancino: At the time we did not know about the 180 feet. e Jim Wilson: Basically we went on the advice of the engineers. They charge dearly and I guess I'm a little disturbed that they, because I know they do a lot of work for, basically we hired Schoell and Madsen on the advice of the City of Chanhassen. I'm a little disturbed that they didn't know that, frankly, for $3,800.00 for a picture. Emmings: Maybe they ought to draw you a new one for no additional charge but I don't want to be put in a position of defending them or anybody else. It's just that to me we don't have a situation here that allows us under our Ordinance to say that there is such a hardship that we should call it a variance. Conrad: Steve, when you were talking about putting a jog in there, so what does that accomplish? It meets the letter of the law but really it is a lousy lot configuration for 10 years down the pike or whenever the MUSA line moves so we still have sort of an animal situation and we don't have any guarantees that the lot will not be subdivided when the MUSA line goes up. When the MUSA line goes up, it is going to be a 15,000 square foot minimum lot size so, I don't know. I guess it's a question of whether we want to maintain the letter of the Ordinance or be a little bit sympathetic to the applicant. Anyone want to persuade the Planning Commission that we should get off dead center here and do something and vote and let it go to City Council to look at the case? Wildermuth: I feel that in view of the fact that in a matter of a few short years we are going to be looking at this area being rezoned anyway. Who knows, Mr. Mancino may change his mind or may sell the property to somebody else who may want to subdivide it. e Planning Commission Meeting January 14, 1987 - Page 7 e Conrad: The MUSA line is fixed until when? Olsen: The year 2000, unless we fill up. Conrad: The year 2000 unless there is a lot of pressue to justify it so we're talking 12 years down the pike, what we know right now, the MUSA line is going to stay where it is for 12 years. I just wanted to interject that. Does anyone want to persuade the Commission one way or other? Does anyone want to make a motion? Headla: I would like to see them get in 180 feet, to adjust the description without excessive cost to them. I think that is the way to go so they can meet the 90 foot requirement in the future. If they could do that, I would like to see a new description and let it go 180 feet and let it go to Council that way. I think we're sensitive to his requirement but we are looking at the future too. Wildermuth: I don't think 180 is going to change it too much. Olsen: That lot will never be subdivided until it is resubdivided either so the 180, again was for it to be split down the middle so 162 doesn't really.. . Conrad: How much do we have on the road now? e Olsen: I have 162 on the plat and I know you said 167? Sam Mancino: Whatever you say. Olsen: So the new Ordinance will restrict it from ever being resubdivided so Staff is not hard pressed for the 180. Conrad: The new Ordinance will what? Will restrict it from being subdivided at least for 13 years until the MUSA line goes in? Olsen: Yes. Wildermuth moved, Siegel seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the preliminary plat #86-28 as shown on the plat dated December 30, 1986 with the following conditions: 1. Lot 2, Block 1 must be combined with the legal description of the Mancino property upon filing of the final plat. 2. Any additional access onto Galpin Boulevard must receive a permit from Carver County. Siegel, Conrad and Wildermuth voted in favor and Emmings and Headla opposed and the motion carried. e Planning Commission Meeting January 14, 1987 - Page 8 e Emmings and Headla stated that their reason for opposing the motion was they didn't feel a hardship for a variance existed according to the standards outlined in the Ordinance. Conrad: Does that mean Staff's recommendation is accepting the current plat? Olsen: We state it as a recommendation. He didn't state that as a specific condition. Conrad: In this recommendation, you did not amend the line? Olsen: Right. Conrad: Okay, so the plat as you see is what the motion was made to accept and it was seconded. The motion passes by 3 to 2 and that is not a huge majority. You can see that there is some discussion and you never know where the City Council will go on this one. Jo Ann, when will this get to City Council? Olsen: February 9th. e PUBLIC HEARING: preliminary Plat Request to subdivide 15 acres into 5 single family lots on property zoned R-IA, Agricultural Residential, Alan Mjolsnes,-Xpplicant. -- Public Present: Mr. and Mrs. Alan Mjolsnes Al Klingelhutz Mr. and Mrs. Don Coban Mr. Dorsey Olsen: The property is located on Sunset Trail just west of CR 17 and off of Lyman Boulevard. When the applicant's first came and spoke with Staff, they were talking about splitting the land into five parcels. Staff said that we would recommend that the road be improved to a rural section. Right now Sunset Trail is just a gravel road. It is in poor condition with erosion and washout and it is currently being maintained as a public street. We went out with the street superintendent who commented that the City is always having to improve it and would recommend to pave it. Right now there are three existing homes using the street. The applicant