1j. Minutes (II mamas= CITY =um
REGULAR MEEITtE
• APRIL 9, 1990
Mayor C oriel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESS: Mayor (trial, Councilmen Boyt, Councilmen Workmen,
Councilwomen Dimler and Councilman Johnson
STAFF Pte: Don Ashworth, Elliott Knetsch, Gary Warren, Paul Krauss, Todd
Gerhardt, Jo Ann Olsen, and Jim Chaffee
APPROVAL CF tel: Councilmen Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
approve the agenda as amended: Mayor C2mdel added an item (k) to the Consent
Agenda setting the public hearing date for Modification No. 10 to the
Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan and under Council
Presentations Mayor Chmiel wanted to read letters from the Chaska Boy's
Basketball team and the Governor's office and Councilwoman Dimler wanted to
discuss the HRA. All voted in favor of the agenda as amended and the motion
carried.
PRESENTATION OF RECYCLING PRIZE: Mayor Chmiel presented a check to Michele Hass
' for the Recycling Prize.
cammocrimmmo Councilwomen Dimler moved, Councilmen Johnson seconded to
approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
c. Approve Plans and Specifications and Development Contract for Trappers Pass
at Near Mountain 4th Addition.
e. Approve Consultant Selection for Storm Water Drainage Utility.
g. Approval of Accounts.
' h. City Council Minutes dated March 26, 1990 as amended on page 24 by
Councilman Workman to change the word "theft" to "death".
Planning Commission Minutes dated March 21, 1990
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated March 27, 1990
i. Approval of One Day Liquor License, Chanhassen Rotary, May 5, 1990
j. Resolution #90-40: Approval of Year End Closings and Transfers.
k. Resolution #90-41: Set Public Hearing Date for Modification No. 10 to the
' Redevelopment Plan and Tax Increment Financing Plan.
All voted in favor and the motion -carried.
CONSENT MIMEO
A. WETLAND ALTS ATIC1f miner FOR FILLING AND ALTFRATICFI CUSS A MID B
WETLANDS LOOM:DM Lim DRIVE EAST, &smi OF EM MY 5 AND EAST CF DAR=
' AVENUE, CITY CF CHANHASSEN.
1
I
,t
.' City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
.1
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, before I get into 1(a) and (b) here, I'm
I wondering if there's anyone in the audience, if there's people here that wants
to look an this. Otherwise we can move it to just before Council Presentations
rather than waste all these people's time an it. Same thing with (b) and (d)
Iprobably. Find out if there's anybody here.
Councilman Workman: I just have a quick point with (b).
ICouncilwoman Dimler: What is your concern who's here? Who's here that. . .
Councilman Johnson: If there's nobody here interested in item 1(a), I'd prefer
II to talk about it later in the agenda and get to what these people are here to
hear about.
I Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone here interested in item 1(a) which is wetland
alteration permit for filling and alteration of Class A and B wetlands located
on Lake Drive East south of TH 5 and east of Dakota Avenue? Seeing none, we can
II put that on to the balance of the agenda Jay.
Councilman Johnson: Put that just before Council presentations.
I Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Ursula?
I
B. ROBERTS AD'10EATIC PRODUCTS, INC. LOCATED OFF OF LAKE DRIVE JUST EAST OF
COUNTY ROAD 17. I
Councilwoman Dimler: I suppose in the same regard we can move item 1(b) to just
before my Council presentation.
IMayor Chmiel: Okay, is there anyone here? There's someone here. Okay, would
you like to discuss that?
1 Couzci l woman Diml er: I guess I will. My concerns about this one were that I
guess this is an BRA project. Is that correct? ...had indicated that it was.
IMayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: And I guess I wanted to tie this into mpg questions about
I the HRA which I'll be discussing later. I see this an a concert agenda and I
know nothing about it. Again, I want to make my point that we don't know the
applicant but I hope you're here to present this, but I saw it in the Minutes
1 that Jay had a concern about the environmental issue which I didn't find
addressed in here. Therefore I wanted to pull it and find out what's going on.
Also, I guess if this is an BRA project, we're giving then something so I'd like
to know what we're getting in return. I'm not real pleased with the minimal
I siding and I think it should conform to the neighborhood and to the standards of
Empak and the Church of the Living Christ.
I Don Ashworth: The project does qualify. As it is within the tax increment
district, the project does qualify for a special assessment rate. They are _ ]
II 2
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990 '
eligible to have their sewer, water, street reduced as simply an incentive
program through the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The preamble to the
HRA's writedown program does state that the project must meet the overall intent
and desire of the City. More specifically it goes on to state the project must II
be approved and agreed to be a favorable project by the City Council. I would
like to have Elliott address this issue if I = misstating it in any way but as
I see it, the City Council does have the ability to state that they would wish
to see the standards increased as a result of any HRA funding into the project. il
You're treading into an area that's a little tougher. In other Words,
architectural review powers generally are those that, they can became very I
subjective. However, for you to turn around and state to the Planning Director
that you would like to have him work with this particular applicant and
potentially bring the exterior materials up to a level similar to adjacent II property, the office area similar to adjacent properties, I think that would be
within the Council's purview to do that.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess one of my questions is, has this project been
heard by the HRA?
Don Ashworth: The HRA, as it is solely a writedown of the public improvements, II
that typically is not taken back to them until has gone through the review
process of the Planning Commission and City Council so no, it has not been
presented to them. Although the applicant is aware of the general provision
that states that a project that is accepted by the City is eligible for those
special assessments. - -
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I guess I'm wondering about procedure here and
here's the reason why. I was told that we're responsible for the BRA projects II
and then when the public canes back and they say I don't like the looks of that
building, they look at us. I'm saying that if this is on the consent agenda and ,
no pulls it, we've never met the applicant. We've never seen the plans and I'm
just real leery about approving something and being held responsible for it when
we don't even see the plans and there's no BRA Minutes to refer back to. Can we
somehow reverse that procedure so the BRA listens to it_first? : - I
Councilman Boyt: Well it went to the Planning Commission.
Councilwoman Dimler: Right.
Councilman Boyt: They did review it. i
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, that's right.
Councilman Johnson: The BRA has no real reason to review this one. '
Councilwoman Dimler: The only input that I have is from the Planning Commission
and they've had a public hearing I assume. But I never get to see the plans or, II
you know what I'm saying?
Councilman Hoyt: Well I happen to agree with you.
3
1
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
' Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you.
Councilman Boyt: For what it's worth. I guess I'm surprised to see this on the
Consent Agenda and I think it's worth a good bit of discussion if it's going to
get approved or not approved.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'd at least like to net the applicant and see the plan.
r
Don Ashworth: I apologize for having it on the consent agenda. As it had been
' approved by the Planning Commission it appeared as though that it was, well it
is in order in terms of meeting all of your ordinances. At issue is really a
question drawn by the Planning Director in terms of his review of the project in
stating that potentially it could be looked at in terms of improving the outside
' facia or landscaping, etc. associated with the project itself. The applicants
are here. Potentially you might want to hear what they have to say regarding
the project.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I guess my concern is that if the public reacts to how the
building looks and that's all they'll react to, then we should have some say
' into it and I hate to see that it's going to be minimal standards rather than,
and it's architecturally functional, that's great but we are concerned about
looks.
' Councilman Johnson: We pass the standards in our ordinance. Themininun
standards. We can't say these are our minimum standards but you've got to meet
something higher. Whatever higher becomes minimum.
' Councilwoman Dimler: That's correct except cept if the standard has been set by
Eipak and the Church.
' Councilman Johnson: We have standards within our ordinance and the subdivision
has it's own standards also.
' Councilwoman Dimler: But I guess my point is, if we're going to give them
something, we can ask for something in return. Isn't that the purpose of. . .
Councilman Boyt: Yes. That's what we've talked about before.
Mayor Cmiel: I guess I had one concern, being that you pulled it too. One
' concern. Has the Church been notified as to the proposal? Okay.
Don Ashworth: I believe the Church did sign off on the plat. I mean there's
been more than notice. They're been joint...
' Paul Krauss: The Church is a party to the plat.
' Councilman Johnson: Yeah, because they're doing some exchange of church
property right? So they would be.
Councilwoman Dimler: So would they like to address this since they're here?
4
r
r
II-
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
11.
Mayor Cbmiel: Maybe what we could do is have Mr. Worthington or the applicant
indicate or show your proposal as to what you're proposing for that particular II
business. Maybe if you could just wind it up in maybe a 10 minute period if you
could.
Bob Worthington: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I'm Bob Worthington from II
Opus Corporation. We're going to be the contractors for the Roberts Automated
company's office/manufacturing facility which is before you this evening for
approval. We of course apologize for having a matter that we look upon as being II
of sane importance to the community kind of placed an a consent agenda. Also,
because I guess it leaves us in a situation where we're not fully prepared to
cane to make a formal presentation to you this evening. Usually when an item is 1
an a consent agenda, you cane. You show up to answer questions and then you
hopefully get the kind of response that you're looking for and withdraw. So
this evening I'm going to kind of have to talk a little bit from memory in terms
of what it is that is being presented here. First of all in terms of historical
context, the site that we're discussing is next to Fhpak and is next to the
Church property that was referred to earlier. It's been platted for quite sane
time. It's a part of our than Lakes Business Park and as you know, the entire 1
park is eligible for the incentives that this particular project is requesting.
The idea of trade-off is an interesting concept; When I think the standards
first were employed back when Mr. Ed Dunn was the developer for the park before II
we became involved, the incentives were primarily aimed at trying to induce
development to occur within the park. -So they were kind of economic in nature
as opposed to aesthetic, you know we want big trees and we want beautiful
landscaping and we want aesthetically pleasing buildings.- At that time the City
was very interested in having the presence in terms of the industrial
marketplace within this park. They weren't-necessarily getting it with the
normal marketing tools so they in part went to this incentive program which of
course attracted American Linen and then-Opus Corporation into the community
and I guess everything else is history. This is one of the last parcels within
the park that is yet to be developed. That says something in terms of the
design standards that have been used to date in-terms of .evaluating projects
that have been introduced into the park. Fran a design point of view, the
building will have a feel similar to our than Lakes Business-Park which is the
photograph which I'm passing around to you at this particular point in time.
The exterior materials that we're going to be using on this office/manufacturing
building which will be 48,000 square feet and complies in every regard to the
zoning requirements in terms of coverage setback-and-on site parking so we don't
II to really get into a discussion-of that;- -The basic difference between this
building and the than Lakes Business Park that I!m-showing-to you is that the
than Lakes Business Park was an office-showroom-building which means that 80% of
the space within that building was going-to be-for office-use and the other 11 would be for manufacturing and industrial tee: - -So the-character of the building
is going to be a little bit different-in terms of-you-have more windows in this
building than -you will have on the -warehouse-distribution portion of the I
Robert's Automated Products building. - Also, -we're going to be using a material
that is known as Fab-Con which we've used at -other times within the park and
have had great success with it and -4p, to-this point had-no objection in terns of 1
the City feeling that this was not a-quality exterior material that warranted to
be used within the park. I don't want to go into the merits of Fab-Con but Fab-
5
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
' Can has been used in a variety of locations in a variety of projects. . .TraQmel-
Crow building which is an award winning building but the only thing that I want
to show you is that the material that's going to be used on the Trammel-Crow
building is the same material that's going to be used relative to the Robert's
' Automated Products Building and as such we don't feel that this is going to be
an inferior material. In terms of minimal standards as it relates to
landscaping, we're open. If indeed you feel that the landscaping should be
enhanced, we're open to discuss that so we can upgrade those. If there is sane
introduction of material or sane emphasis that you'd want us to place an the
exterior of this building that the building does not show at this time, we're
open to discuss that with the staff. But in terns of standards, Councilman
Johnson I think was correct up to this point. There are no design standards
that the City has used for the purpose of evaluating the architectural element
within a building. As such it's left pretty much to the discretion of the the
architect and client to make decisions, which we have done here in terns of the
types of facilities that are going to be constructed within a park. So we think
we have been using those standards very well. We're going to be designing a
' building which is going to be comparable to other buildings which are in this
vicinity of the park and don't feel that we want to make any excuses or make any
apologies for what it is that we're introducing here. But the main thing I want
to talk about, beyond the aesthetics of the building, is this is a time of
celebration because we're bringing yet a new business into the City of
Chanhassen. Robert's family is here. I don't think that I'll take any more
time because I think you'd want to hear their story as to what they are and why
they selected Chanhassen for their business.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'd like to make a comment at this point. It
' isn't necessary for me. I don't oppose your project. I think what I'm saying
here is that we have a procedural thing at the City level here that we need to
take care of. I like the project but I would like to also know if Councilman
Johnson's concerns about the hazardous waste, he asked for some information. Has
that been addressed?
Robert Worthington: Walter Roberts, who's the President of the company will
' tell you a little bit about the company and then directly respond to Mr.
Johnson's question.
' Walter Roberts: I won't talk nearly as long. I just want to tell you a little
bit about our company because we think you should know something more about it.
We're a custom producer of machined precision metal parts. We make fram 500
pieces of an item up to several million to a customer's specs. Most of our
' business is done statewide. We hope with this expansion to be able to go
nationwide. Have more people and more equipment. The company was founded in
1947 by my father. I now have 4 of my kids active in the business. A fifth
' who's just out of college looking for a job. They all have to go work for
someone else first before they came with me. We have 83 employees. Our average
wage is just over $12.00 an hour plus benefits and shift differentials. We do
' work 4-10 hour days. Two shifts. We're non-union. We're moving fram Edina.
Our place was built there, our shop there was built in 1966 by then the
Roundhorse Corporation which has since then changed their name to Opus. They
added on in 1972 and 1977 and we're very proud of our Edina facility. I think
' 6
1
1
i.
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
11-
I would just say as I was sitting there and you were talking about trees and
things. We have a 2 acre lot with 26,000 feet on it. Brick face all the way
around and it's a beautiful building. We have over 40 trees over 3 inches is
diameter on the property and that was all what we wanted to put on. So we're
very proud of it. Edina has strict codes just as you people do and I really
appreciate that because when we're putting this much money into a facility, I
like to know that it's going to be worth something a little more than that 20-30
years down the road and will be here at least that long. So I just wanted to
make those comments and as I say, we do look forward to coming into Chan.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can I just ask you, does your Edina facility have a
Fab-Con exterior? - - - -
Walter Roberts: No, it's all a brick face. This was built 26 years ago and at II
that time that was the ordinance.
Councilwoman Dimler: Would you have an objection to upgrading to meet the
neighborhood there?
Walter Roberts: That's a big expense item to go to brick face because you put
up a block first and then you put up the brick face and it's a big item. I've
seen some very beautiful, we feel that we're a job shop and we have to be a
little careful about just what kind of a face we're putting out to our
custamers. We can't look like we're rolling in it and yet we want to put out a
quality image and that's what I think we're doing.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's our concern.
Walter Roberts: We want a quality looking building. As I say, we're
machinists. That's our business and we want it to look like that's what we're
doing I guess. '
Councilwoman binder: I hope you understand my concern. I don't want the public
reacting and blaming the Council and we've never even met you. We had no input
so that's the reason I pulled it.
Councilman Workmen: My biggest concern was that I didn't have this. See kind
of carbon copies an a small scale like this kind of makes you nervous and that
was the first impression I had. .
Councilman Johnson: We had them with our Planning Commission packets when they
sent us the Planning Commission packet. -
Councilwaman Dimler: But same of us couldn't make it to that meeting.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah I know and I didn't save my drawings.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you-very mach. '
Councilman Johnson: Did you give the answer to the.. .
7
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
1' Mayor Clmmiel: Oh, Jay has one specific question.
' Councilman Johnson: What chemicals you used and that kind of stuff.
Walter Roberts: I brought my engineer along. If I could just quickly. We have
' two that are considered hazardous. Two solvents. One a methylene chloride and
the other a solder solvent. We have on site separate stills for each item and
we distill both of them into the components that are in then and I guess I'll
Ilet my engineer go through it for you.
Ron Oberg: I'm Ron Oberg. I'm the engineer for Roberts Automatic and I've been
the engineer since 1973. When I came to work there, Roberts Automatic was
' generating about 2,500 gallons a year of trichlorethylene waste. We were also
generating 10,000 gallons a year of mineral spirits waste. We were also
generating 50 barrels of year of water soluable waste and it's taken me up until
' last year to reach the point of a zero emitter. We recycle our methylene
chloride in house. I did write a letter and send it to the Council. I don't
know if anybody got a copy of it. Probably lost in transit. Do you have a copy
of it. It's only a real short paragraph.
' Councilman Johnson: If you're down at what EPA sa ys possible is s'
ble and it sounds
like you are.
' Ron Oberg: We're below that.
1
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. I mean the zero discharge is what they say is 1
possible and a lot of people say it's not. You're one of those that have proved
it and one of the people who believe it is possible. Probably the only stuff
that goes out is your sludge from your still.
' Ron Oberg: No, the still bottom is, let me just, methylene chloride from a
degreaser is steam stripped once a week using a steam checklist and I sent a
copy of that. Methylene chloride is returned to the degreaser. This amounts to
about 7 gallons a week. The product is worth $3.75 a gallon and this saves us
$1,365.00 a year. The recovered cutting oil contains less than 100 parts per
million of methylene chloride. We put it right back in our system. The cutting
oil is returned to our oil recovery system and amounts to 40 to 80 gallons a
week, depending on workload and oil recovery is worth $3.00 a gallon so we save
$9,000.00 a year in cutting oil recovered. The second waste we generated is
' mineral spirits mixed with cutting oil. We purchased a clear flow separater
which is kind of a molecular seive. It first filters out all the metal fines and
then there's a molecular seive that separates the large molecules which is the
cutting oil from the smaller molecules which is the mineral spirits. The
mineral spirits is then recycled and reused in our small wash buckets next to
the screw machines and the cutting oil goes back into our oil tanks. We also,
when I went to work at Roberts we were generating 50 barrels a year of this
stuff and we're down to about 10 gallons a week now. Basically it's tramp oil
or oil that floats on the top of the sumps of the CNC screw machines. Right now
we're down to about 10 gallons a week. We skim the tramp oil off the coolant
' and the tramp oil then goes into our still and the still runs at 220 degrees and
you know what happens to water and oil when you get it to 220. The water turns
i8
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
to vapor and it's lost to the atmosphere and the oil goes back in our system.
That's basically how we operate. The still bottom. ..
Councilman Johnson: .. .still an the methylene chloride.
Ron Oberg: We use a still and the still boils it down to about 80% oil and 20%
methylene chloride. At that point once a week we use steam to heat the product
up to 220. Methylene chloride boils at 104 so now we can get rid of about 98%.
At that point we inject live steam into the base for a couple of hours and at
that point we can drive the methylene chloride down to less than 100 parts per
million. Now the oil is completely reuseable in our system and the methylene
chloride goes back in the degreaser.
Councilman Johnson: And you have no dirt?
Ron Oberg: You're talking about the very sludge bottoms of the degreaser?
Councilman Johnson: Right. '
Ron Oberg: Okay. About every 2 years we have to clean out our degreaser and
what we have at that is about 10 gallons and what it is is the metal fines, the
metal oxides fran the washed parts. We have to dry that product and we put it
in with our mixed chips and it goes back to the metal recyclers.
Councilman Boyt: I have a question of staff. Paul, or someone. Let's talk
for a minute about, I see you've got in the Council conditions of approval,
approve screening of truck loading area. You know Ursula, I think everybody's
basic concern is how the building's going to look, a. lot of that has to do with II
landscaping. I know these little circles on the diagram are almost meaningless
in terms of how much tree life actually gets out there and what it covers. So
from a staff's point of view, are you convinced, forget the ordinance
requirement, are you convinced that there's enough evergreen type trees here to II
screen this? -
Paul Krauss: Councilman Boyt, in the recommendations we had requested same
additional screening, particularly around the truck loading area. . . The area
we're requesting is over here and over here. In the scheme of things, I think
those are relatively minor conditions that you typically find on projects of
this sort. - - - -- --
Councilman Boyt: Well we've got a lot, there's a lot of existing screening and
sane that they're putting in over by the church. There's really very little on II
the frontage to Lake Drive. - -:
Paul Krauss: The Lake Drive frontage is a difficult one to work with. Lake
Drive runs considerably below the elevation of the parking lot. Lake Drive I
believe is dropping away as you cane through here so what you're going to be
looking at is a grassy, landscaped hill that's actually itself going to screen
most of the parking lot. '
3
l
9 1
1
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
1
Councilman Boyt: Okay. I'd like to see, I don't see a condition in here and I'd I
' like to see one that says that that 30 inch oak tree, the dripline has to be
screened off throughout construction. Someday expansion may take that tree but
until then I'd like to see it alive. So what staff is saying here is that the
landscaping does a more than adequate job of screening that building?
Paul Krauss: With modifications as outlined, yes.
' Councilman Boyt: Okay. So I would just, I don't know whether we add it to the
plat approval or if we add it to the site plan. Whichever is appropriate, I'd
like to see us add a condition that would require the screening off of the 30
1 inch oak before any construction activity takes place or grading.
Mayor Chmiel: Ursula, do you have anything else?
1 Councilwoman Dimler: Is that a condition Bill that you're putting an?
' Councilman Boyt: I'd like to.
Councilwoman Dimler: Is there a second to that condition?
Mayor Chmiel: For further discussion, I thought you may have something else.
If you don't.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I'm ready to make a motion if there's a second to that.
Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
' Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilwomen Dimler: Amendment.
1 Councilman Johnson: Bill's amendment.
1 Mayor Chmiel: To the tree, right.
Councilman Boyt moved, mailman Workman seconded an amendment adding a
condition that the dripline around the 30 inch oak tree be screened off prior to
' any construction or grading an the site. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I move the preliminary plat and final plat to replat Lot 2
and an outlot of Chan Lakes Business Park 2nd Addition, Robert Worthington
project as amended.
1 Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilwoman Dimler: And that they work with Paul on the exterior.
Mayor Chmiel: Are you referring to the Planning?
' 10
1
I
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
IF
Councilwoman Dimler: To work with Paul an improvements. ,
Councilman Johnson: I have no idea what you mean by that.
Don Ashworth: You mean the facia questions that had been brought out in Paul's 1
report. What you're saying is you'd like to have him work with the applicant to
see if the quality that is shown in these diagrams to insure that that in fact
does came about as a part of the plan. Is that right?
Councilman Boyt: Before we vote on this I would like to take this opportunity
to just say, I think it's Bloomington that has a brick or better standard. We
have tried numerous times to get through something about metal buildings. I
think that we should be encouraging and maybe you've got something on that but I
think we should definitely be looking at upgrading the standard of the surface
of the buildings.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that's something we can look at as we keep going. I
think on this particular project right now.
Councilman Boyt: It's not relevant to this project other than that here's an
example of one where we don't have a standard and we can't say to them put brick II
on it.
Mayor Chmiel: That's something we can look at. '
Councilman Workman: But this is a metal building.
Councilman Boyt: No, not a metal building but it's also not a brick building. '
Councilman Johnson: Well I'm not that wild about brick buildings. I mean a
brick building is not the best looking building in the world either to me.
Where I grew up almost everybody was brick. In Alabama everything was brick.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess before we get into a long discussion. My point is
just that Paul will work with the applicant and see what they're willing to do
to compromise an it. Maybe it's going to stay the same. Maybe we have to
change our ordinance. That's a separate issue: - ._
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, Paul will basically work with the developer.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the
Preliminary Plat and Final Plat to replat Lot 3, Block 2, Chanhassen Lakes
Business Park and Addition into two lots and one outlot as amended. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman cilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the Site Plan
Review for the construction of a 48,200 square .foot -office/n nufacturing
facility as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. '
} Councilman Johnson: As we're going here, there's also, one other thing that was
implied. - Is that we're talking about getting something for the IRZA writedown.
11
•
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
I
I personally agreed with Bob that the purpose of the ffi?A writedown is an
' economic incentive to build in the City of Chanhassen. Not something that we're
using for architectural control. A PUD, if somebody comes in and asks for a
PUD, that gives us architectural control and whatever. As long as they meet all
our standards. I just want to make that comment.
D. ACCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR Lim DRIVE WEST IMPROVEMENT PROJECT MO. 90-1,
' CALL FOR PUBLIC BEARING.
Councilman Workman: Only very quickly. Again, maybe it doesn't have exactly to
do with the roadway on the improvement project other than again, as I mentioned,
maybe Gary remembers that an page 2 of the existing conditions it indicates that
there's single family residential to the south and east of this and it then says
a future land use to the south with high density residential. What perhaps we
I can do, we're going to have Redmond Products, is that about a 300,000 square
foot?
' Todd Gerhardt: 388,000.
Councilman Workman: 388,000 square foot industrial use across the street from
residential and I continue to question how or we don't necessarily have anything
like that currently in the City and are we in for sane problems with that
situation.
Councilman Johnson: That's why we made that multi-family residential.
Councilman Workman: And you indicated to me before that multi-family is less
valuable than single family. I live in multi-family and more people too and
they have the same concerns as the people in single family have. Trucks.
Traffic. Noise. Pollution and everything else and so putting, I don't know what
multi-family in this situation means. Maybe it means apartments and we don't
necessarily care what the people in the apartments think but when you get an
apartment of 3 stories or so, they're looking right into this and are we
foreseeing the impact here as far as all of this. Are they going to be far
enough away that. . .
Paul Krauss: Are you aware that they withdrew temporarily fram the agenda? The
first plan that we saw frankly I had the same kind of concerns but an a much
' larger scale architecturally that were raised with the Roberts Automatic. You
had a 300 foot long, 50 foot high building. But they since revised their plan
somewhat to make it a little more appealing. Plus, one of the things they did
' do is they had a separate office component that was in front with the Fab-Con
exterior of the warehouse. It was quite attractive. Their site includes a huge
amount of open space. There are 3 ponds. 4 ponds. A series of hiking trails.
' The building's set well back fram an oversized right-of-way so there's a lot of
separation from the future high density. There's also city park property,
actually there's two park property in there that will help give same open space.
They're certainly a design consideration whenever you have two uses like that
' interfacing with one another, you want to be sensitive to that and possibly it
points out an area that our ordinances could one day be beefed up. What I
wanted to mention on the last item is we have passed an amended site plan
12
I
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
ordinance that does prohibit metal buildings except in the agricultural area and
does require adorned, at least adornments to the concrete block in Feb-Con. You '
n
can't just put up a flat panel. But beyond that, we can apply our landscaping
standards and other mechanisms to buffer that type of use from residential area
but it is a concern. It's a design consideration that we have to deal with.
Councilman Workman: This is where that park is scheduled to be. This on the
other hand is where the proposed multi-family to be directly across the road and II
I don't have a site plan or anything else for Redmond or how it's going to. . .
Paul Krauss: There's also another city owned parcel just to the right of where II
your pen was. Up on the north side of the road.
Councilman Workman: It's just something, I don't want to take up time on this.
I'd like to move approval. I just want to make sure that we know that we're 11
heading into a rub here that I'm not comfortable with at this point. I don't
have any questions for Gary.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. You made a motion Tan?
Councilman Workman: . I did move approval. ,
Councilwoman Dim�l er: Second.
Resolution #90-42: Cancilman Workmen moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to
accept the Feasibility Study for Lake Drive West Inproverent Project No. 90-1
and call for a Public Hearing. All voted in favor and the maim carried.
VISITORS PRETATIONS: None.
PUBLIC HEARING: REALLOCATION OF YEAR XVI commonly DEVELOPMENT BLOCK Gum '
FUNDS.
Public Present: '
Name Address '
JoAnn Kovern South Shore Senior Center
Betty Bragg 6320 Steller Circle
Esther Steller 6311 Steller Circle
Fhma St. John 1621 West 63rd Street
Hazel Johnson
Paul Krauss: As you're aware, the City Council must act to disperse the Year
XVI Block Grant allocations and we're on a fairly strict timeline set by
Hennepin County. We have $33,664.00 this year and there are only a limited
number of activities that are eligible. Handicapped activities. Senior
activities are among the two primary ones. Anything that would benefit low and
13
I
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
moderate incase families. The City received their request for continued funding
' of $7,212.00 to South Shore Senior Center. Staff supports the request although
we are aware of their need to relocate this center. In speaking to same of
their people tonight, apparently they have secured a new location and would be
expected to relocate into there sometime in the fall. I had an opportunity to
review the Center in conjunction with the senior study task force and was
impressed with the dedication of their staff and the quality of the facilities
that they provide. We're proposing that the balance of the funds, the
$26,226.00 be held for senior projects or facilities to be named later. The
reason that we're doing that is, as you're aware we are involved in a senior
needs study and we have found out that there are considerably more seniors in
' the community than one would have suspected. Initial data indicates something
on the order of about 1,200 seniors if you use the 55 and over definition.
That's expected to grow by about 500 or 600 in the next few years. Population
is aging in place and apparently there's more seniors who live here than I think
a lot of us would have guessed. We believe that the senior study task force
will produce sane good valid results for you and proposals that would be
legitimate funding programs by sometime this summer. Probably around July.
' We've received a lot of support with the senior study task force and the work's
going quite well. That would take up the balance of the Year XVI fund. You
might remember at the last meeting I spoke to you about the possible
reallocation of Year XV funds. We have approximately $17,000.00 available for a
low and moderate incame housing rehab program. I checked with Hennepin County
to find out when they last advertised this because they've been telling me that
there have been no applicants. Apparently they haven't advertised it for 2
' years which would explain why there's probably no applicants and they're sending
a news release that we can use in the local papers to see if anybody is in fact
eligible and wishes to apply. I should warn you though that the incame limits
' are very strict and there's a good probability that nobody in Chanhassen that
would like to use it would be eligible. The $17,000.00 that's in there is
probalby enough to fund two rehab programs. They figure they run about
' $10,000.00 apiece. If after having advertised it there is no applicants that
are received, I'd like to came back to you in mid-May or early June to talk
about reallocation of those funds. We do have the right to reallocate those.
What I'd like to propose doing is to support, use those funds if they became
' available, to support the already funded, partially funded program to improve
handicapped access on Lake Susan Park.
' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Paul. Is there anyone else wishing to address this
subject at this time?
Jo Ann Kovern: I'm Jo Ann Kovern and I an the director of the South Shore
Senior Center and I have with me four warren, Betty Bragg, Esther Steller, Hmia
St. John and Hazel Johnson, all residents of Chanhassen. Very active as
volunteers there and I want to thank Paul for his recommendation to you and I
' hope that you will agree with him. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you very such.
Councilman Workman: Paul, the other thing I see is I think the staff
recommendation, those numbers add up to the old figure not the new one.
' 14
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990 1
Paul Krauss: Okay. Well it would be the difference between our allocation and
$7,212.00 for the South Shore Senior Center.
Mayor Ckiniel: Is there anyone else? This is as I mentioned a public hearing.
� q.
If seeing none.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dhnler seconded to close the public
bearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public bearing was
closed. I
Councilman Johnson: I move approval.
Councilwoman Dimler: Second. I
Councilman Boyt: I've got discussion here.
Mayor Chniel: It's been moved and seconded with discussion. Bill? I
Councilman Boyt: I would hope that before we allocate the rest of the money, II that we investigate handicap barriers in all our parks. Not just Lake Ann. I
certainly have that the other things listed there, getting seniors to Chan
Elementary which for 1,200 seniors we clearly have a bigger market than we're
servicing now. The other items that you mentioned there, that we now in II i allocations when studies are done as to where will we hit the largest need and
that something might be a little bit different. What impacts the most people
and where's the widest impact an the community. Something like a bookmobile for I
instance might have tremendous impact an the relative shut-in types and I'd like II
to see that move ahead very quickly.
Mayor Chmniel: I think that has been in'the report on bookmobiles. I
Resolution #90-43: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the reallocation of Year XVI Camaaity Development Block Grant Funds as II
follows:
South Shore Senior Center $7,212.00 I
Senior Facility, Service and $26,226.00
programs to be specified later
All voted in favor and the notion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: woman OF CHADOR SE(X1w ADDITION MOMENTS.
Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor, this is pretty much a housekeeping chore. The Council
took action in 1988 to actually vacate the sanitary sewer easements that exist
near the Colonial Center and the Pauly property and at that time, for whatever
reason, the legal description for the vacation was not accurate as was pointed
out to us by the County surveyor when it was attempted to be recorded. We since II
15 I
I
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
I
that time have located and prepared '
p epared the accurate descriptions for the old
sanitary sewer easements and those descriptions are included in tonight's packet
for the vacation. The easements themselves are of no use to us at this time
because they cover the old sanitary sewer service which since has been replaced
by our downtown redevelopment utilities and we have new easements which have
been dedicated to cover the new utilities so there's no further need for these
old easements.
' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. This is a public hearing as I mentioned. Is there
anyone wishing to address this specific item.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwaman Dialer seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the notion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
Councilwoman Dialer: I want to commend Theodore Kerria of Carver County for
catching this situation. I wonder if we can send him a letter or is that just
' part of his routine job? Anyway, I'm glad there's people like that out there.
Gary Warren: Who actually reads those legal descriptions right.
' Resolution #90-44: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to
approve Vacation Request No. 88-2 as legally described in Attachment No. 6 for
=DOA Second Addition. All voted in favor and the notion carried.
AWARD OF BIDS:
Mayor Chmiel: Gary, would you like to cover those?
ICouncilman Johnson: Does anybody have any comments on them? Because I was
going to say, I was just going to move staff recommendations.
Councilman Boyt: Well I would second that.
' Councilwoman Dialer: With discussion.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I guess I just had one specific question Gary in
relationship to that 4 wheel drive similar to what the building inspection
vehicles are. I think with our useage of these trucks, 4 wheel drives are
basically necessary to get in and out but in your comment that you had, page 2,
the vehicle is to be equipped with 4 wheel drive similar to the building
' inspection vehicles and the Director of Public Works vehicle. It's necessary
since it will be called on for off road use on construction sites, erosion
control reconnaissance/enforcement and survey work. I just wanted to make
' people aware that there is the basic need for that.
Gary Warren: I'm ashamed to admit that public works had to pull me out 2 weeks
ago when we were chasing the erosion hazards that we were trying to mitigate so
' I did learn that 4 wheel drives even have their limits but it certainly does
help us to get into the remote areas which we typically have to deal with.
' 16
I
I
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
Councilman Johnson: Once all 4 wheels start spinning you're in trouble huh?
Mayor Chniel: Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess my point is, I see the first 3 item on here and II
they have to do with a truck and a body and snowplow. Is that all one item
there that we're looking at? Is it for snowplow removal?
Gary Warren: That's correct. Councilwoman Dimler, we get the snowplows, the
sanders and actually the dumpbox are fabricated by different suppliers so we bid
them out separately to get competitive prices and not to pay the overhead of the II
truck manufacturer himself so that is actually summarized maybe more
conveniently for you on the third page of the staff report where summarized dump
truck under actual and show cab and chassis dumpbox and sander and plow and a
wing. That's all one vehicle.
Councilwoman Rimier: Okay. 14y question with it is, as I add up the numbers
it's approximately $60,000.00 for snowplowing and I'm wondering, didn't we just II
get that snowplow, that special snowplow that the HRA got us for downtown? We
haven't had much snow. I'm looking at maybe contracting for snow removal rather
than investing in such extravagant equipment. '
Gary Warren: The City did purchase a snowblower I believe is what you're
referring to via the HRA funds and that was special use equipment for helping us
with downtown removal when we develop our windrows and other areas where it
would Hake sense for off loading snow. This vehicle is a replacement vehicle
for vehicle 106 which basically served it's time. Concering the contracting of
snow removal, it's not typically done. I guess I couldn't say that there isn't
a community that maybe doesn't do that but the response that's necessary and the
demands on that service are so important to the community that to rely on a
contractor who may have other communities where he's plowing snow and such, I,
don't believe is a position that we would want to comfortably be in for that
important service.
Councilwoman Dimler: It's just that we, you know that's a heavy expenditure for II
the amount of snow we have been having.
Gary Warren: This vehicle is not only used for snowplowing. It does do year
round duties.
Mayor Chni.el: Maybe it might help Council too if you show that you're replacing
an existing vehicle. Indicate what that vehicle is and the amount of mileage
that's on there and the year. That might serve same points that will answer
questions and would alleviate the questioning as we're doing now.