did not want to go ahead with the subdivision if they would have to improve the site because of the cost to the neighbors. The Council reviewed the project and they decided that it would not have to improved to a rural e Planning Commission Meeting January 14, 1987 - Page 9 e section including paving. Therefore, the applicant has proceeded with the application to subdivide it into five single family lots. Each lot has 2 1/2 acres, 180 feet of street frontage, and meets all the lot area requirements. They also submitted soil borings and Roger Machmeier and Jim Anderson reviewed them and they found that each site has two treatment system sites but that each lot would have to have a mound system because of the mottled soils. As far as the mound system, the only problem or potential problem would be Lot 5 where it is a very steep area and mounds have to be located on areas with 12% or less and Staff and Mr. Machmeier felt that this would also probably be the potential home site so we just wanted to point it out for future development of this site that they will have to be careful in leaving enough room for the two mound sites and a home site. There is adequate room for two mound sites and a home site but it will just take some planning. As far as the street, again, we can not recommend that it be improved to a rural section but we are making some recommendations for slight improvements. Right now it is only a 50 foot right-of-way. Normal rural sections are 60 foot right-of-ways. What Staff is recommending is that an additional 5 feet be dedicated as right-of-way on the eastern lot lines. Also, we are recommending that there be a 60 foot turn around on the northerly part of the street for maintenance and safety vehicles. In addition to that, we are asking the road be widened to 30 feet throughout. Right now there are some areas where it is only 15 feet wide, 25 foot wide and in areas it is difficult if not impossible for two cars to pass. 24 feet would be for road and then an additional 3 feet on each side for grading and for drainage. The reason that the Council agreed that the street would not have to be improved, again was cost. They had estimated it to be about $38,000.00 to improve it to a rural section. To do these conditions that Staff is recommending now would cost under $10,000.00 and then also the City could probably do it themselves. Then it would only cost around $6,000.00 to maybe $8,000.00. This is still a lot of money but Staff feels that these conditions should be improved especially if there are going to be four additional homes on the street. As far as drainage, there is low area along Lot 2 and the rear of Lot 1 and the area drains to the west. Staff is requiring that they provide a drainage and erosion when the building plan for Lot 2 is submitted, and to po i nt ou t tha t the house and trea tment sites can not be set r igh tin the middle of the drainage area. Staff is recommending approval with the following conditions: e 1. That the road be increased to a 60 foot right-of-way. 2. That there be a 60 foot turn around and that the road be widened to a 30 foot wide surface. 3. That Lot 2 would have a grading and drainage plan. 4. That all homes would gain access off of Sunset Trail. Chairman Conrad opened up the meeting for public input. e Planning Commission Meeting January 14, 1987 - Page 10 e Alan Mjo1snes: Jo Ann reported it very well and I really donlt feel that I have anything additional above what she said. Don Coban: 11m on the east side of Sunset Trail up near the top. There is a 50 foot easement at the present time. Olsen: The normal rural section is a 60 foot right-of-way. Don Coban: As far as the cost of that, it seems like every year we at least call to get that road improved or at least maintained. This year they have been out there once with grading equipment. I donlt know what their budget is to work as far as the City incurring cost but they could do a lot to improve the road rather than... Mrs. Coban: I think what hels trying to say is that street is in bad shape there and with three more it would be terrible. Mr. Dorsey: 11m the property to the south. I just have a question. Are the setbacks on the property, as far as putting houses there and minimum standards, is that septic still possible? Olsen: Yes, there is adequate room to meet all the setbacks. The setbacks are 50 feet front and rear and 10 on the side. e Siegel moved, Emmings seconded to close public hearing. and motion carried. All voted in favor Emmings: It says there is a 50 foot easement and you want to have 5 to get to 60, I have a problem with that. Olsen: Welre taking 5 on each side. Emmings: Okay, thatls not what it says. Olsen: 11m saying 5 right now and then we would take the other 5 from the other side whenever this would be subdivided. Emmings: Okay, so you are only adding whatls on... Olsen: The 5 that we can get right now. Emmings: Fine, I understand. Headla: Can the Fire trucks get down that road? Olsen: They can get down there but it is not easy. According to the Fire Department, they can get anywhere. Getting out is another question. There is enough room for one-way traffic. They would have to maneuver up at the top to turn around, use some driveways. e Planning Commission Meeting January 14, 1987 - Page 11 e Headla: They don't have a real hard time servicing this area emergency? in an