Gary Warren: Again an the summary page there I do show dump truck replace 106. II
Is that kind of what you're looking for?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. The year of the vehicle and mileage on that vehicle and '
how long we've had it.
17
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
' Councilwoman Dimler: Just a little bit more info don't because I don t know
what you have.
' Gary Warren: Sure. We can include that the next time.
' Councilman Johnson: You can pull it right out of the budget because it's all
back there in the. . .
Gary Warren: Yeah, it's in the vehicle equipment sheets in the budget but I'll
summarize that.
Don Ashworth: I also had talked to our mechanic on this item because in going
1 through the budgets in previous years and replacement of a truck, we had been
looking more like into a $35,000.00 category and what I've been seeing is that
generally they hit closer to 40-45 and in talking with Harry we're now going
' into a diesel engines and all of the equipment. This is after a long study by a
number of cities. There's been a relunctance in switching over from gasoline
over into the diesel but just in terms of the repairs, the total cost for
' operating the vehicle, he really felt that this was a better way to go and of
course there is an additional cost associated with the diesel. After that I
felt comfortable that he had in fact done his homework and in fact this was a
good recommendation. I guess I felt comfortable with it.
1 Councilman Johnson: I have one comment off of what Ursula was saying. On the
contractor, I saw something unique in Omaha a few years back that you can just
put in the back of your mind is that they contracted with the local concrete
companies to use, the concrete trucks aren't as busy during the winter. There's
no as much construction going an and they put snowplows an the front of the
' concrete trucks and a sander an the back and I mean these things are all 6 wheel
drive trucks and built for doing that kind of work. It gave the concrete truck
drivers same work during the winter. The initial response weren't the concrete
trucks. The initial response were all city trucks and the concrete trucks came
' out the next day during normal work hours and did the clean-up work. The edges
and whatever. It seemed kind of a logical thing to do. But that's just
something I observed.
' Councilwaran rimier: Any way we can save the City some money.
Gary Warren: How much snow do they get in Omaha? A couple inches?
Councilman Johnson: Oh, quite a bit. Oh yeah. The Great Plains, they've
gotten a lot more than we have the last few years.
' Gary Warren: Our major thrust is from a time restraint is to get the first
pass. Tb get everybody opened up and actually the winter months, the clean-up
' work. The off loading, the trucking of snow and such actually is good work
because we do that in a non-overtime basis.
Mayor Chmiel: I appreciate the snowplowing that we have done within this
' ca munity. I go to many other communities and believe me, you're driving in
more ruts than you are an streets and I think we do a fantastic job.
18
7
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990 t
F 1
I Resolution #90-45: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to award
the bids for the following equipment: I
Low Bidder Vehicle/Equipment Bid
Boyer Ford Truck 1990 L-8000 Cab and $39,878.00 I
Chassis
Midland Equipment Dump Body and Monroe $9,897.00 II
Sander
Crysteel Truck Equipment Henke Plow and Falls Wing $9,971.00 1
Superior Ford, Inc. Two 1990 F-250 4x4 Pickups $37,573.00
and One 1990 F-150 Pickup i
Thurk Bros. Chevrolet 1990 Chevrolet B1500 Suburban $15,385.00
ABM Equipment and Supply New Versalift VO-50P1 $39,329.00
I
Aerial Device (Bucket Truck)
Midland Equipment Boss "V" Plow $2,703.00 I
LaHass Manufacturing and Western 8 1/2' Pro-Plow $1,797.00
Sales, Inc.
II
Motorola Camnmications Four Maxtrac 2-Way Radios $3,000.00
For a total amount of $167,462.00 . All voted in favor and the motion carried. II
Councilman Johnson moved, Camcilwaaan Dimler seconded to award the bid for the
62 inch Front Mounted Lawn Mower to MTI Distributing Co. from Plymouth,
II
Minnesota in the amount of $9,322.90. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
AWARD OF BIDS: PUBLIC VMS AUXILIARY STORAGE ILDING PROJECT 89-23. I
GE
Councilman Boyt: I'll move approval. I
Councilman Johnson: Second.
Mayor Cudel: Great. I like the way we're moving. I
Councilwoman Dimler: I'd like to say I think they did a great job. My concern
was that we not spend more than the $100,000.00 that we received for the land II
and we stayed real close so I'm real happy.
Councilman Johnson: A lot better than the initial. I
19 I
I
N,
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
Mayor Chmiel:
Y I appreciate it too.
' Gary Warren: Excellent bidding plans and good input I think.
Resolution #90-46: Councilmen Bolt moved, Cctncilman Johnson seconded to award
' the bid for the Public Works Auxiliary Storage Building, Phase II Project No.
89-23B to W.H. Cates Construction, Inc. in the amount of $76,900.00. All voted
in favor and the motion carried.
A. APPOINTMENTS TO THE
PDBLIC SAFETY COIrMISSION.
B. RECONSIDER POLICE b'1UDY 0,44I11lBE.
Jim Chaffee: I miss my introduction Mr. Mayor but I don't
needs a whole lot of introduction. I assure we're talking think this issue
Public Safety Commission appointments. about the item on the
r
Mayor ,
yor Chmiel: We're talking about the appointments to the Public Safety
' Commission and also reconsider police study committee.
Jim Chaffee: Okay. You mayremenber that we talked about this an several
occasions in the past, both in a Council setting and a work session setting.
' Again, I don't think it needs a whole lot of introduction because we've gone
over it so many times. I'm just asking I guess for Council direction in how we
want to proceed with this. I'll be happy to answer any questions that the
1 Council may have regarding any of these issues.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, Jim I guess I had a
question as to, you said that
you were going to fill one of the two remaining vacant slots. Did you get any
' more applicants? Did you advertise for more?
Jim Chaffee: We advertised way back in the beginning and didn't receive any
applicants and we advertised once again and I believe it was in conjunction with
Park and Rec. I think they had the same problem we had. It was during the
second advertisement that we did receive the 6 applicants that came in and then
' we did submit those to the Public Safety Commission an February 8th. At that
time the Public Safety Commission made the recommendations of the four to the
City Council. I think that's where we stand right now.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so we never recalled Kathy Schroeder or Ken Potts
and asked them to reconsider?
' Jim Chaffee: No, we did not do that yet.
Councilwoman Dimier: I guess I still have the same concerns I had before.
Mayor Chmiel: Do you want to indicate those.
Councilwoman Dimler: Too many people that work in Public Safety were passed
' forward to us. I'd like to see more of the general public. Different
professions come before us you know so we don't have a Public Safety Commission
20
I
i
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
that's made up of mostly policemen and public safety, somehow involved in public II
safety.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I'll throw a comment in too. I feel that these people I
who are either policemen or whoever submit an application. Being a resident
within the community I guess I don't have that concern. Being that we have a
certain amount of people that do apply and we don't get enough applicants, it
presents a problem in itself so in having the. . . I
Councilwoman Dimmer: But we did have Ken and Kathy that did apply.
Jim Chaffee: That was for a totally separate issue.
Councilwoman Dimmer: Yeah but I thought maybe they would be interested in the 1
commission if we asked them.
Councilman Boyt: If I might. When the Public Safety Commission interviewed
these people, the candidates that were referred to the City Council, each
brought a special area of expertise which the Commission was going to be quite
happy to have. We're not a police review committee where we're going to be
taking some kind of disciplinary action or recommending anything like that as II
like Minneapolis might have. What we are is a research study group and it
really helps to have people who have the quality and background in the
candidates referred. Someone who has worked full time in a drug task force.
Amazing resource they have in all our meetings. The gentleman who worked has II
been assigned to the Civil Defense effort. I think we're going to appoint him
as I recall but again, just a tremendous resource and so-when the commission
looked at it, at their knowledge of the issues. The fact that they were
residents in the community and their desire to serve. It wasn't that the other
people. . .
Councilwoman Rimier: Okay, I don't have any qualms about the qualifications of 1
the people. That isn't my point but I think in the future when you send people
forward to be interviewed, keep that in mind that they're not -all policemen or
work in public safety as well. There are other qualified individuals out there
that I think are willing to serve if we just open it up. And my other point is,
if we move ahead to the police study committee, my point there is that I want to
make sure that the Public Safety Commission does not became the police study II committee. And I say that because although you indicate that everything is well
right now and everything is harmonious, we all know that overnight the public
safety issue can flare up into a big battle. At that point I'd like to have a II
buffer zone in it's place that the Public safety commission doesn't
autamatically became the police study committee which to me is like when you go
ask a group of surgeons if you need surgery. They're all going to tell you yes
when indeed there may be a medical approach that would be -just as good and get
the same results. So I'd like to have that buffer zone in there. You did
mention in your report that the police, or the Public Safety commission could
became the police study committee. 1 do not agree with that and I would speak II
against that and that we do at same point, when it becomes a hot issue again,
that we get a police study committee. - - -- - -
21 '
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
Jim Chaffee: And I would tend to go along with that. I would just like to
point out one thing though. That the names that I forwarded to the Public
Safety Commission was the entire pack that I had. I didn't pick or choose any
of these names. It was exactly the application that came in that went to the
Commission.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. That's all my concerns.Couancilman Workman: I guess
I agree with Ursula an the appointments. You're not a police review commission
or you wouldn't be. The Public Safety isn't a police review and I can
' appreciate and I can understand why people who are involved in day to day public
safety, firemen, police officers, etc. would be interested in doing this. pmI
don't know that citizens of the community are best served nonetheless by that
because they do see, police officers do see things a little differently than
' what I call a normal person myself and so maybe we can head off the need for a
citizens review or police review committee by, you know I think one of the most
respected members of the Public Safety Commission who just left was Candy
' Takkunen and she was just a citizen and I think she put her heart and soul into
it and cared a lot about the issues and she had no background so she's proof
that we can get good citizens without, and I don't know. Maybe you're going to
tell me she had a FBI background or something. But you're right. You get a
roam full of like minded people in the same roan thinking about something, I
don't know that that serves the citizens of the community quite properly. The
other minute thing that I had a concern about was if we had a situation Jim
where we did have a police department and you were obviously police chief and we
had a disgruntled officer. That officer could in effect get on the Public
Safety Commission and cause you all sorts of nightmares. The same thing for
' Dale Gregory. A disgruntled fire fighter. Doesn't like the way things are
going could cause Dale Gregory same problems and I don't know that we need to
keep any citizen off any of these commissions because of that potential problem.
But it's I think something we need to look at. We have had a lot of heated
discussions an this Council about where we want that police department situation
to go. If it were stacked with police officers I'd feel I was at a disadvantage
also. That has nothing to do with the personal opinions about any of the people
' that have applied because I think they're quality people. But again, I think we
need to have maybe a little more discussion about the direction of the players
on the Public Safety Commission are.
' Jim Chaffee: I think we'd certainly welcome that too. Any kind of direction.
Councilman Boyt: I think that we can't forget that the City Council, which
' currently has no people with a professional public safety background on it,
reviews everything that the commission does. The commission can't cause anybody
grief because they have no power to do anything other than raise issues. And so
' it would be different if they had a budget. If they had same sort of direct
supervisory impact but they don't have any of that.
' Councilwoman Dimler: They've caused us enough grief in the past though.
Councilman Boyt: I think that when we look at the drawbacks of having the
commission filled with people with professional public safety backgrounds, I
agree in part with what you're saying. I know that they bring a biased to these
things out of their experience. But they're not the final authority and they're
a heck of a good resource.
22
1
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I would like to have us appoint to the Public Safety
Camtission 3 people and is there a motion?
Councilman Boyt: Who are the 3 people?
Mayor Chmiel: Well we have to came up with the third one.
Crnmcilwanan Dimler: I move Bill Bernhjelm, Dave Dummer and Brian Beniek.
Mayor Chmiel: I would second that. Any discussion?
Councilman Johnson: I think it's really close with me between Jack Talbot with
his juvenile experience which is a big concern of mine is the children in town.
You all know my commitment to the children plus his drug experience in town. I
Those are the two things that I would like to pick Jack over Brian personally at
this point even though I'm not going to be disappointed with Brian whatsoever.
I think he would also make an excellent because he's a fire fighter and police
officer and brings two points of view there.
Mayor Chmiel: I liked the fact that Brian has lived in town for 25 years so
he's got a fairly good handle on what's happening. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: He knows the town.
Mayor Chmiel: He knows the community. 1
Councilman Johnson: Jack's lived in the area. He went to Chaska High.
Councilwoman Dimler: They're all excellent candidates but we have to choose.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to appoint Bill Bernhjelm, Dave II
Demmer and Brian Beniek to the Public Safety Commission. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
Mayor Chmiel: Reconsider that police study committee. i
Councilwoman Dimler: We've already discussed that.
Mayor Chmiel: That's already been discussed so therefore we can just. . .
Councilman Workman: It's off the burner? I
Councilwoman Dimler: Well, unless you want to make a motion. If you feel it's
needed right now but certainly when things get hot again I'd like to see it in
place. -
Jim Chaffee: Mr. Mayor, if I may make a comment. Councilwoman Dimler, I think
we have a real workable tool in place in our adhoc police group meetings once a II
month an the third Monday where myself and Councilman Workman and Councilmember
Dimler along with Sheriff Al Wallin and Captain Bob Pagelkopf fram the Sheriff's
Department get together and discuss these issues. : _I really hope deep down II inside that just in that alone will prevent any type of controversy from arising
and hopefully that will be the case. I think it's a good workable work session
if you will.
23
11
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
11 Councilman Johnson: Whether this is the right time for a polic study committee.
Right now what's being proposed is basically have all of our police
professionals kind of put all the data together and came up with a
recommendation without really any, as you're saying, the common citizen, the
non-police professional which has a different point of view an everything
involved. I mean that was the point of the police study commission was to have
' a blend of both the professional police officer and their point of view with the
taxpayer point of view to look at this issue. I'm not totally sure that the
police study committee is a bad idea at this time. That maybe 2 or 3 years of
study for the group and to get it together and whatever.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I want to make my point again. I don't really
care if we get one now or not. The point is that the Public Safety Commission
never becomes the police study committee when it is time to move ahead for the
reason being also that remember that the police study committee, if the Public
Safety Commission wouldn't have any input from the sheriff's department. So we
' need to have a committee that is well rounded and has lots of citizen input.
Councilman Johnson: Did we not pass a motion a while back to create the police
study commission?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. And it had the stipulation that. . .
' Councilman Johnson: And it was going to be a well rounded group.
Councilwoman Dimler: Right.
Councilman Johnson: What happened? Can somebody tell me what happened to that
original? Why we are where we are now.
1 Jim Chaffee: Prior to that I think the Council direction was to have Sheriff
Wallin and myself get together and do just that same thing.
' Councilman Johnson: Which didn't happen.
Jim Chaffee: Which did not happen, right. We started seeing the police study
'
committee as becoming quite burdensome and after discussions with Sheriff Wallin
and Chief Deputy Jim Castleberry and myself and Scott Harr, we thought we could
streamline things quite readily without actually going through the process of a
' police study committee with upwards of 9 members. We just felt we could serve
the citizens better and streamline the process without going back to square one.
Again, I think the forces are in place to do that.
' Councilman Johnson: But will it happen this time?
Jim Chaffee: Yes. It has to. I mean we're looking at changes that are going
' an right now that myself and Sheriff Wallin have been discussing pertaining to
law enforcement coverage in 1991. We've got to know real soon just what we're
going to be recommending through the contract system in 1991 so we've been
discussing quite regularly what we would recommend to the Cit Council in very
short order here.
24
I
/
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990 11
Councilman Johnson: See that was one of my other objectives of the lice
Po study
caanittee was to actually have it happen because you know, all of a sudden
you've got a little deadline of, the committee's meeting on Tuesday. We better II
get together and do something since it's Monday afternoon. Get something for
the group. _
Mayor Chmiel: I don't want to keep going with this but I think we discussed '
this probably enough.
Councilwoman Dialler: As long as you remember that.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't know if we need a motion an this? I don't think we do.
Councilman Johnson: Right now they're under direction to form a committee so we II
need a motion to either get rid of the carmittee and go to the Public Safety
Director's idea of doing it the way we told them to do it 2 or 3 years ago.
However long that was. '
Mayor Chmiel: Not too long ago. Last year.
Councilman Johnson: Well, the Council before also. I
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Maybe we should have a motion on the floor to indicate
that we no longer reconsider the police study committee. '
Councilman Johnson: Why don't we move to suspend the police study commission,
formation of the police study commission indefinitely?
Councilwoman Dialler: With the understanding that the Public Safet y Commission
shall never became the police study committee.
Councilman Johnson: Right. Make that a motion as I move we suspend the
formation of a Police Study Committee and recommend that we do not have the
Public Safety Commission as the Police Study Committee, although they should be II
represented on it.
Councilwoman Dialler: Right. And they would.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we have a motion an the floor.
Councilwoman Dialler: Second. -
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwomen Dialler seconded to suspend the fornatian
of a Police Study Can ittee and reoamread that the Public Safety Camdssion not
became the Police Study Camdttee in the future. All voted in favor and the
notion carried. -
CORRESPONDENCE RCO R TSRSHED DISTRICT, CHAIN OP IT'S PROJECT.
T.
Don Ashworth: We had received correspondence from the Watershed District. This II
was back in December. Right after receiving that we received notice that they
were proposing to develop an outline for their workplan and that the City may
wish to hold off an their comment until after that outline had been developed.
25
I
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
' We have since, just in this past 2 weeks, received the proposed outline from the
Watershed District. This deals with the workplan for the Lake Riley Chain of
Lakes Improvement Project. We have nothing on the file in terns of response
' back to the Watershed District fran their early response to us in December. I
do not foresee any form of litigation. However, I did bring this item back to
the City Council believing that there should be a letter basically stating that
we concur with their position which is that it may be very difficult, if not
impossible, to obtain a boat access on Lake Lucy.
' Mayor Chniel: Okay. I think it's adviseable for us to have a letter in the
files supporting the Watershed District's position. Even though that a public
access on Lake Lucy may be very difficult to achieve, it's not being guaranteed
' by the City of Chanhassen, we should authorize staff to prepare such a letter.
Councilman Johnson: I think the letter should be, rather than being real
general. I should say maybe even make it more general, in that we can't
' guarantee a public access meeting the full DNR, the general DNR requirements of
so many parking spots and so much of this and so much of that. It would be
possible to get sane limited public access on there quite effectively and cost
' effectively but the full access due to, and you know due to wetland issues, etc.
would be extremely expensive and environmentally could be detrimental to the
lake also. When you have to take out a 20 foot swath of cattails 400 feet long
and Hake that much dredging on that small of a lake. Put a little more guts to
' it rather than just a real general letter to where we're not opposed to the
access. The topography and the general nature of the area makes it difficult
for that large of a public DNR access.
' Mayor Chmiel: I think maybe we can have staff prepare that. We can also review
that.
Councilman Boyt: I'm interested in I believe the first meeting in March staff
was directed to draft a letter to the Watershed District about our desire to see
them make sane progress and it was in response to their report that was in our
' Admin pack of that meeting.
Don Ashworth: I apologize. I don't recall notes to that effect. My reason for
' stating that is that I have been concerned that we haven't had a letter on the
file.
' Councilman Boyt: It was a Metropolitan Council report back to the Watershed
District on their lack of progress. And it very specifically pointed out that
Chanhassen had not done it's job in getting the, it said something about
political problems with the. . .
' Councilman Workman: That was more directed at Watershed wasn't it?
' Councilman Boyt: Well it was but it implicated us and I remember quite
specifically bringing it up as a Council Presentation in which, as I understood
the Council, there was the directive to draft a response to the Watershed
District and to Met Council. So I'd like to see that done.
' Don Ashworth: Yes, and I do have the note to that effect. I took that
direction however as one of that really supported the Watershed District's
' 26
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
position. They were questioning the Metro Council's review of their work plan.
I understood the Council's recommendation to be one of supporting the watershed
district in their efforts against proposed legislation by Metro Council.
Mayor Chmiel: I believe that's right.
Councilman Workman: I think it was, maybe I brought up the fact that that could
very well have been a letter that was directed towards watershed districts in II
the entire metro in preparation of that legislation that they're looking to gain II
control where watersheds now control. -
Dan Ashworth: And following that, the Mayor and I did meet in a legislative II meeting with Becky Kelso and Bob Schmitz and we brought out this City's support
of the Watershed District. I don't know if you recall that.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Don Ashworth: It was a meeting in Shakopee and they were very happy to receive
that and so I guess I felt that we had accomplished what the Council was looking II
for unless Councilman Boyt you're. . . -
Councilman Boyt: Well, I'm recalling, the more we talk about this the more I
recall that what I specifically had in mind was that we tell the Watershed II
that this is a very expensive project and that they should look at the
possibility of funding this in the nature of a quarter-of a million dollars.
That was the problem. It wasn't a political matter. It was a matter of
financing. I think if you check the.Minutes you'll find it goes along that
line. As long as I've got this, I think whatever letter we draft to the
Watershed District or to our file, we sure want to-confirm that we committed II$8,333.00 period and that we should add in there that_I think we definitely all
support their efforts to control non-point source pollution. - I-don't want any
part of that overrun bill they've_got.
Don Ashworth: You could almost be assured that they will send it to us though. I
I mean I don't know what it will be, $1,000.00. $3,000.00. They will want to
get it.
Councilman Workman: I would also add that there is property for sale on the
lake which the City was looking at it as a candidate for this landing and a
place where I don't think any of us agreed the landing should go but these
larger governmental agencies aren't exactly jumping to buy-this property to put
an access in. _ _ : _ - - - - :
Councilman Johnson: The DNR's not running out to buy that?
Councilman Boyt: No. - _ •-
Mayor Chmiel: Not yesterday.
Councilman Workman: They only want for us to buy it and we can't hardly afford II
it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think staff has direction to move along. Let's move
along to item 8(a).
27
' City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
' 1
APPROVE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ZIMMERMAN FARM, LOCATED WEST OF HIGHWAY 41 AND
SMITH OF TMADOONA DRIVE, DONALD BRANDT. 1
' Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, maybe I'll give a brief overview and then Gary can
explain the alternatives. At the March 12th meeting ng staff was directed to
' reassess access options for the Brandt parcel and surrounding areas. As you may
recall, staff originally proposed providing a loop street back to Highway 41
from Dogwood Road over the Brandt parcel. We believe that a connection between
' Dogwood and Crimson Bay, which was pointed out in the report, was technically
feasible but we did not recatmend that due to previous actions where
alternatives to serve the area were considered. Both the Planning Commission
and the City Council asked that that connection be reassessed at which time
' staff indicated that we thought it was technically feasible from a grading
standpoint based upon new grading information, topo information that we had and
that since the power company put through the power line, that it was reasonable
' from a tree loss standpoing since the trees had already been removed. Since
that time working with the engineering department, 3 new alternatives were
developed. Thus if you add in the original Crimson Bay/Dogwood connection that
' we'd been considering, plus the obvious alternative of doing nothing, there's 5
alternatives to consider. Any of the four potential build alternatives, if you
will, provide a response to the concerns that have been raised regarding the
need to provide an overall access plan for the neighborhood and eliminate the
' over length cul-de-sacs while maintaining traffic safety. In reviewing the
alterantives, the Planning Department has concluded that Alternative B, which
Gary will show you in a minute, is probably the most effective one in providing i
' all the access requirements for the future that we see for this area while
minimizing impacts on area parcels. It would however require the dedication of
an easement over the northern 33 feet of the Brandt parcel plus right-of-way
' would also be provided for the cul-de-sac, the formal cul-de-sac at some point
in the future for Dogwood as had been shown on the original plat. When you look
at alternative B though, it sort of begs the issue of whether that Crimson Bay/
Dogwood connection should still be made. It would technically again, be a
' fairly easy thing to do. It's not part of Alternative B per se but it is a
question that needs to be resolved. Staff normally recommends preserving as
many access options as possible and that clearly is one that we've gone on
' record as saying is feasible. On the other hand, it does impact lots an the
Brandt subdivision and does require the procurement of right-of-way fran the
Arboretum to became effective. We believe that in general the overall access
' alterantives being explored under Alternative B resolve the neighborhood issues
pretty much as we see them. Therefore we're really not recammnding anything
particularly an that Crimson Bay connection. We're going to defer to your
direction an that matter feeling somewhat comfortable that Alternative B does
' the job for us. We've recommended approval with conditions that are pointing
towards Alternative B being the selected alternative. We're proposing that
official mapping of all future streets also be procured by the City Council so
' we have something an record as properties do develop over the years. That we
can continue to effectuate this response. With that I'd like to defer to Gary
to give you an overview an how those alternatives worked out.
Mayor C1riel: Have any of the adjacent property owners had a chance to review
this prior to this evening? Good. I see some heads nodding.
' 28
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990 '
Gary Warren: A couple of preliminary comments maybe additional to what Paul has ''
said. When we took a look at this item, I believe this was to be pictured as
sanething to be. . .quick overview look at the grades. At the vegetation- and
basically try to fit in alternatives that fit with the contours of the land and II
would pose as little environmental harm, so to speak, as possible and still
abate the. . . It's not to say that there aren't numerous scenarios that can cane
out of this. . .but we came up with basically 3 alternatives here. On the other 11
hand, we did look at it and did look at grades and such and have talked with
MtDot to further define sane of the issues as far as out on TH 41 and as far as
the TH 5 are concerned. We had talked about the fact that. ..controlled access
situation for a quarter mile on both TH 41 and TH 5 where MnDot will not allow
access to. . .TH 41 and TH 5 intersection in the future. We already are
experiencing problems there. . . We did look at utilizing existing access points II
of which there are two north of that location on TH 41. Sort of touch down
points but gives us sane criteria to where this connection might be. What I
have up here is Alternative A which is in the packet. Basically it shows caning
off of the north side of Lot 1, a 60 foot right-of-way and connecting to the 11
north here at this touchdown point. The road could be taken through the
Arboretum property as shown here in a number of configurations and connected
into that so we'd have sane form of thru traffic ciruclation. The grades that
we're looking at here are approximately 7% grade or less. The steeper grades
are on the westerly part of the project here. As you get further to the east we
end up with rolling farmland and such and we're talking about 5% to 7% so a
pretty modest grades for example. Tree removal, up again in this area primarily II
but again, as Paul mentioned, there's utility work that has been done by
Minnesota Valley. Not as big of an issue as when we originally had looked at
this item. Alternative B, a little different twist to the scenario. Basically II
again coming off of the north side of the subject property in this area. Now we
show, I think we have a good sense here, connects to Tanadoona Drive off of the
Zimmerman parcel here and here it's going to be an attachment point here. We've II
chosen this access point which just meets the quarter mile criteria and there's
an existing building there that would have to be raised. Same additional tree
removal perhaps in here. But again, the same grade situation. .A_little bit
different concept for accessing through the Arboretum property. . It _does meet
the criteria and does provide. . . -
Mayor Chmiel: The State Highway Department requires that quarter mile setback
from major intersections? Is that correct?
Gary Warren: That is typically their criteria, that's correct. This is
Alternative C and the only difference here, major difference is showing the road
accessing through a common property line of the two lots. .. We're looking at
this to provide a more gradual access to accommodate traffic movements and that
basically cuts down....Alternative B. The grades through here are, we can get a 11
7% grade but it canes at some cost. The existing grades are a little steeper
through this area and we would have to tolerate more significant cuts out there
which would result-in a little bit wider path of construction so to speak. The I
City has entertained conditions of this to utilize or waive our subdivision
criteria and go to 10% grade. This is certainly possible but to minimize the
amount of cut in-that particular area, it would be about 5 feet. This exhibit 4
shows the 7% grades and the 10% versus the existing terrain so that's one way
that the impact could be minimized. Tree removal with this alternative on the
westerly end is somewhat less than on the other two alternatives because it's in
29
11
— —
IICity Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
IIthe area where the trees basically. . .which shows the tree area fairly well
defined. Just looking at this area in here, which is a little narrower. . . 1
MnDot, current traffic is summarised in the report for TH 5 and TH 41 and Paul
Iand I have been diligent in working with the Carver County. . .application which
is carving to rapid conclusion here. . .TH 5 will be carrying upwards of 30,000
vehicles per day in the year 2000 and TH 41 we're up to 10,000 so I think we're
I very sympathetic to MnDot's criteria on the quarter mile for the access
restriction and it also rakes sense as we look at our developments through
here. . .
IIMayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anybody that would like to say something,
and maybe if we can go on the repetitions as we had from the last time and just
bring out sane new points, we'd appreciate that.
IPeter Brandt: I'm Peter Brandt. I'm not sure who Donald Brandt •
name that's on the application. Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers, is but that's a
like to first endorse the plan submitted and second, tonight I reiterate
I some of the items that we brought just very briefly reiterate
ug up last time when we were here on March 12th.
IICouncilman Boyt: Which plan is that you're endorsing?
Peter Brandt: I'd like to endorse the plan submitted
the plan that endorses Option B as p tted April 5th by Paul Krauss,
the
here. endorses rsel Option you've already seen and�have discussed very
Ion this piece of property over the last 3 years study d the reiteration of that
tonight, that this plan should now pass as recannended. As it stands, the
easements that are being requested take at least 2 1/2 acres of the 20 acres 1
II ni
being subdivided and we feel that that impacts the land already. This is done
without any real benefit for either of the two properties being created.
However, we're willing to live with this for the future needs of any development
I that might happen in the area. Just to reiterate the points we discussed last
time we were here. We told you how we intended to use the land. Basically for
our residence and our desire that the subdivision be done without the road
I easement from Crimson Bay to Dogwood Road across the meddle of our property. We
feel that most of those points are met by this plan now and I don't want to beat
a dead horse but now there is an overall plan and it makes sense to us and it II appears to address the 5 major concerns that we had mentioned last time.
we urge you to pass this subdivision, Option B as illustrated and as the Again,
Planning staff recommends. Any questions?
IMayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Kurt Laughinghouse: Mr. Mayor, I'm Kurt Laughinghouse representing Tim Foster,
II the owner of the land and we too endorse the 10 point recommendation in Mr.
Krauss' memo except we want to say this. There's a little bit of a conflict
between item 1 and item 7 in that item 1 calls for the roads illustrated in
Exhibit 2 to be met and item 7 calls for a portion of it to be dedicated in the
I plat. We feel that that road that runs along the north line of our property is
a road. If a road is put in there, it will be for the future benefit of all
properties concerned and should not be dedicated at this time. We agree with
I the mapping process which is designed for such future considerations so we would
prefer that.
I • 30
II
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
Councilman Boyt: I've got a question about that that it might be helpful
g p ul to ask
now. Gary, isn't it our normal procedure when we're platting properties to try
to get this land dedicated to the City? '
Gary Warren: Definitely.
Councilman Boyt: And so this would be the time to do it? '
Gary Warren: That's correct.
Councilman Workman: It's only half of it isn't it? 30 feet?
Gary Warren: 30 feet of the 60 foot right-of-way. '
Councilman Johnson: If no road's built in the future, it'd be just like the
sewer easements we got rid of earlier. '
Gary Warren: The City can always choose to vacate it's right-of-ways or
easements, that's correct.
Councilman Johnson: We must do 4 or 5 of these a year that we vacate that we
reserved earlier and ended up when the development occurred, didn't need it
anymore. ,
Mayor Chanel: Right. Yes sir.
Nick Dennis: Mr. Mayor, honorable Councilmenbers, my name is Nick Dennis. I
own Lot 5 in Crimson Bay and after having reviewed what we've seen here
tonight, I guess myself and my family are in favor of Plan B without the
connection going through to Dogwood. That's my only comment, thank you. '
Councilman Boyt: What about the people in Lot 3? Are they here? It looks to
me like we're going to have the greatest impact on then. ,
Councilman Johnson: If the Arboretum ever sells that property and develops it
which is the biggest if I've ever heard. I've never heard of a university ever
getting rid of property. Acquiring it yes. Getting rid of it, no. 11
Mayor Chmiel: Yes sir. Please state your name and your address.
Ken Daniels: Daniels is the name. I think I've been here before and I've
spoken to you before about this situation. What I wondered were some questions
that I wanted to ask. We're talking about the west side of Lot 1, which is the II
lot I'm concerned with. We're talking I gather a 40 feet easement or right-of-
way or what are we talking about? As I understand there'd be an assessment if
that road was developed.
Councilman Johnson: That's right.
Ren Daniels: Who would pay that assessment?
Councilman Johnson: Benefitting property owner.
31 ,
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
' Councilman Boyt: You're it.
Mayor Chniel: Gary?
Ken Daniels: That's what I thought.
' Gary Warren: The benfitting property owners Mr. Mayor.
Ken Daniels: Now that would be, I don't view that as a help to me from the 550
' and I understand you can't look at it that way but I'm having the west end of
that lot carved up to the tune of 40 feet plus the setback of 30 feet and then
in addition to that, right now I'm giving an easement over I think 20 or 30 feet
' in addition to Lot 2 to get at the property he wants to go down to. Now I had
that question and then I'm wondering about the north end of that lot which is
1,130 feet. Under Plan B I gather that that would be involved and that would
run approximately 115 feet at present day costs times 1,130 feet. on the other
side 550 times 115. Now maybe 10-15-20 years when and if you go ahead with it,
those costs, I don't think they'll be going down. They'll be going up. Then I
understand with regard to the east side of that lot, 346 feet. There's a trail
easement. Would there be an assessment on that?
Councilman Boyt: No.
' Ken Daniels: Well what I wanted to make clear is that I don't see any benefits
really to Lot 1 fran this. That's the lot I'm speaking of and when you take
away the setback, you're talking about 2 1/2 acres caning off of Lot 1 plus the
assessments. I'm not really in favor of B. I'd really probably be in favor of
C but if you were to map that property, I understand there would not be an
assessment.
' Councilman Johnson: It'd be even worse on Lot 1.
Ken Daniels: Would it?
Mayor Ctmiel: Yeah. I think so.
' Ken Daniels: It goes down the middle then right?
Councilman Johnson: Between Lot 1 and Lot 2 and also cuts through the edge of
Lot 1. You thinking A maybe?
Ken Daniels: I just saw those a little while ago.
' Councilman Johnson: Are you buying Lot 1?
Ken Daniels: Yeah.
' Councilman Johnson: This would take the little thing in the front and then cut
through the corner of your lot. I don't know where you're planning on putting
' your house.
Ken Daniels. That's part of the problem because there is about, really about 2
1/2 acres including setback caning off that so I don't view this as an advantage - /
' 32
I
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
1 and I realize that you can't look at it that way but I think you're really
putting that Lot 1 at a disadvantage. For Lot 1 to give you an easement over
that, I think we'd really be in a bad position at a later date. '
Councilman Boyt: While you're there I might suggest to you that since this is
being brought an by the subdivision of that property into two lots, that maybe
you want to look at something between you and Lot 2 to mitigate the loss of
property there.
Ken Daniels: Yeah, but see I was looking at 1 too an the north end. What
happened is you've taken, now I've never understood why you wanted, I wasn't
part of the earlier plan I think which came in 2 years ago I think that was and
that I think involved the north end of that lot but what you're really doing II under that Plan B is carving up three sides of that property. Your east, north
and west. Aren't you?
Councilman Boyt: I don't follow the east side.
Ken Daniels: The east side you're putting in the trail.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. That would be the trail portion. '
Ken Daniels: See the only part you're leaving alone is the south side. '
Councilman Johnson: We're putting in a fictious line an a piece of paper for a
future trail if such trail is appropriate in the future.
Ken Daniels: There aren't any setbacks?
Councilman Boyt: No. '
Councilman Johnson: No, you just can't build on top of the trail. You wouldn't
be building that far back on the lot probably anyway. You'd be. ..
Ken Daniels: I see a tremendous hardship. I figured it over $200,000.00 in
assessments.
Councilman Johnson: Actually when they build, you're on a corner, they usually
only take what, is it the shorter of the two? There's sane kind of formula
there for corner lots that reduce those assessments considerably. '
Gary Warren: The scale is one factor here I think you have to keep in mind.