Olsen: No. Don Coban: I tell you what, they couldn't get up there in the springtime. Olsen: with the mud? Don Coban: Yes. That road in the spring is so bad. I'm serious about the maintaining of the road. In the spring we have a hard time getting just a light vehicle. I doubt you could get a fire truck. Wildermuth: Are you in favor of upgrading the road then or just maintaining what's currently there? Don Coban: There is objections to it because of the cost of upgrading the road. This would go against the property owners. Maybe if the city could take some of the maintenance for the upgrading of the road that they should apply that. Olsen: Again, just speaking with our street superintendant, I guess you would know better than I if they have been out there but I guess when they do upgrade it, they put more gravel on it and it just washes right out and that's why they are saying to pave it but that's another issue. e Al Klingelhutz: It's been a public road for many years and for it to be in that condition for a period of years, I think itis up to the City to make improvements or at least maintain it... Siegel: These new lots are going to require the mound system? Olsen: That's from the tests that were provided. If somebody went out there and tested allover, they might be able to find soils suitable for the trench system. That's just from the tests provided. Wildermuth: They still have to go through that when they plan to build. Olsen: Right. They have to come in with specifics. Siegel: That's why it's not a condition on the approval. Olsen: A condition that they have mound systems? Siegel: On the approval. Staff recommendation doesn't mention anything about the lots requiring mound systems. Olsen: All we're looking at is that there are two sites there and from the data that we have, there are two sites. Specifically, where they are, that's up for when the building permit is submitted. e Planning Commission Meeting January 14, 1987 - Page 12 ~egel: But the owners realize that it be mound systems. the recommendation from the experts was Olsen: We'll look at that again when L't:h.~ building oermit COE1es th~ough and then w-e will be catching that. Headla: Has the applicant seen your recommendations? Olsen: Yes. Headla: Does he have any comments? Olsen: I haven't heard any. Emmings moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #86-22 as shown on preliminary plat dated December 17, 1986 with the following conditions: 1. All lots must be serviced by Sunset Trail. 2. Dedication of a five (5) foot street drainage and utility easement along the easterly property line of the plat to expand the right- of-way width to 60 feet. e 3. Approval of a final grading and drainage plan for Lot 2 at time of building permit application. 4. Locate the building and treatment systems on Lot 2 out of the drainage way. 5. Widening to 30 feet those portions of Sunset Trail which are less than 30 feet in width and improvement of the turn around at the north end of Sunset Trail to the 60 foot radius. 6. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated and labeled as necessary along lot lines. All voted in favor and motion carried. Conrad: This will go to Council on February 9th. Preliminary Plat Request to Subdivide 105 acres into 37 Single Family Lots on property zoned R-IA, Agricultural R~dential~n-and Dave ~l~ Applicant. --- --- ---- This item has been tabled indefinitely. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit request to install a transmission tower for KSMM ~ on property zoned R-1A, Agricultural Residential anCl1OCa~ cmi- ~ay 212, Dan Peters, Applicant. Planning Commission Meeting January 14, 1987 - Page 13 '-sen: The site is located on Highway 212 just south of the Assumption Seminary. The applicant is proposing a Conditional Use Permit to put up another transmission tower for the KSMM radio station. There currently is an existing tower at the site which was put up around in the early 1960's. The proposed tower is approximately 123 feet high. They are designed so they do not fall straight over. They twist and collapse instead. There are guide wires that hold it up and the tower, if it did fall straight over, it would fall into the right-of- way of TH 212 and there are also some telephone wires right along here that it could possibly conflict with. Staff contacted MnDot and contacted Northwestern Bell and neither had any objections to where the tower was going to be located. The proposed Ordinance sets conditions for transmission towers that they would have to be located the same distance as their height away from the property lines if they were not collapsable. Again, the applicant has stated that, and there is a letter from the engineer that confirms that they do twist and collapse and will not fall straight over. Conrad: The proposed Ordinance says? Olsen: That they must either be collapsable or they have to be ~et back equal distance from the property line. Staff was a little hesitant with this one because it is not set back equal distance from the northerly property line. It would need about 25 more feet to be set back. Our ~commendation on the Report was for it to l::;>e moved south so ~at it would be an equal distance from the northerly property lIne. The applicant has stated that the Fccestab1~?heqjaspecific location that it has to be and he can explain that further but if we moved it, it wouldn't meet the requirements. Also, we did get confirmation from TH 212 and from Northwestern Bell that they did not have any objections if it did fall straight over. Another subject with this is that the property is owned by Mr. Schumacher who owns the Assumption Seminary and KSMM Radio is leasing the property from Mr. Schumacher. We were notified by Mr. Schumacher, the first times he talked with us he had objections to this because they needed a new lease and so until that new lease was signed and agreed upon, he objected to another tower being located on the site. As of today, the lease has been written. It hasn't been formally signed yet though so Staff is going ahead with recommending approval but we are going to set the condition that by the time this gets to City Council, the lease must be signed and agreed upon and we must have a copy of that to guarantee that the owner of the property does approve of the tower being established there. Emmings: What did she just say? Olsen: We want it confirmed. Right now, we have had telephone conversations with Mr. Schumacher who said that it is okay but the lease hasn't been signed or finalized. .mmings: And why do we care? Planning Commission Meeting January 14, 1987 - Page 14 ~sen: When we last talked to Mr. Schumacher, he wants that in writing. He wants that agreed upon before he gives his 100% okay to the other tower. It is a private matter but he is the owner of the property and officially he has to sign the application giving his approval and he hasn't done that Technically, we cannot go ahead and grant it if the owner is not in agreement.Just to make sure that everything is okay, we're going to make a condition that the lease be signed. Conrad: Just for me to echo, the new ordinance allows a tower to be placed closer to a property line than the height of the tower if it is collapsable? Olsen: Yes. Dan Peters: We're making application to install this. The reason we're installing the second tower is that, radio stations are closely regulated by the Federal Government, the Communication Commission, and periodically the government asks the different radio stations to retune their antenna pattern to protect some of the other stations that share the same frequency and their is a slight overlap of coverages with a station in Iowa. I believe it is Conrad, Iowa, there is a slight overlap of the signal. A very minute signal on the Minnesota-Iowa border. No one can hear either of the stations there but technically there exists an overlap of about 4 miles so the reason f or the second tower at th i s time is to help direct the Aittern 4 miles or so further to the north from the Minnesota border and ~at's really the reason to have to put the tower in at this time. As she said, this tower is collapsable. It has two sets of guide wires on it and for a tower to tip over, it would have to bean unguided tower or it would have to be a major act of God, as the engineer has written, for that tower to tip that certain direction it would have to be a tornado that came in at an exact angle in order to push it that way. Otherwise, as you can see, if it goes just at a slight angle differently, it will miss the wire. I have found only one other tower in the Twin Cities that has collapsed in the last 10 years and that was one of the large Shoreview towers which are 1,500 feet tall and just to confirm the fact that they do collapse, it was the Channel 9 tower in Shoreview. One of their antennas fell off the top of the tower, it broke one of the guide wires, the top 200 foot section of the tower flipped down upon itself and then it all crashed in a bundle, all within 200 feet of the base or something like that and of course, that was a 1,500 feet tall tower so it seems like, I'm not an expert, I'm not an engineer, I want you to know that but I just wanted to verify those numbers for myself too. The second tower is considerably smaller than the other one. The previous one is 196 feet tall, this is 123 feet tall and we're working with some real time restraints because the federal government gives us just so long to clean up our pattern so that's why we're moving along and expediting it. Where the present owner comes into view is that because of a conditional use permit, he must sign his permission to do the changes. If it was just a standard building permit which we had hoped to originally do because it would be, we felt a conforming use because it was ~andfathered in under the Ordinance, it wouldn't have needed his ..,gnature. At this time, he is just wanting a raise in rent. We purchased Planning Commission Meeting January 14, 1987 - Page 15 _he station on Monday of this week so we became aware of all these things on Monday at the closing and it was impossible to get a lease signed by Wednesday but the man has agreed, along with us to all the terms. Basically he just wants more money so it is a catch 22 for us. I appreciate your help. Headla moved, Siegel seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Headla: Why can't you move it so that it is equal distance from the lot line? Dan Peters: At first I thought, along with the City, we could do that but in checking back with the Federal Communications Commission, we have to be within .01 percent of this spot. We can't be off more than 6 inches any direction and I found out that in order to find the exact spot, they actually shoot a line up the north star, it's done at night by a registered surveyer. It is very critical because, once again, if it's off a little bit then you will miss this particular pattern so the tower can't move any direction more than 6 inches. I'm learning all kinds of things in our brief 48 hours of ownership. Wildermuth: What's the alternative? Supposedly you would have to move both towers. 