Residential lot assessments versus here a 2 1/2 acre parcel which puts it in a
little bit different league. Yeah, we_do try to recognize that the property or
parcel is getting hit on more than one side for a road,:we typically adjust with
one half of the shorter side and they get a credit:for that distance. The
bottom line in any of the assessments are that_the assessment-value has to
sustain the test of benefit so that if the property's not increasing in value,
as a mininun the value of the assessments that are being levied against the
property then it cannot be sustained. So it's not an arbitrary thing that can
be placed upon this that the City decides in the future to actually construct
roads through the easement or the officially mapped areas. At that time the 429
process which requires hearings and-feasibility-study and such would be done
_ _ 33
11
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
' with full knowledge of the abutting and benefitting property owners and that
whole thing would be studied very thoroughly at that time.
' Ken Daniels: But you're not talking about. . .right-of-way. Pardon me, I should
say an easement being given by Lot 1 over all that area.
' Gary Warren: Well right-of-way is an easement. Actually giving of the
easement at this time, as was pointed out earlier, it could be vacated. I think
the thing that the official napping, where that comes into play here is we're
' talking about an area that's more encompassing than just these two lot areas and
all that that is doing is preserving the City's right to either call the
question and acquire that property for the right-of-way or to allow it to go
' under development. In this case, this portion of the subdivision, Lot 1 as we
were discussing, is being asked to give it's share of the right-of-way as that
road would extend to the east. If it were actually built, the rest of the
right-of-way would be required to be dedicated through the rest of the land
' there so every property owner along the way, if it were subdivided, would be
responsible to give their 30 feet let's say of that area so you wouldn't have to
pay as an owner of Lot 1 for acquiring their land. So you're being asked in
' this case to give your proportionate share of that future roadway.
Ken Daniels: Do you see how it benefits me? I don't.
' Councilman Johnson: When sewer canes in in the future, which is when the
property is subdividing this, then you do have a benefit in there if you
subdivide your lot.
' Ken Daniels: You may not subdivide. . .
' Councilman Johnson: Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on how they do the
assessment on a per lot assessment.
Ken Daniels: What about the lots to the west? The lakeshore? They're going to
' benefit from the easement over on the west side but that would all be assessed
on mine. . .
' Gary Warren: Again, the whole assessment and the reason why it goes through the
statute process here is because it is a unique element of each project. We have
entertained, Bluff Creek Drive is a good example where we have utilized an area
' assessment policy instead of a front foot assessment policy to levy the benefit
to properties that may not actually have frontage abutting the roadway
improvement but that actually can be argued that they are receiving benefit. I
don't know if that would be sustainable in this case but it certainly is
something that would be looked at if and when a roadway improvement project were
authorized and petitioned to decide what is the appropriate assessment policy to
follow. And if there are off line benefits, then as in Bluff Creek Drive we
' extended the benefits to off line parcels.
Ken Daniels: Then my final question is, are you talking about mapping this
' property or what with regard to Plan B?
Paul Krauss: What we're talking about doing is taking the right-of-way
easements over the property which is being subdivided now and the ability to do
34
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990 1
that, if we use those in the future, it will save the City the need to acquire ,.
the land at same point in the future. For those parts of this roadway system
that lie outside of this subdivision, we're recommending official mapping.
There's quite an extensive roadway system that would ultimately be developed in
there and we think the official map is the best and least intrusive way of
dealing with those other parcels.
Ken Daniels: When you're talking about Plan B then you're talking about
right-of-way as drawn?
Paul Krauss: We're talking about the easements being taken off of your future I
lot and the lot to your south, yes.
Ken Daniels: As laid out in B. Then we're talking about assessments being
assessed to the property by foot I believe.
Councilman Johnson: We're not talking any assessments. '
Gary Warren: There wouldn't be any assessments.
Ken Daniels: If you exercise this? ,
Gary Warren: If the project is authorized and built, that's correct.
Councilman Johnson: If somebody develops that property and asks the City to 1
build the streets for them and assess it back to the benefitting. If somebody
builds that and builds the streets themselves, the person who owns the remaining
80 acres builds that property themselves. When the sewer comes in, they put in
the sewers. They put in all the streets as part of their subdivision, you get a
street along your property line for no cost at all the way I see that. Of
course what he would probably do is move it over a few feet where it wasn't
along your property lines so you couldn't utilize it. Then you'd have to pay
him to use the street if you ever subdivide. We're trying to preserve something
for the future and the future's a long ways off in here because we're not seeing
sewer in here until well after the next century starts.
Ken Daniels: Then do you contemplate doing anything with regard to the west
side now? I don't think you do. It's just an easement right?
Paul Krauss: That conceiveably could be considered in a different context. With
Dogwood Road you have an undersized street that doesn't have a turn around. '
It's not inconceiveable that at some point in the future the Council may
possibly respond to a request for property owners in there to improve that
section of it. That could be done without the connection going back to TH 41.
It's within the realm of possibility at any rate. -
Coincilman Johnson: Yeah, it's been requested before and feasibility studies
have been done numerous times I think on that particular patch of roadway. ,
Councilman Workman: Does Plan B suggest that all of Tanadoona Drive as we know
it now would be open? Is that what you're saying there? '
{ Mayor Chmiel: It would have an access to it, yeah.
35
i
•
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
Councilman Workman: Connect up with Dogwood? -
IICouncilman Boyt: It does now.
Councilman Workman: Yeah, but we've seen other plans where Tanadoona has been
shut down.
' Gary Warren: If I could answer that. There's an option there that Tanadoona
could be considered to be closed down if we had that access but then you have
' your two long cul-de-sacs again.
Paul Krauss: We would prefer to maintain a loop.
' Councilman Workman: By keeping it open?
Councilman Johnson: One thing I see a reason for acquiring easements now is
' when you believe that in the future when something else divides that it would be
difficult to obtain those easements. By officially mapping a street through
here and if we move that street 30 feet to the north, and officially map it
' through the other 80 acres and not whatsoever, if the remaining 80 acres decides
to subdivide, it'd be to their benefit the subdivision, the road would be
completely within their subdivision which what happens here, as far as I'm
' concerned, this 100 acres did the subdividing. Not the 2 lots. It was a two
step subdivision. The 20 subdivided from the 80 and now the 20 is going into
two parts and so we don't really have pull on that other 80. Can we officially
map because this other 80, I think I'm getting into a separate question, but the
' other 80 is not even involved in this subdivision. How are we officially
mapping it? It doesn't really matter. We could go out here and officially map
anybody's farm if we decided we wanted to. So what I'm saying is, I think the
' 80 acres was getting off because of the whole scenario of how this was done.
They snuck away and I see those roads benefitting the 80 acres. I'd just move
the road 30 feet to the north and officially map the entire 60 foot of the road
' within the 80 acre parcel versus within Lot 1.
Councilman Boyt: I'll make a motion to approve Alternative B.
Mayor Ctmiel: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dimler: What was your motion?
' Mayor Chmiel: To approve Alternative B.
Councilman Boyt: Alternative B with staff recommendations.
Councilman Workman: I guess I'd like to have a little more discussion an the
connection that we're talking about here. Certainly on a map it looks like it
' should be connected. It's kind of a Teton Lane situation. It sure looks like
that should go through but a separate deal, for same other reason it's not.
Staff isn't necessarily giving us any arguments why we should connect it.
' Councilman Johnson: Connect what?
Councilman Workman: Dogwood and Crimson.
' 36
•
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990 '
I
Councilman Johnson: But we're not even recommending doing that.
Councilman Workman: And that's what I'm asking. That was the whole point of why
we were attempting to look at Options before because we had concerns that maybe
that should be connected. Have those fallen by the wayside completely?
Paul Krauss: Councilman Workman, it's a good question. No, I don't think that
they've fallen by the wayside. I think Alternative B achieves the connections
that we wanted to achieve with the Dogwood connection and does it in a more
comprehensive manner than simply looking at that connection would have done. Now
as I pointed out earlier, if you're going to ask us if additional connections
are going to. ..we're satisfied that it achieves that long term goal.
Gary Warren: At some time in the future.
Councilman Workman: Is it realistic to think that we're going to be able run a
road through the Arboretum property?
Councilman Johnson: Nope.
Paul Krauss: Well the Arboretum question is one that we have to face with
either the Dogwood connection or with Alternative B. Alternative B can resolve
the northern loop without involving any Arboretum property. The southern I
connection to Crimson Bay has to have Arboretum involvement one way or the
other, whichever alternative you look at.
Councilmmran Johnson: If the University ever got in such a financial condition 1
that they had to raise some money.
Mayor Chmiel : They were raising it today. They called me just right before I
left hare.
Councilman Johnson: Oh I had the State Patrol call me. Their association.
Councilman Workman: There again, I think Bill brought up the example that down
in Falcon Heights, isn't the St. Paul campus actually in Falcon Heights? The
St. Paul campus I mean is surrounded by development and they're planting corn on
it. So I don't think we'll, I'll never see that happen. Fran a map standpoint,
it looks like something, if we can achieve this thing. Heck, I'm not out to
split lots for the kick of it. I mean I indicated that yeah, there's no doubt
the buyer of Lot 2 has got a whole different lot if that easement's going
through there. Something of a time barb and if we can accomplish it and the
staff feels confident that we're accomplishing something here by essentially
making this a north half and a south half and not really having than connect, it
just doesn't look proper and that doesn't necessarily mean anything:- But if
we're accomplishing what we think we want to accomplish then I'm not out to
aggitate.
Mayor Chmiel: Tan, I feel that staff feels very uncomfortable with this
proposal and it looks very logical to me as well. i
37 i
I
IICity Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
II Councilman Workman: I just wanted to bring it up and make sure I knew where
everybody else was sitting because. . . I then support alternative B you know. I
just want to, I couldn't believe we weren't going to talk about that connection I
I but you know, if it's a situation that we're going to be serving safely the
properties in the future that is the main topic of our concern on this topic,
then fine.
IMayor Chmiel: Okay. Any further discussion?
Councilman Johnson: Well, we've only had a motion. We never had a second.
IIMayor Chmiel: No, and we'll call for a second. I'll second it if not.
II Councilman Johnson: I'd like, based an the discussion I had, I'm not sure if
Ursula and Tan were busy and heard my discussion but I'd like somebody to
convince me that it is necessary at this time to take the 30 feet out of Lot 1
Iversus taking the full 60 from the remaining 80 acres.
Councilman Boyt: I'll speak to that. I think that the people who would
and buy the 20 acres an the other side of this at sane Tip 1 cony in
II why am I doing all 60 feet when these other lots were platted beforeeaand you
y
didn't take anything fran them. I think when a lot is platted, if we need
something for City utilities of some sort, we take it. That's when we do it.
11 Councilman Johnson: So you're assuming that the next plat will be another 10
acre lot cut off of this 80 acre lot adjacent to Lot 1. !
I Councilman Boyt: I don't know that that's the truth or not. I don't know that
we're ever going to build that road. I'm just saying that now is the time for
Lot 1 to give us that easement and what I would recommend is that somehow or
II another that these guys figure out how to adjust that between the two lots. But
that's up to them. If the road needs to go next to Lot 1, then now is the time
to take that easement. Or half of it.
ICouncilman Johnson: Well what benefit is that to Lot 1?
Councilman Boyt: The same benefit it's going to be to the lot on the other side
Iof the road.
Mayor Chmiel: So in other words he's saying 30 to 30 rather than 60 to sip.
ICouncilman Johnson: What's this adjustment to Lot 2 that you're talking about?
Councilman Boyt: That's nothing. Forget that. That's up to them.
I Councilman Johnson: I can't see why Lot 2 would 've anything gi yt ng to their next
door neighbor at this point except that they're good friends. Nice people.
ICouncilman Boyt: Well Lot 2 is looking at an option that looks a lot more bleak
to them. I mean we could just go ahead and take the initial easement we were
II going to take across to Crimson Bay Road. That kills Lot 2 so they've got a
real incentive to see this thing work out in a different direction.
II38
I
Mayor Chmniel: Right and I think as it is, and I've mentioned before, I think
this is the most feasible way at this particular time. We do have a motion on
the floor and a second, any further discussion?
Councilwoman Dimler: Can we have a repetition of the motion please?
Councilman Boyt: The motion was to accept Alternative B with staff
recommendations.
Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve the Preliminary Plat for I
Zimmerman Farm using Alternative B for the road atlingmmremat with the following
conditions:
1. The City shall officially map the road alignment as illustrated by Exhibit 2
of the Senior Engineering Technician memo dated April 4, 1990.
2. Erosion control shall be Type II.
3. The applicant shall receive and comply with any necessary permits fran the
Watershed District and Department of Natural Resources.
4. The street name on the plat should be changed to reflect the current street
name of Dogwood Road.
5. The applicant shall dedicate to the City a temporary roadway easement for
the proposed turn around.
6. Require dedication of 40 feet along the west lot line of Lot 1 and 2 to be
combined with the existing 20 feet of right-of-way for the full 60 foot
rural street right-of-way but improvement of that right-of-way would not be
required until the rest of Dogwood or Lake Drive is improved or until
development in the area would require improvement. 1
7. Require dedication of 30 feet of roadway easement along the north lot line
of Lot 1, Block 1. -
8. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot trail easement along the east boundary
of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm and along the south boundary of Lot
2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm fran the southeast corner of Crimson Bay Road,
Crimson Bay subdivision.
9. The two approved septic sites an Lot 1 and 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm shall
be staked and preserved.
10. Any access, including a dock or boardwalk, to Lake Minnewashta from Lot 2,
Block 1 would require a wetland permit as would any dredging or removal of
vegetation in the area of the shoreline.
11. Construction plans and specifications for the temporary turn around shall be
submitted to the City Engineer for approval. The turn around shall be built
in accordance to the City's rural road design (7 ton).
39
i
11 City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried
with a vote of 4 to 1.
' Councilman Johnson: My only opposition is item 7. Taking the 30 foot at this
time. I don't think is totally appropriate.
' Mayor Chmiel: I think we finally settled something here.
WEILAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE FILLING IN AND SODDING CF AN HQSTING WETLAND
LOCATED AT 80 AND 100 SANDY BOOR BOND, STEPHEN FROST AND BOB PFANINDOH.
' Jo Ann Olsen: . . .The Planning Commission recommended approval of staff's
recommendations. They added a condition that if the applicants could show that
' the wetland didn't exist as far as what we have seen, we tried to put together
same past surveys, that we would work together to cane to an agreement to where
the fill should be removed to. Other than that we are recommending approval of
' the wetland and requiring the applicant to remove the fill to the area staff has
proposed in the original edge.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Jo Ann.
1 Councilman Johnson: Can I ask Jo Ann a question?
' Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead. I was going to but go ahead.
Councilman Johnson: How were you going to determine, what method are we
recommending to determine where the wetlands used to be? Are we taking soil
borings? Soil samplings or what?
Jo Ann Olsen: What we did, what staff did was to look at old surveys, aerials
' that shows the wetland vegetation. We have surveys fran when the subdivision
was first developed and which also has aerials which shows the edge of wetland.
What we did with that was to measure that distance from the lake, the water.
' The edge of the lake and what we've done is transfer that to the survey to show
a different dimension. Also we've used photographs from the applicant and we
also used the dimensions given by the applicant's contractor as part of the
grading application. Those dimensions were 40 feet, 42 to 45 foot depth of fill
that they showed.
Councilman Johnson: The stakes out there that are on the site right now.
Jo Ann Olsen: Those are DKR stakes.
' Councilman Johnson: Because there seem to be two rows of stakes.
Jo Ann Olsen: That's only to the ordinary high water mark.
Councilman Johnson: That's kind of what I was guessing was the first row was
the ordinary high water mark. Are you saying that we want to, the conclusion at
the end of the Planning Commission wasn't it that we determined, negotiate or
' figure out exactly where the edge of the wetland is by some method? Sane other
method than what you've done so far?
40
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
Jo Ann Olsen: They left it that if the applicant could prove to our I
satisfaction that the wetland wasn't as far back as what we're saying it was.
Councilman Johnson: What proof will you accept?
Jo Ann Olsen: Aerials. Soil borings. We can use that. Photos. I'm not
exactly sure what we'll take.
Councilman Johnson: I mean interpretation of an aerial
interpretted a lot of different ways. It takes no expertise it. be
expertise to do it.
Mayor Clmiel: Yeah, but it's there.
Councilman Johnson: But it's there. '
Jo Ann Olsen: The soil borings, I don't know how well those will be also
since. . .
Councilman Johnson: Was the existing wetland soils removed and more fill put in
or was fill just placed on top of the soil?
Jo Ann Olsen: I believe it was just fill. I don't know if anything was
removed.
Councilman Johnson: Nothing was removed? '
Jo Ann Olsen: No, so you can go deeper.
Councilman Johnson: So if you go through the fill, you should hit what we call
a horizon of natural soils. Then that natural soils fram a geotechnical firm
could identify whether that was a wetland soil or it was non-wetland soil by
moduling and whatever there is within the soils. So that could be surveyed in
and soil borings made and the edge of the wetland, the previous edge of the
wetland determined at a cost. Okay.
Mayor Clmiel: Is there anyone wishing to address, please state '
address. your name and
Steve Christenson: Good evening. My name is Steve Christenson. I'm with the
Dorsey and Whitney law firm in Minneapolis. I realize you've been sitting here
for a while tonight so I'll be brief. The Pfankuchs have asked me to came here II
tonight. What they want from you is an excavation permit or a permit that would
approve the recommendation of the DNR and the Corps of Engineers which is to
take out any fill that's below the ordinary high water mark. Their position is
that they've been through a lot of a*ninstrative hassle over this and maybe
there may have been same mistakes made in the past but they feel that 3 layers
of administrative work an this is enough. That two expert agencies, the
Department of Natural Resources and the Army Corps of Engineers recommend only
going to the ordinary high water mark and that that's where the line should be
drawn when this is such a gray question. I'd like to give you a little bit of
background in how this all came about. These houses were built, one the Frost
house was built I believe in 1987 and the Pfankuch's was built before that. sIn
1988 they realized that their lawns were lumpy and difficult to mow in the
41 ,
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
backyard so they decided to level them. These are kind of sloping. Well as you
would expect, they slope towards the lake so they hired a contractor who came in
with a little skid loader to push soil from the high part of their yards down
' towards the lake and level things out. In addition same fill was added. Roughly
6, maybe 12 inches. This was just placed directly on top of what was there
before. I think it's important to keep in mind that they weren't trying to do
anything wrong when they were doing this. They weren't trying to evade the
City's laws or trying to get by with something. They just simply didn't realize
that there was anything wrong here. When they were doing this fill, City
employees came out and looked at the site. No mention was made of that there
' were the possibility of wetlands there. They asked the contractor to obtain an
excavating permit. He did so and they they approved his continued work an the
project.