4Itn Peters: Our problem is we don't have enough room on the back side and of course, the one tower is already set. This is an AM radio tower. It is different than an FM. with an FM, the antenna sits on the top of the tower. with an AM radio station, the tower is the antenna and so in the ground at the base of the present tower, every 3 degrees, that would be 120 wires, No. 10 soft drawn copper wires in the ground buried at a distance of 18 inches around the present tower right now so if we were to move the tower, those would all have to be 1 i fted up, moved back and then set back down again but then we have the same problem on the back side as far as the amount of spacing. Conrad: Do you own any other radio stations? Dan Peters: No we don't and I might just mentioned one other thing. The towers are inspected annually. It is required for insurance purposes. They are inspected by a certified tower engineer to make sure that they are not in danger of collapsing, that there is no danger of any of the guide wires pulling out. The FAA, the Federal Aviation Administration considers this a very minor tower. It is under 200 feet so they are not concerned at all about it as far as restricting airport traffic because planes have to be a minimum of 500 feet off the ground but they are inspected annually and signed off annually by an inspector for insurance purposes too. Conrad: off for efered Steve, from a liability standpoint, do we care? We could hold it an opinion I suppose but the City Attorney apparently has already an opinion on our new Ordinance which basically says that Planning Commission Meeting January 14, 1987 - Page 16 ~ollapsable towers are permitted and designed to not extend the full length of the tower. Emmings: And the Highway Department isn't concerned about it falling on the road. Olsen: It won't fall on the road. It will just be in the right-of-way but it won't hit the pavement, the bituminous surface. The tower could hit the telephone wires but Northwestern Bell < said they would just put up' some new ones. Emmings: I'm glad I don't have united Telephone. Olsen: It's Northwest. Emmings: It is? It says United down here. Olsen: I thought it was United. Emmings: United Telephone System has telephone lines on the south side of Th 212. Olsen: Right and who I talked to they said, yes those are our lines and I will talk to our engineers and they just called me back on Monday and they tlrid, they're not our lines. Emmings: No wonder they don't care. Olsen: No, but then I contacted the other company and they claim that they are theirs but they don't care. I don't even believe that they are telephone. They said they were just .power lines for their telephone station. Headla: I think it is pretty well documented that these towers do collapse as they are designed. Emmings: In a heap. Wildermuth: The big question I have is who has liability here? Does the City have liability if they approve almost an exception to the Ordinance because the setback is not 123 feet. I really wonder if the City is? Conrad: Maybe somebody might want to word in it that a legal opinion be developed in time before it gets to City Council. Emmings: Since it can get off-site if it tips over on a straight line? I think that's good. Steve Peters: The other thing, I don't know how this is geographically how .ou lay it out but where TH 212 goes past there, and the next time you ..ive by, you will note that it is a long ways down, maybe like a 10 foot Planning Commission Meeting January 14, 1987 - Page 17 'rop down in there so the antenna would actually have to work it's way up the hill too before it could get into the right-of-way and onto the road at all because, I don't know the exact footage but it's a good amount when you're walking down there in the snow and you have to be very careful that you aren't going to slip and slide down to the shack there and down to the actual pond level or swamp level. Emmings: Have you ever seen those movies they have after tornadoes where they show a piece of straw driven through a telephone pole? The fact that it's down a 10 foot slope doesn't really impress me. Emmings move, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit #86-5 to install a 123 foot transmission tower as shown on the site plan dated January 2, 1987 with the following conditions: 1. The applicant must receive approval from the FAA and FCC. 2. That the lease be signed and submitted to the City prior to C~ty Council approval. It is recommended that there be a legal opinion since this tower can get off-site by tipping directly over, as to what any City liability might be. _1 voted in favor and motion carried. Emmings: What kind of liability insurance are you going to carryon the facility yourself? Dan Peters: I believe our policy, I'm trying to remember the limits of liability. I think it's $1,000,000.00 blanket coverage on the policy. The letter I also submitted from Northern States Power service said that the way they would