Councilman Boyt: I might as well tell you right now that you've never turned up
a signed wetland alteration permit.
Steve Christenson: That's absolutely correct. We've never asked for a signed
wetlands alteration permit.
' Councilman Boyt: But you're trying to say. . .
Steve Christenson: That it was a excavation permit.
Councilman Boyt: Your contractor never came the yt into th City to file for a wetland
alteration permit. Your contractor has a lot of experience around lakes. He
' knew he needed that. I agree with you. I don't think either property owner set
out to intentionally do this but I think their contractor, if they need to be
upset with someone, that's who they need to be upset with. So I think your
' letter to us is very misleading. It may be the way that you've been told the
facts are but I remember sitting here 2 1/2 years ago and listening to it when
it first came to the Planning Commission. I can tell you that I don't think
' this is worth the paper it's on. So that's the kind of audience you're
addressing down at this end. I don't know about the other four but you might as
well know that I'm real upset about this.
' Steve Christenson: I think that the contractor should have done more clearly
but I think that also wider the circumstances, that he had reason not to think
that there were wetlands there. Especially given that city employees were there
' and never suggested it to him. The problem with me, the official city of
Chanhassen wetlands map. This is a paper copy of it. I've got a transparency
that I can show you.
' Councilman Boyt: Do you have the DNR permit that he received before he started
excavation?
' Steve Christenson: No I don't.
Councilman Boyt: Oh, so did he get one of those?
' Steve Christenson: The wetland excavation?
' 42
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990 1
Councilman Boyt: If he pushed dirt below the high water mark, that takes a DNR '.
{
permit and he knew it. I think you're talking to the wrong group.
1 'Mayor Chmiel: Let's just.
Councilman Boyt: Excuse me. I'll stay quiet.
Mayor Ctmiel: Thank you. '
Steve Christenson: I fully admit that the contractor made a mistake but to get
back to the wetlands issue. This is a map of the Chanhassen wetlands and you
can see the wetlands. ..
Councilman Johnson: Major wetlands. '
Steve Christenson: The Pfankuchs and the Frosts live here. It's not shaded so
they had reason to think that they were not wetlands. I mean they had no reason
to think that they were wetlands. The City Code specifically points to this map
as being one thing that you should think of, indeed the main thing you should
think of in determining whether wetlands are present or not. This map wouldn't
suggest the wetlands were there.
Councilman Johnson: Are you indicating that they checked these maps before they
filled? '
Steve Christenson: I don't think they did. If they had however, they wouldn't
have had any reason to think there were wetlands in there. I have aerial
photographs that we obtained from the City. . . Unfortunately I only have two
copies. One of the old and one of the new. I think if you look at these, you
can see the Pfankuchs and the Frosts live here but comparing even to a non-
expert it's simply not clear that these are wetlands. . . Lastly, we had a
wildlife biologist at the Pfankuch's and the Frost's expense look at these naps.
Come out to look at the adjacent vegetation to try to determine whether there
were wetlands there or not. After looking at the aerial photographs, he
concluded that you simply couldn't tell from these aertial photographs clearly
whether there were or were not wetlands. It's simply gray. He pointed to the
official wetlands map as indication that maybe they were not. He compared
vegetation an adjacent property and again where it was high ground, he concluded
that it was not wetlands and where it -was lower -ground, couldn't tell but the
most important thing, soil borings. The ground was frozen and it was impossible
to determine last week. I guess I'd like to bring up just a couple more things.
One is this question of whether the City is legally estopped based on the City's
going out there, the city employees going out -there and knowing at the time that
this was happening and issuing an excavating permit despite not issuing a
wetlands permit. I think that there is good Minnesota case law and I've just
sent a letter to your lawyer and discussed it with-him. -Certainly raising a
legal issue whether the City has the authority to force then to take this back
out. A second question along that same line is whether the City's .ordinance
allows them to force then to take this land out at their o n expense. Last year
the City Council adopted an ordinance empowering .the. City _to do that but I think
your attorney would agree with me that laws do not ordinarily,apply_
retroactively after the fact. Again, that raises .a question whether the City
can do that. What the DNR and the Corps are asking the Pfankuchs and the Frosts
43 '
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
to do is going to be very expensive. It's punishment enough I think and for
that reason I'm asking you to approve a permit that would be consistent with the
DNR and the Corps' suggestion. If you have any questions, I know the Pfankuchs
and Mr. Frost are here.
' Mayor Chmiel: Does anyone have any specific questions of either
Party? Any
discussion? Tom, do you have any?
' Councilman Workman: No, other than that, apparently something was attempted, a
permit was attempted to be gotten from the City but it was never received and
' now we have the mess. It doesn't sound like it was specifically the property
owners but the contractor who did it. I have no doubt that they're in a wetland
area.
' Councilman Johnson: I have questions of staff I guess. I've heard the
excavation permit was applied for. I've heard fran sane people that it wasn't
ever actually granted. Do we assign a number or any kind of system to
' excavation permits that says once it's granted it goes into a file or whatever?
Do we countersign it? All I see is an application that's signed by the
contractor.
' Gary Warren: It's specifically assigned a project number. An excavation permit
number. 90-1, 2 in sequence.
' Councilman Johnson: Was this one ever assigned such a number?
Gary Warren: I don't know. Jo Ann, do you know?
' Jo Ann Olsen: I could find no record of it ever being assigned a number. What
was sent back to the applicant was the application by Barb Dacy the same day
that it had been filled out. While it was being processed was when we became
aware and went back out to the site, that there was wetland.
Councilman Johnson: And the excavation contractor, who took down the little red
' flag saying you can't work? Did the City crews go out there and say okay, it's
ready. You can start digging again or did he put in his excavation permit and
go out and continue to work now that he had his application in?
' Jo Ann Olsen: I'm not exactly sure who took down the sign.
Councilman Workman: Jay, isn't it really just a matter of whether or not
' they're in a wetland or not, which doesn't agree with our ordinance, and whether
or not they had permission to do that?
Councilman Johnson: Well partially if a city employee went out and said you can
continue this operation after their application had been made, whether that was
a city. That would have sane impact on me. If there was firm evidence to show
' that a building inspector or samebody on the site told the construction guy that
he could continue. If there was sane way to prove that. There isn't fran what
I can see. It looks to be that an application was applied for but never
granted. That the construction went ahead without a granted permit. That it
was only, and the permit doesn't mention any wetlands other than saying to the
lake. Hopefully we'll modify our permit on excavation permit forms to ask the
' 44
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
questions specifically and this points out a need for this. Are there wetlands
involved in this?
Mayor Chmiel: I agree.
Councilman Johnson: So if that's marked off yes or no, they mark off no and
there turns out to be, we've got a real federal case.
Paul Krauss: I could respond to that directly. Unfortunately you have an
ordinance change in the pipeline that does just that. It's the grading and
mining and excavation ordinance which deals with most sorts of activities as
well as the Moon Valley thing. You'll see that on your next agenda.
Mayor Chmiel: Good.
Councilman Boyt: Well, I would move denial of the wetland alteration permit.
Councilman Workman: Second. '
Jo Ann Olsen: Actually the way we have it worded is approval with the condition
that they have to remove the fill. '
Councilman Boyt: I was looking at the cover.
Bob Pfankuch: My name is Bob Pfankuch. I'm the resident at 100 Sandy Hook and
obviously I'm not an environmental engineer or landscape engineer or civil
engineer or an attorney. I'm just a property owner that got stuck with a bad
deal to the tune of $7,000.00 so far and a lot of aggravation. I had supplied
some photos to the city planning staff previously taking about the loosestrife
problem and the fact that very little fill had been put in because the
loosestrife continues to cane up through the sod. Obviously I didn't put in 3
feet of fill or whatever it takes to kill loosestrife or to hold it back for a
while. I did find another photograph which had been put in a family album
because it's a family event. You know we cut down a diseased or broken branch
in a tree and we're putting a swing up. But it also shows, if you look down
towards the lake, that there was mowed grass all the way to the water. . . On the
other side there were tall weeds which I had been cutting. . . Those root masses
of purple loosestrife which I had a lot of on the shore growing about 7 feet
tall, are extremely heavy. In fact the ones in the water, they're like a
floating mass. We live an the bad side of the lake so they tend to float over
from all the loosestrife on the other side of the lake if we get a storm, these
pods do came floating over. The other thing, in terns of the ordinary high
water mark, the stakes that you asked about, are my stakes. I put those in
between the two ordinary high water mark stakes that were driven in by the DNR.
In lieu of anything else, they said a straight line between these stakes will
indicate the ordinary high water murk. So in putting the stakes in between the
two. . . It's like the straight line between two, we think wetlands? We can
assume there was a wetland inbetween. I submit the photo shows not a very good
wetland. Mowed grass and same clumps of loosestrife. So that combined with the
fact that the City map; the wetlands map and I don't know the difference between
a major and minor wetland, would indicate to me that certainly I didn't have any
idea it was a wetland. To me a wetland is a swamp. That was not a swamp. I
was cutting grass on it. The other thing is that that property layed vacant for
45
11 , City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
11 about a year during the drought season. The people who owned the house before
Sandy and I purchased it and moved out and it was vacant for a year. The lot
was not taken care of. Maybe they preferred natural growth at the water's level
' or whatever. I can't answer that. I don't know. I'm sort of like sane of the
other homeowners on Lotus Lake. They like to be able to look at the lake, not
at the weeds. And the weeds are a real threat. I received a mailing in 1987,
' shortly after we moved in, from the City talking about the threat of purple
loosestrife and how difficult it was to control and that Rodeo was the only
thing that would do it. Non-selective chemical poured into the water I guess
right? If you pour it an the plant, that plant's in the water. It mast get in
' the water. It didn't seen like a good idea to me. I tried mechanical removal.
I'll tell you, those root masses can break a men's back you know. You just
can't do it. Or at least I couldn't do it. I tried. It seemed logical to me
' to smooth it out so I could mow it. In fact, the photos that I supplied earlier
showed that when the loosestrife canes up through now mowable ground, you can
maintain control over if by running a lawnmower over it every week. But
' physically pulling those things out is impossible. I think there are also sane
pictures of the DNR, at least State owned land which is adjacent to the outlot
that you dealt with previously. There's no question that some of that is
wetland because a lot of it is under water. If you look at that, the
' loosestrife is rampant on that piece of property. Absolutely rampant. It's
under no control whatsoever and loosestrife, I guess you know. Wildlife doesn't
like it. It's too thick. It takes over property. It's a horrible weed. It
' really is and what I was trying to do was deal with the weeds. Steve and I had
been out there mechanically cutting these things with a thing called a brush
cutter that we went down to Hardware Hank. That's a tougher job and you cut it
down in the fall and zammo, that stuff is up. When the lake was down, I'll tell
you we had a wetland out there. It was a mad flat that went out about 35 feet.
It took about 3 weeks for the loosestrife to take root and go into bloan. . .and
it just keeps going up to about 7. I went out and physically pulled it out. I
' was up over my ankles in the muck. In a mud bank pulling these weeds up because
they were the young ones. The big ones you can't get out. Their root ball is
like this, those big mature plants. You just can't deal with it. There's no
' loosestrife on my property now. There's a lot of garbage that blows in from
human use of the lake which I now have access to. I can clean up. Before I
couldn't get through the mass of weeds to get to the lakeshore to clean it up.
I submit that for whatever, and I don't believe there were wetlands there in the
' first place. In any event, the lakeshore looks a hell of a lot nicer now than
it ever did when I moved in. I can maintain then. I've got pictures of
garbage. Everbody's seen garbage along a lakeshore.
' Councilman Johnson: Could I ask a question or two?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure, go ahead Jay.
Councilmen Johnson: How far up the lakeshore did the loosestrife grow?
' Bob Pfankuch: It was up maybe about, I'm guessing, I don't know. Maybe 4 or 5
feet. From the water's edge at the time and then there were these masses
floating in the water. Actually were floating. You could push them around.
' There were just sane little root structure going down to the ground but they
were mostly floating.
46
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990 1
Councilman Johnson: Oakey Ponoakey Swamp. In this picture you show a series of I
boards from your dock.
Bob Pfankuch: Yeah, I think inwards. Those were laying on the ground. I think
the people because they preferred a natural, I don't know. I never met them. I
think they preferred natural. Whichever grows grows which is what Shirley
Ruskin has an the other side of me. It's not all wetland. It's just natural
cover is what it is and that's what that was. I don't like the natural cover
so I mowed it down.
Councilman Johnson: Why did you leave the boards there when you unwed it? ,
Bob Pfankuch: Because there was no grass there. When they lay on the ground,
nothing grows under it. I think what happened is the people left the boards on
the ground to get access to the dock but the weeds and the tall stuff wouldn't
grow through them. That was their preference. It wasn't mine.
Councilman Johnson: Did you show this to your biologist? ,
Bob Pfankuch: I don't think I found it at that time. He was in Thursday and
this weekend we were digging through pictures saying boy, there's got to
something on here. I mean I mowed it you know. Now you can see it was mowed.
Councilman Johnson: Well a lot of wetlands can be mowed. '
Bob Pfankuch: Well I can't justify the soil underneath the grass. To me it was
a lawn. '
Councilman Johnson: Purple loosestrife only grows in wetlands. If it's not a
wetland, then you're not going to have purple loosestrife.
Bob Pfankuch: Well there wasn't any loosestrife where it was mowed but on the
right side of the dock there's something there. I don't know what that was.
That may well have been loosestrife.
Councilman Johnson: You don't have the negatives do you?
Bob Pfankuch: Somewhere. '
Councilman Johnson: Somewhere? It'd be like me trying to find one of my many
piles of negatives. '
Bob Pfankuch: I mean you go through these packets of pictures and you don't
keep the pictures tight with the negatives. I'll probably have to go through
5,000 or 1,000 or some number to find them. This is a picture taken at the same
angle Sunday. It doesn't look a heck of a lot different except you don't have
the little growth along the right side of the dock and the boards aren't laying
down on the ground anymore. There's sod there now. Most of the 45 feet that
we're talking about here with the level out, I guess you'd call it, I think it's
been called an ice ridge or something. Anyway, it's the higher part of the lot
but the lot slopes up from the lake towards the house. A lot of that was rough
ground. It had brush, bushes in it we didn't like. It was higher ground than
the rest of the ground. I wanted sane flat area for the kids to play on. I told
47 11
1
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
the contractor just drag it down. Clean off the brush. Lay in sage, what do
' you call it, top dressing. I guess it's topsoil and put the sod down. It
actually was sodded almost all the way down to the dock orignally. There was a
narrow path down there and that's what the people had for access. They laid the
' boards down and walked on the dock. It was not swamp. It was high ground. It
may have been wetland but it was dry ground to me.
' Mayor Chniel: Any other questions Jay?
Councilman Johnson: No, not really.
' Bob Pfankuch: I guess I'm a little concerned about a couple things also though
Jay. The fact that the Planning staff never brought out the wetlands map you
know. I had no knowledge that such a thing existed. I think that it's possible
' that if the wetlands map may have been referred to by the existing planning
staff at the time, Barb Dacy who I had talked to about the loosestrife and she
said, I don't know what you can do about it. They probably looked at the
' wetlands map when a contractor was hauled in because he didn't have a permit and
said it looks like there's no wetlands there. Let's give him the permit. I'm
guessing. I don't know. We're all guessing about what happened. But anyway,
if you did legally stop and almost forceably stop the contractor fran doing the
' work and put up signs, and the next day you didn't go down to see if he was
still working, I mean you know. Whether they went down and pulled the signs out
or whether you just went down to see if he was doing something, which I think
' would be a reasonable response. . .so I think there's some share of blame. The
other thing in regards to wetlands, I have a lot of respect for Paul Krauss
having watched his comprehensive zoning presentation. I wasn't real happy with
the presenter and Paul was not the presenter. I'm talking about Channel 20 now.
But immediately after the March 21st hearing before the Planning Commission,
there was another wetlands alteration request that came on and Mr. Wildermuth
said I'm a little confused here. We told these people they can't have a wetland
alteration and now we're going to grant one. What's the difference? Even he
was confused and I certainly was confused. But I picked this up on television.
I didn't hang around to watch that but out of that, let's see my notes here said
' that, the City Planner in response to the commissioners request as to how does
the City define a wetland. Say a 10 acre location as opposed to a hole made by
a horse. I assume a hoof print. Paul said we know them when we see them.
Sounds pretty accurate doesn't it? Well I guess I might suggest that they even
know them when they don't see then. Further Paul offered, if it seems like we
fly by the seat of our pants, we do in reference to the replacement of wetlands
by substitution of a wetland on another property. Having no knowledge of the
' current mood of Paul Krauss' seat of his pants or the flying status of same,
I find it a little difficult to offer a replacement wetland to appease the city
planning staff and the City Council if it so please the Council. We're talking
' about a few hundredths of an acre. If you want to prorata contribution rather
than continuing this very expensive and frustrating procedure, I'd be happy to
consider that. The City park somewhere. I think the suggestion was made on the
land of Eckankar. Lake Ann. Thank you.
' Mayor C2miel: Thanks. Any other questions?