develop the anchors or establish the anchors is that two of them would have to break loose in order for it to fall north. They have to simultaneously break in order for it to fall so it can be designed so that would be the most least likely angle for it to fall. Conrad: This, I imagine would get to City Council February 9th. Dan Peters: You had earlier told me the 26th. Did that create a problem? Olsen: The 26th will be a public hearing for the downtown redevelopment. We may be able to work something out. Steve Peters: We just think it's an act of God that we haven't had any snow. We're really hoping to get it on the 26th so if there is any chance at all, we would really appreciate it. Emmings: Have you done your site preparation work? e Planning Commission Meeting January 14, 1987 - Page 18 ~teve Peters: We have sighted in the North Star. That is all the work that has been done on the property is the surveyer went out and sighted the North Star. We didn't want to dig anything until we got through all the necessary channels with the Planning Commission. Olsen: We have allowed them to put in the concrete footings but they haven't done it yet. We gave them permission to go ahead with it subject to that they might have to move it acccording to whatever Commission and Council say. Dan Peters: We knew you would make a recommendation one way or the other to the City Council and knowing that these things needed to be discussed further, we wanted to add input from you although we've just been kind of holding like this so if the snow does come, we could go in fairly fast. Wildermuth: What is the problem with moving the tower 180 degrees to the other side of the present tower? Dan Peters: The back side? wildermuth: To the back side. Dan Peters: We did approach the owner of the site that would be directly south of us, we would have to lease more land and it would really mess up. ~ is trying to sell the rest of the site he says. I don't know the ~story, being we've only been involved in ownership of the station for such a short time but he doesn't want to mess up the site. I suggested that we buy a chunk from him or lease it all the way back to the back part of the property but he would then cut his property in half and he doesn't want to do that. He said this doesn't really bother him for the time being if he could just keep it on a 4 acre parcel. I think he says he has 100 acres on that side of the road and he would end up with a parcel of about 20 and a parcel of about 80 if he gave us the land. Wildermuth: It looks like you would only be looking at 15-20 feet on the back side? Dan Peters: Once again, there are six owners of the Assumption Seminary and whatever proposals have been brought to these men, there has not been complete agreement amongst themselves so at this point, the lesser of the two evils is to not touch anything whatsoever is kind of the general partners feelings. There had been a proposal to sell the whole parcel a while ago but one of the partners objected so they have been sort of at a standstill ever since then. We would love to buy it. We would really like that opportunity or changing the parcel some too. That would be fine with us. Steve Peters: Especially when he is raising the rent fairly substantially for swamp land. ~mings: And you've only got it for how long? Planning Commission Meeting January 14, 1987 - Page 19 'm Peters: We actually have it tied up until the year 2027. Emmings: What kind of programming do you have on your radio station? Dan Peters: Country Western, a lot of news and information, a lot of local sports, it's just a real community oriented radio station. Opportunity for a lot of local businesses to advertise at very economical prices. $5.00- $6.00 for an advertisement. MINUTES Wildermuth moved, Emmings seconded to approve the Minutes as amended for the Planning Commission meeting dated December 10, 1986. All voted in favor and motion carried. ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING: a. Election of Chairman: Ladd Conrad was unanimously elected as Chairman of the Planning Commission. b. Election of Vice-Chairman: Steven Emmings was unanimously elected as Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission. c. Discussion of By-Laws: The By-Laws for the Planning Commission were unanimously approved as presented by Staff. e d. 1987 Goals: 1. To increase communication between the Planning Commission and the public such as encouraging attendance by reporters from local newspaper publications and regular articles in the local newspapers. 2. To continue working on review of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The Planning Commission would like to solicit comments from the City Council to get their opinions on what they feel the goals for the Planning Commission should be. 4. Continue to review amendments to the Ordinance when the Planning Commission deems necessary. e. Miscellaneous: 1. Robert Siegel was appointed as the Planning Commission's liason for the the HRA. 2. David Headla was appointed as the Planning Commission's representative to the Community Center Task Force. e Planning Commission Meeting January 14, 1987 - Page 20 ~egel moved, Emmings seconded to adjourn the meeting. and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 Submitted by Barbara Dacy City planner Prepared by Nann Opheim e e All voted in favor p.m. .