' Councilman Johnson: I have a cannent of course. Wetland alteration permits
such as this, this is kind of a comment to the future for staff ideas, a
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990 1
condition I'd like to see is that no fertilizer will be used within so many feet
of this area in that part of the function of a wetland between a home and a lake
1 is to act as a nutrient filter to remove some of these fertilizer compounds 11 before they get to the lake and start to grow in the lake. I'd like to see any
wetland alteration permit similar to this that is ever requested, that we slide
in a distance that we say this is a no fertilizing zone within your yard. We
can't do it to the next door neighbors or anything because they're not
requesting a permit. The other thing is, as I visited this site, I stopped at
your house today. You weren't home and I took the liberty for my son and I. We
walked around to the back and real nice little swing you've got there. I wish I
had a tree like that. Looking at the site and looking at the aerial
photographs, and I'm not an aerial photograph interpreter like the EPA has or
like I'm used to but I would believe that what I saw next door as a wetland is a
continuous arc within the arc to this land and across and that the darker area
within the earlier 80's photograph would be a continuation of that little
triangle of wetland vegetation that you saw on the neighboring property. This
isn't your house there? This is your next door neighbors house? In this
earlier 80's photograph? Before you house was built. Okay, that's your next
door neighbor's house. Good. The little corner in this photograph right here
still exists in a virgin area has wetland vegetation and whatever in. It's the
darker lumpy type area here and that continues around the same area that now as
shown in these photographs.
Bob Pfankuch: That's to the north? ,
Councilman Johnson: Yeah.
Bob Pfankuch: That's the DNR line?
Councilman Johnson: No, no. To the south of you. Then that further goes ,
around as it's now shown as sod and is sod there. I think staff's
interpretation is probably halfway right but I'd like to know that we're, I'd
like to see if we move approval here and the approval is that we remove the
dirt. I'd like to see that there's an option that the owner can prove a more
scientific method, soil borings, whatever establish where the wetlands is to the
satisfaction of staff. '
Councilman Boyt: That's in there.
Councilman Johnson: That is in there? r
Mayor Chmiel: As a condition. Number 7.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, I missed that. I was looking at the Planning
Commission action.
Councilman Boyt: Can we move approval Jay? 1
Councilman Johnson: Yes. I'm sorry. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? We have a motion and a second.
49 ,
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
Councilman Boyt: We did get that motion in that way? 1
Mayor ChTdel: Yes.
' Councilman Workman: As modified?
Councilman Boyt: I don't think we did. I think I move denial of the wetland
' alteration permit and they were really moving approval. So I would move
approval of the wetland alteration permit 88-3 with conditions stated by staff.
' Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilman Johnson: That motion effectively gets rid of your, you never
formally withdrew the other motion.
' Councilwanan Dimler: It was not seconded.
' Mayor Chmiel : Yes it was.
Councilman Johnson: This supercedes it and we're not getting. . .
' Mayor Chmiel: Basically what you have to do is withdraw your motion.
Councilman Boyt: Okay.
' Councilman Workman: I withdraw my second.
Councilman Boyt: We did that. I'll make the last motion I just made.
'
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilman Boyt moved, Co ncilnan Workman seconded to approve Wetland Alteration
Permit #88-3 with the following conditions:
1. Lot 2, Block 2, Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake 2nd Addition, shall have 45' x
72' x 45' of fill removed measured from the property line adjacent to Lotus
Lake as shown on the final plat. The fill will be removed by June 15, 1990
' using the typical cross section provided by the DNR.
2. Lot 1, Block 2, Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake 2nd Addition, shall have 45' x
78' x 42' of fill removed measured fran the property line adjacent to Lotus
' Lake as shown an the final plat. The fill will be removed by June 15, 1990
using the typical cross section provided by the DNR.
' 3. The applicant shall be permitted one boardwalk through the restored wetland
to provide access to the dock.
4. The area of removed fill shall be allowed to restore to a natural state.
5. Any purple loosestrife that returns shall be immediately removed as
recommended by the Fish and Wildlife Service manual, "Spread, Impact and
' Control of Purple Loosestrife in North America Wetland".
1 50
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990 I
6. Prior to any work being done on the site, the applicant shall submit for I
City staff approval a grading and erosion control plan.
7. If the property owners can present proof to the satisfaction of the City I
Staff that the wetland did not extend into their properties from the lake as
far as they are being required to remove fill, then that should be taken
into account and the amount of fill to be removed should be adjusted
accordingly.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. I
*Note: Steve Christenson, Attorney for the Pfankuch's, picked up the
photographs submitted by Mr. Bob Pfankuch from the City Council after the item
was completed. I
PRELIMINARY PLAT T3 REP'LM' LAKE RILEY moons 2ND AD)ITION TO CORRECT A PLATTING
ERROR, GEORGE NELSON ASSOCIATES.
This item was tabled.
CONSIDER ESTABLISHMENT CF A NO PARKING ZONE ALONG THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHW
HIGHWAY 101 AND WEST 78TH STREET.
Councilman Johnson: Did anybody show up for item 10?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Johnson: I didn't know if those property owners involved were going
to be here or not.
Councilwoman rimier: It was pulled.
Councilman Johnson: I know it was pulled but at that point nobody was here.
I'm wondering if anybody is here right now. Okay, because I don't recognize any
of the property owners. Met them once.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd remember George.
Councilman Johnson: No, it's not George Nelson. It's the guy that bought the
lot. That's the other people that I was concerned might be here.
Mayor Chmiel: You're an.
Jim Chaffee: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, several Council meetings ago we looked at
this issue of actually the problem that staff felt was a problem of the cars
that are parked for sale along southbound TH 101 near the intersection of West
78th Street. It was Council's desire for staff to look at it and came back with
a proposal. I've been working with the engineering department, specifically
Dave Hempel in trying to determine what our best course of action would be to
prevent what we feel is a dangerous situation. We have came up with a
recommendation that the City Council, by resolution establish a no parking zone
for that specific area and with that we believe MnDot would then stake out the
• property lines and post signs for us and we should then be able to get a handle
51 I
I
—citycouncil meeting April 9, 1990
1 '
on the problem.
11 Councilman Boyt: I'd move approval.
' Mayor ChmieL: I'll second it. Any discussion?
Councilman Workman: Yes. My only discussion is, and I'm not so much against
this because apparently the owner of the lot doesn't really give a rip.
' Mayor Chmiel: The owner of the lot has indicated that he would like same
assistance from the City.
' Councilman Johnson: He requested the signs.
' Councilman Boyt: Last November.
Councilman Workman: Okay. Well, because really the situation, nobody's shown
me that we have a problem here. We have a perceived problem but nobody's proven
to me that we do have a problem an this corner.
Mayor Chmiel : Tan, maybe I can address that. Probably about 3 weeks, 4 weeks
' ago sanebody slowed down to really take a look at the car. I was caning off
of TH 5 onto West 78th and. . .
Councilman Workman: You didn't have your radar patrol an though.
Mayor Chmiel : The lights were off too but anyway, there was darn near an
accident at that intersection. ►
' Councilman Workman: That's everywhere. That's on every corner.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, but. It was because I felt that the individual had enough
roan to go ahead of me to make or to go through his yeild but he slowed down
specifically and slowed down real slow to maybe about a 5 nph and there's
another car caning up from behind me. Maybe he wasn't paying attention but he
was looking at the vehicle that was parked there.
Councilman Workman: Out at Lake Ann Park there's a car parked right now on
'
somebody's property. That could cause a hazard. On TH 5 in Eden Prairie,
there's about 3 or 4 cars parked by the Pauly's or wherever over there. As you
came through by Mitchell Lake. I mean the situation's everywhere. I'm just
thinking that one of these days we're going to run into somebody that's got a
lot they want cars parked there on.
Mayor Chmiel: They have to have a license for it number one. I don't object to
' anybody selling their vehicle if they have one vehicle at a time that they're
selling and it's their own personal vehicle. That's fine.
' Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I have a few things too. I had a concern. I
think we're doing the right thing for the wrong reason. I can't imagine anybody
thinking that is a parking area and obviously they're using it for a display
' area to sell their vehicles. So yes, we're handling it by putting up no parking
signs thinking that's going to take care of it but again, doing the right thing
52
1
i
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
11
for the wrong reason. I don't want to restrict anybody, especially if
Mr. Peter's doesn't care. But if he wants our assistance, I guess I'll go along
with it. ,
Councilman Boyt: He wrote a letter in November and said I would like the City
to put a no parking sign up. I'm amazed that we're talking about this 4 months
later. '
Councilman Workman: I never saw that letter.
Councilman Boyt: I've got a copy. I'll get it to you. 1
Councilman Workman: Maybe we should table this. I'm just saying, I saw a
letter that said something to the effect he was contacted and he said something,
well if you guys want to go ahead and do something, that's fine by me. I never
saw a letter that he drafted on his own worrying about this and worrying about a
safety problem or worrying about cars. You're not telling me that are you? He
noticed a problem on safety on his lot?
Councilman Boyt: We contacted him and told him.
Councilman Workman: That's what I mean. That's another situation.
Councilman Boyt: He wrote back and said, I would like you to put a no parking i
sign and I'll show you a copy but. . .
Mayor Chmiel: We're not going to put the no parking signs directly on his
property is that correct Jim?
Jim Chaffee: That is right. I
Mayor Chanel: They're going to be on the highway right-of-way. So that's not
going on privte property. I'd object to that myself.
Councilman Workman: I'm just saying, it wasn't something that disturbed the
owner of property. It was something that disturbed members of the Council and
it was directed to the owner of the property where he said I don't care what you
do because it's not bothering me.
Councilman Boyt: That's not what he said. I'm sorry you didn't get a copy of
the letter. I'd be happy to bring it in.
Councilman Workman: It's not that big of a deal.
Councilman Boyt: Well driving by it twice a day every day, I'd say it's a real
safety hazard on one of the most dangerous corners we've got and it won't be a
dangerous corner 2 years fron now but it is right now. '
Councilman Workman: And you're entitled to your perception. As am I. We've
proven time and time again that you and I have a different perception about
safety and all sorts of things so you shouldn't be surprised. At all.
Councilman Boyt: I'll always be surprised.
53
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990 -
Don Ashworth: As we are working with the State on this and engineering, my
guess is it's going to be 60-90 days before actual signs can get up. I mean if
there's any question that the property owner is really against this, my guess is
that just with previous State approvals saying we can put up the signs and where
they'll be located and what not will be at least 60 days.
' Resolution #90-47: Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded a
resolution establishing a no parking zone on southbound Highway 101 an the curve
' in the area generally utilized by vehicle parked for sale. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
' ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ID AMEND THE SUBDIVISION AND ZQQING ORDINANCE TO
REQUIRE THE POSTING OF PUBLIC nemmmam SINS FOR NEW MEVELORIENTS WITHIN THE
CITY, FIRST READING.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, do you want a report on that? That's basically an
ordinance amendment that accomplishes what your direction was to us a couple
months ago.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. That's correct. Any discussion?
' Councilman Boyt: I think $100.00 is not enough. The signs are costing $250.00.
They're going to be up for how long?
Mayor Chniel: Well the sign goes up and down, up and down.
Councilman Boyt: I'm just saying I don't think the life cycle of the sign.
' Well what I'd like to have is I'd like to have staff review this so the City in
the long run isn't putting any money into this. The leasing fee for the sign
covers our actual cost.
' Mayor Chmiel : I think what we have to do is run it for a period of time to see
and if it's not paying for itself, then we have to do something. Any other
discussion?
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to approve the first
reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the Subdivision and Zoning
' Ordinance to require the posting of public information signs for new
developments within the City. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' ZONING CSEINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARTICLE II, SECTIONS 20-56 THROUGH 20-70
PERTAINING TO PROCEDURES FOR THE ISSTA9NCE OF VARIANCES, FIRST READING.
' Mayor Oriel: Item 13 has been removed. Is that correct Paul?
Paul Krauss: Yes.
54
I
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990 w
OCUSENI AGENDA: (A) WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR FILLING AND ALTERATION OF
CLASS A AND B WETLANDS LOCATED ON LAKE DRIVE FAST, SOUTH CF HIGHWAY 5 Aim FAST
CF =ant AVENUE, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. I
Councilman Johnson: Actually Jim has a lot of background on this. I think
everybody's talked to Georgette at one time or another. '
Gary Warren: 1(a)?
Mayor Camel: No, we're talking 1(a). 1
Councilman Johnson: Okay. Earth to Jay. I didn't put it in order here. This
is what was just mentioned a little while back. I have a question. How much
additional wetland is being added to the Eckankar proposed wetland that was
already designed and developed prior to this alteration is being caused by this
alteration? How much bigger are we going to make that Eckankar wetland?
Jo Ann Olsen: I'll start and then you can clarify things Gary but it seems that
we have close to an acre in excess right now with the design of the Eckankar
wetland. We've been proposing to use a portion of that to replace these
wetlands. In addition, the Eckankar wetland still has to go through Planning
Commission and City Council for wetland alteration permit. We don't know how
much leeway we have but at that time if there's ever a need to add to it, we can
look at it at that point. For right now, even with the design as it is, it
looks as if we have almost a whole acre in excess at this time.
Councilman Johnson: In excess of what?
Jo Ann Olsen: Over what we were using it for as far as the other Lake Drive
wetland alteration permit. '
Councilman Johnson: Lake Drive?
Jo Ann Olsen: The one by Rosemount. We did the same sort of thing there. ,
Councilman Boyt: We went through about 3 of then didn't we?
Mayor Chmiel: Yep.
Jo Ann Olsen: There was wetland there that could not be replaced on site that
we were replacing with the storm water wetland on the Eckankar site.
Mayor Chmiel: There was also another wetland right on our intersection of CR 17
and 78th Street.
Councilman Johnson: In that same...directed there. That was actually going to
that property. The water was actually going. . . Okay, now how did this get
calculated? Did we take the existing wetlands and say we're going to expand
this existing wetland there because it is an existing wetland in the Eckankar
property and we're going to expand it by so many acres. That expansion, we take
so many acres out of it for the Rosemount and so many acres of that expansion
over the existing wetland for what we need for the other property and what's
• left over is an acre that we have in the bank that the City can run around and
55
11
1 City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
take a wetland from a different watershed almost. Different subwatershed at
least and then take it out of the bank?
Gary Warren: The wetland alteration permit that was done for the Lake Drive
' West project dealt with the mitigation of basically 3 wetland areas. And as a
part of that approved permit, some work was done along Lake Drive but the
' majority of it was shown for mitigation to be done in the Eckankar pond at CR 17
and TH 5. The pond as you may recall, we have a parcel in condemnation, a
friendly condemnation if that's possible, in that we've been working with
Eckankar for acquiring the property and they are interested in 1 1/2 acres
' roughly in the corner to retain as a lot which is workable. But we've gone
through several actually improvements and modifications to that Eckankar pond
with input from Paul Burke and the Eckankar people and as this thing stays open
' here an West 78th Street, that we've just worked through several alterations on
it. The camient that we've been, I don't want to leave the impression that
we've been going along banking wetland credits so we can go about
' indiscriminantly saying well we're giving you one back so we can take one so to
speak. It just turns out that with the wetland alteration mitigation that was
approved on Lake Drive, that we are ending up now with .9 of an acre of
additional wetland that we are achieving out there. In working with Paul Burke,
' he sort of, you've got to put sane criteria on it and we've had indications from
him that we are doing more than typically here in trying to keep track of
things. So when we look at these wetlands on Lake Drive East, which total to
' about 4.47 acres of mitigation, I guess what we're trying to say is that the
level of the wetlands on Lake Drive East, their ultimate future as far as
development of the Chan Haven Plaza subdivisions I think is probably in question
anyway and that we do have .9 of an acre on the Eckankar pond proposal as it
stands right now to show that we are trying to acknowledge. That we're not just 1
indiscriminantly trying to wipe out a wetland. That we are restoring it.
' Councilman Johnson: I find it, I don't know how to say it politely but kind of
hocus pocus here in that before, you know I've known about the Eckankar wetland
for a long time and I saw it as serving downtown and whatever and we get all the
' way over to this side of the land and we start taking away same wetland. I want
to see that function of that wetland replaced within that watershed. Within the
entire watershed. Both are in the same watershed. They're both in the Riley
but within the subwatershed, this one goes directly to the Rice Marsh Lake. The
' Eckankar goes through Lake Susan and a series of ponds and everything else
before getting to Rice Marsh Lake. My personal opinion is that it's too far
removed. The Rosemount wetlands went directly to Lake Susan through same other
' channels and whatever and the Eckankar goes to Lake Susan through same whatever
channels and those are halfway within, they're fairly close. This one they just
don't quite jive. You're taking, the resources are too far away. I don't think
' this one little wetland is very Hach of a functional wetland whatsoever anyway.
It seems to be a pothole that doesn't serve much of a watershed at all. It may
not be serving a functional purpose as a wetland other than breeding mosquitoes
during the summer. So on that case, to say we're really mitigating our impact
' here, I have a hard time swallowing that. That they're too remote and I don't
think, nobody's told me what the impact is other than acreages. The wooded
wetland has same function and those functions are going to cane back so I don't
' have a lot of problems with the wooded wetland because it should recover. I
hate to see somebody now go way over to the edge of Eden Prairie and do the same
' 56
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
thing because I'll oppose it the next time through. I'm saying I'm going to let
this one go. Extracting my pound of flesh I guess.
Councilman Boyt: Fran all of us.
Councilman Johnson: From all of you. I'm sorry Bill but I think it's also a
good concept because I don't think we would allow a property owner to do the
same thing. We have to hold the City by the same level.
Gary Warren: I guess this is an example where the City is following it's own
rules in that maybe in years gone by or in the past public improvement projects
it was taken for granted that maybe we were watching out for wetlands and maybe
wouldn't even have applied for a permit. I don't know but we definitely did
call the question on this one because we are sensitive to the fact that we need
to stand to our own test. I think you touched Jay on an important part here and
that's the level of these wetlands in proportion to the big picture here I think
is important and can't be overlooked. The actual usefulness of these particular
wetlands in relation to the water quality benefit I think that we were able to
actually provide more benefit by working with the Eckankar pond to the
downstream Rice Marsh Lake area than maybe what these wetlands are going at this
point in time. Also, considering that their life is probably going to be
limited when development finally catches up with this site so I guess we're
trying to be responsive.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, but the truth is, if we did not change these wetlands
one bit, the Eckankar wetland would have stayed the exact same size. '
Gary Warren: We could shrink it if you wanted to. That's pretty easily done.
.Paul Krauss: I guess I'll just take the opportunity to briefly throw in my '
pitch on this and the last applicant indicated that I said we were flying by the
seat of our pants on these things.
Mayor Chmiel: He quoted you.
Paul Krauss: He quoted me actually accurately but I pointed out to the Planning
Commission that you raise same very valid points Jay and the only way we can
resolve that comprehensively is through the storm water management plan that
we're making efforts toward pursuing at a comprehensive approach to wetland
preservation with possibility a no net loss program where wetlands are evaluated
as to quality and replacements are offered in a reasonable manner. Frankly
right now we're doing the best we can slapping these things together and
hopefully we'll be able to approach it more comprehensively in the not too
distant future.
Councilman Boyt: As long as you're bringing this up, I thought that if we gave
him the impression that we don't know what a wetland is, we misled him because I
think, at least in the 3 years I've been here, I've seen same very careful
investigations of whether something is a wetland. Our staff and Fish and
Wildlife and we base those on facts. Not an seat of the pant guesses.
Paul Krauss: What was being paraphrased there was, we do not have a
comprehensive wetlands map. If somebody comes in and says can you tell me if
57
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
there's a wetland on my property, the general answer is well maybe but we'd
really have to go out there because here's a wetland set of criteria. If we're
' out there we can tell you definitively or we can call Paul Burke or somebody of
his to do that. But we do not have a comprehensive map so homeowners are at
something of a disadvantage. If they try to follow-up, they can't do it very
effectively.
Councilman Boyt: Well given the number of wetlands in Chanhassen, I'd say your
chances of having a map that has them all an it are pretty remote.
Councilman Johnson: Have you talked to the mosquito control? You guys are
going to get a letter fran the Mosquito Control District. They claim they have
every mosquito breeding site in eastern Carver County on that. The number was
astounding. I happened to be here when it came in so I got mine a little early
and you guys are going to get yours. I'd check with them. They may have same,
because where mosquitoes breed are wetlands with the exception of forests.
Councilman Boyt: That's not necessarily true.
' Councilman Johnson: Well tires and sandboxes and everything else but in
general.
Councilman Workman: I'd move approval of this.
' Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Actually I'll move approval since I yanked it.
Councilman Workman: I'll second it.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilmen Workman seconded to approve Wetland
Alteration Permit for filling and alteration of Class A and B wetlands located
an Lake Drive East, south of Highway 5 and east of Dakota Avenue as recommended
by the City Manager. All voted in favor and the notion carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: MATER JET SRI COMPLAINT, COUNCILMAN JOHNSON.
Councilman Johnson: I believe last year we said we were going to look at this
' and nothing really happened. Georgette came in on a Visitor's Presentation and
we were going to follow up and there hasn't been a lot of follow-up yet. This
is really a tough issue in that it's going to be probably be handled by federal
' regulations and stuff like that before we would be able to much about it. The
movement in a clockwise manner or counter clockwise manner around Lotus Lake may
be part of her problem. Part of her problem is that jet skis like to run in
tight circles at her property and then jump their own wakes. If we could
' construe the counter clockwise requirement being that when you're, of course
that's only if you're going over 15 mph too and I don't know how fast a jet ski
goes when they're doing these little circles. I would assume if you're doing
' tight circles, you're probably well under 15 mph. So that doesn't even count.
I don't know how to help her on this thing.
' Mayor Chmiel: Maybe Jim can.
Jim Chaffee: Well Mr. Mayor in the interest of time, I think the City Manager
had a, at lesat for the manent a pretty good suggestion and that's tabling this
' 58
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990 1
until such time as the LMCD comes up with sane kind of finalization on their
guidelines. I just noticed in a couple, several of the weekly papers that they
did have a public hearing, I think it was on Saturday regarding this very issue.
They're caning out with sane real stringent restrictions and again, I don't know
what the public hearing, what happened at the public hearing but at least for
the moment I'd like to suggest that.
Mayor Chniel: I think that's probably something that we have to do. We need to
look at other than the fact that the State of New Hampshire did ban them
completely. I don't expect that's going to take place. '
Councilman Johnson: Didn't we have a serious injury last year an Lake Riley
with a jet ski?
Jim Chaffee: Yes. I believe it was when one of the individuals was impaled.
Councilman Johnson: He was impaled on a dock post. Tried to jump the dock and
didn't make it or something.
Jim Chaffee: Right. '
Councilman Johnson: Major stupid move.
Councilman Boyt: I would think that, this is about a life vest. Don't you '
already have to have those on any water vehicle? Any water vessel?
Jim Chaffee: Again, the DNR indicated that you did not. That was one of their
suggestions to the legislature this year is to mandate the wearing of lifevests
when you're operating these jet skis and they said the legislature wouldn't even
look at it so I'm just assuming from what she told me, that it is not a
requirement at this time.
Councilman Boyt: Is Hennepin County at 85 decibel limit? Is that why that's in
there or is that a State limit?
Jim Chaffee: Well that again I don't know. That was what the gal fran the DNR,
Anita told me was what they were looking at. The LMCD now is looking to make
their limit 79 so it could be a LMCD limit. It could be manufacturers PCA
limit. I'm not sure about that.
Councilman Boyt: Do the deputies have the authority to stop hazardous operation '
on our lakes?
Jim Chaffee: Yes they do.
Councilman Boyt: So if they deem this tight circle sort of thing as hazardous,
they could stop that?
Jim Chaffee: Yes they can.
Councilman Boyt: One of the things in your comments about Georgette reminds me
1 that we have so many ordinances, Tan will love this, that people don't know what
they are. If you look at Section 6-48, it says that nobody can operate a
59
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
motorized vehicle within 100 feet of any shoreline without emerging straight in
and straight out. Well clearly your observation of this jet ski, the guy must
' have been illegal.
Councilman Workman: The key is enforcement.
' Councilman Boyt: But I'm saying, we've got it here and I would venture that if
we polled people, nobody knows it.
Councilman Johnson: That also says or slow, no wake operation which again.
Councilman Boyt: Well that rules these guys out.
Councilman Johnson: Right. So you can troll the shoreline for fishing but you
can't wateski the shoreline.
' Councilman Boyt: Like so many other things, we have a control mechanism in our
ordinances. We just don't know about it.
Councilman Johnson: We need to post that.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that'd be the only thing you could do. But how are you
' going to enforce it without something concrete to grab onto?
Don Ashworth: Well we can put as part of the attendant being there making sure
' that things such as the no wake and the circular movement is on that flyer. I
personally think that it was from this last year but I'll double check and make
sure that it is on there.
Councilman Boyt: Isn't there a sign posted right by the boat launch that has
all those on it already?
' Don Ashworth: I know it has as far as the removal of the weeds but I'm not sure
about. . .
' Councilman Boyt: I think there are two signs there. One for the Eurasian water
milfoil and the other one for the regulations on that particular lake because
it's a little unusual that you'd have a lake where you can only go counter
clockwise.
' Mayor Chmiel: I know I went out there last year when they were having same
problems when I got a call from Georgette and we did quiet it after I talked to
them but the following week it was right back to where it was. They weren't
people from the community at all. They were people fran Minneapolis and
Excelsior and Minnetonka. But anyway, I think that we probably should go by
' what the manager's comments are to see what the LMCD is going to do. Carrying
out their extensive study regarding water jet skis. Can we somehow enforce that
counter clockwise?
Jim Chaffee: I've got a meeting with Gary Bankston from the Sheriff's
Department on Wednesday and he will be the water patrol supervisor this year.
And last year they were real responsive to all of our requests and I think last
' year we had fewer complaints than we have in the 3 years I've been here.
60
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
I
Councilman Boyt: Well the lake was different when they were there and when they
were gone. And they were there quite often. '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I don't think we'll need a motion on this. Just to
proceed with it. I
Councilman Workman: So what are just going to wait and see?
Mayor Chmiel: Well yeah. As Jim has indicated, he's going to talk with the new
individual who's going to be an there. . .and try to curtail the problems that are
existing.
Councilman Johnson: Have Jim continue on and keep focused an this one.
Jim Chaffee: I'm sure Georgette will make sure we keep focused. Thank you. ,
Mayor Chmiel: I have a letter from the Chaska Boy's Basketball program which
I presented same gifts to the players and this is fran Dennis Welder the coach.
He said Mayor Chmiel and the City of Chanhassen. On behalf of the Chaska Boy's
Basketball team coaching staff I want to say a special thanks for your kind and
warm camients at our Sunday welcome have and also very appreciated. Thank you
for the tickets to the Chan Dinner Theater to see the play Damn Yankees. We
enjoyed the dinner and the play was delightful. It was an enjoyable night and
we thank you for that wonderful gesture on your part. Thanks again. Sincerely,
Dennis Welder.
Councilman Boyt: How did we fund that?
Mayor Chmiel: We funded it mostly fran the Dinner Theater.
Councilman Boyt: That's marvelous. ,
Mayor Chmiel : Yes, and we are sending a thank you letter to them. Or has it
already gone?
Don Ashworth: It's already gone.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. I have another letter here from our fair Governor talking '
about last year's Minnesota Clean Rivers Project. Initiated statewide program
called the Mayor's challenge in an effort to clean up waterways in and around
our states and communities. Over 240 mayors indicated an interest in organizing
clean-up efforts for their community and 56 cities actually participated. Hard
work by these dedicated leaders really paid off. Nearly 400 tons of debris was
removed fran 287 miles of shoreline through an effort that involved 13,868
volunteer hours. That's a lot of hours. This year_we wanted to increase our
efforts to include many more Minnesotans who are interested in neking their
community a cleaner, healthier and more aesthetically pleasing place to live.
What he is asking is that-if we would like to participate in-this. We have a
card to send in and I think on our Earth Day would be as good a time as -any to
incorporate some of this in addition to what we have, if we :haven't already done
so. So with that I would like you to take a look. '
61
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
Councilman Johnson: I think that would be a g ood idea to talk to the Scouts or
whatever about. . .
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. See who we can get. The Boy Scouts or Cub Scouts or Girl
Scouts.
Don Ashworth: Todd Hoffman is working an this right now.
Mayor Chmiel: I think he is and that's why I said that but I think we should
indicate that and send that in. Ursula, HRA?
Councilwoman Dimler: Alright. I've got our Minutes here that have been
' approved and I guess after reading through them I can see that it was, we were
talking past each other. It was real confusion here. It has to do with setting
up the meeting, the joint meeting of the HRA and the Council. It was always my
' understanding that the purpose would be to get to meet with them to discuss HRA
control and accountability. I was real surprised when we came to the meeting
that that was not on the agenda. I can remember distinctly saying if and when
we make a motion that the Council became the HRA, does that require a public
' hearing. I was told that it did not but that the ERA members would have to
resign to provide openings. But I said can the public be present if they want
some input. I was told that they could came. There were many members from the
' public here that wanted to address both the HRA and the Council and they're not
given the opportunity. I guess my question is, when was that agenda set and who
set it and if it was set before Thursday, why were we not given copies? Target
' was never mentioned as a topic and yet that was what most of the agenda was
about. I didn't object to talking about the legislative, having an update on
the legislative proposals but I really was surprised that the whole meeting then
was taken up by the Target proposal. We never got to the real issue and I'd
' just like to know how and when we can accamplish that because there are people
in the public that did want to address their concerns and were not given the
opportunity and I said to Don, they may have been mad before but now they're
' irrate. And I do appreciate Don's letter to me and I gave you all a copy
explaining that there was this misunderstanding and that letter will go out to
those people that did attend but were not given an opportunity to speak.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to probably address sane of that. Same of the plan
amendments and things that we're going to do I think with the HRA is something
that's going to be looked at probably sometime yet this month. Somewhere around
' 4-23. I would also like to have those citizens input as I felt they wanted to
discuss and of course the reason that they really didn't have that opportunity
as you well know there was another meeting right in the Council chambers at 7:30
' and by the time we finished it was 25 minutes to 8:00 and I didn't want to delay
the other meeting any more.
Councilwoman Birder: I understand that but Target was never part of the
proposal. I'm just saying we took up a lot of time that we could have let the
public address us.
Mayor Chmiel: Right, I think what I'd like to do is to, and I think we know
most, because I got a few calls too. I did inform them that we would let them
know as to when we're going to do it and I think you can do the same thing. You
'
62
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
probably got the same calls and talked to the same people that I did. But
PAP I
think we should have sane kind of a. . .
(
Councilwoman Dimler: And I would like to say that we should make sure it's a
joint meeting. Not a Council meeting because we want the HRA members to hear
this public input as well and so addressing it on April 23rd isn't going to do
it because that's a Council meeting.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, we already addressed it as you remember with the HRA except
Whitehill was not there at that particular meeting. So we did want to have the
other meeting with him being there. SO I think that's something we can look at.
Councilwoman Dimler: So we should set another date for that type of a meeting. '
Councilman Workman: Well Don we talked about mid-May potentially?
Mayor Chmiel: No, I think we should probably, well it could be mid-May too. '
Don Ashworth: I think staff would be ready. What I'd like to do is make sure
we get something in the newspaper and again I apologize. If I would have had
any idea that we did have people here that the Minutes show. I guess I was
speaking at one level about what the meeting was currently caning up and I
really felt Ursula's questions dealt with when are we going to have a meeting
for the citizens and I didn't tie that we were talking about the same meeting.
Anyway, I would think that we would be in a position to do that somewhere
between May 1st and May 15th. What I would suggest is that even during this
next week.
Mayor Chmiel: Let's say between May 1st and May 11th.
Don Ashworth: May 11th? That I poll City Council as well as HRA members. Meet
with Don. Select a date somewhere in that whole process and then put out a
meeting notice for that particular date. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Yep. I think that would be good.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's satisfactory to me.
AIJ4INSTRATIVE PRESS TATIcvs: SCULPTURE IN CITY HALL COURTYARD, ASST. CITY
Todd Gerhardt: Included in your packet was for discussion HRA directed staff to
solicit ideas fran the Council regarding the replacement of the existing
fountain that sits in the courtyard in the new wing. While we're using those
monies allocated to look at doing something else around City Hall or in City
Hall or somewhere in the downtown area. -Jerry Bailey from Arteka who was
recommended to us by the architects who constructed or designed the new addition
of the City HalI, recommended Jerry highly and that Jerry has done these things
in the past throughout the Twin City area and included in the packet were sane
of the individuals he's worked with. In residences and businesses and
throughout the Twin Cities. This is the rendering that Jerry had recommended or
suggested...
63 '
I
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
Councilman Johnson: Is there a reason why we're considering this? Replacing
the fountain. What's wrong with the fountain?
' Councilman Boyt: Fountain? Cane on.
Mayor Chmiel: I like the sound.
' Councilman Boyt: The fountain is a joke.
' Councilman Johnson: Why do we want to spend sae more money on a different
joke?
' Councilwoman Dimler: I agree.
Councilman Boyt: Well that's a good point.
Councilman Johnson: I mean it's there. It's a joke. Let's laugh at it and not
spend any money.
' Mayor Chmiel: I made a proposal last time. I've got a 8 foot, probably 9 foot
Benjamin Ficus at hare that I'm willing to donate to the City to put in that
specific location.
' Councilman Workman: To be blunt, it appears to me the St. Pauli Girl doing
something someone would do in an outhouse and sounds like that too. It's
aesthetically not, what we should put there I don't know but go look at it.
Councilwoman Dimler: It's not that bad.
' Mayor Chmiel: They have another way of eliminating.
Councilman Workman: Oh you bet but I'm just saying, it's like a $15,000.00 car
with a 15 cent squeak. It's got this little, something's wrong with it.
' Councilman Johnson: What kind of money are we talking Todd?
' Mayor Chmiel: $4,600.00.
Councilman Johnson: So we've got a $4,600.00 squeak.
Councilman Boyt: Well I can tell you that I will vote against that particular
design. I think it's, if anything it's not a step forward.
Councilwoman Dimler: No, I don't like it either.
Councilman Workman: Do you have a St. Pauli Girl?
Todd Gerhardt: Well we don't have to go with this. This is just an idea that
Jerry had care up with and it sort of stands. . .and tried to spin off of the
' Maple leaf logo that the City has. He did his best efforts but I'm sure if you
wanted to give your suggestions to Jerry, he could came up with something
' 64
City Council Meeti ng - April 9, 1990
I
else. . .that represents the City and would be an attractive to anyone who would
came in and look at that area.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that area is a very neat area really the way it is. I
think it blends in with the greens that are there.
Councilwoman Dimler: Right but you don't like the statute?
Councilman Boyt: There's another potential city clock tower caning and anytime
we have what will be probably about 15 people deciding sanething, I would almost
be more comfortable saying to one person somewhere, let's all pick one person
and say alright, you do it. Then whatever they do is fine because we aren't
going to like it. No matter what goes in there, there's going to somebody out
of that group of 15 that says that thing's crazy.
Councilwoman Dimler: Another concern I had is why spend the money, number one.
I'm sure we have other things that we could spend that money for. And also, why
don't we ask the groups in town such as the VFW or the Rotary or someone. Maybe
they want to make a donation. Maybe they can cane up with sanething.
Councilman Workman: This is HRA funding isn't it Todd?
Todd Gerhardt: Yes. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Does the money have to be spent or do we lose it? Is that
it? Use it or lose it type of situation?
Mayor Chmiel: No. It's
just that the dollars are there.
Councilman Workman: We don't need anything. We could put ping pang tables in
there.
Mayor Chmiel: It's just to put a little culture into our City Hall. ,
Don Ashworth: Actually this structure is very basic and the only area that you
have that has a real identity is that courtyard area. By putting that little
thing that we've got out there, just doesn't match everything else that's there.
Maybe this isn't the ticket but the Council should consider sage architectural
something in there. Something that's unique to this city. I don't know what it
might be. They started out with the maple leaf. ,
Councilwoman Dimler: Let's put a statute of our first mayor.
Don Ashworth: That might be appropriate.
Councilman Boyt: Why don't we go to the people at the Arboretum and have them
recommend something. They'd probably do it for free. The Arboretum is in
Chanhassen.
Councilman Workman: I didn't know that they were in the sculpture or art
business.
65
City Council Meeting - April 9, 1990
11 Councilman Johnson: You can sculpture with plants. Isn't Lotus Garden Shop
trying to put together a city garden club? This could be their indoor project.
Councilman Workman: Who?
Councilman Johnson: Lotus Lawn and Garden. Whatever they're called. He's
' trying to put together a Chanhassen Garden Club who will do the gardening in
various areas around the City. Putting in flowers and whatever. I would think
that this would be a nice place that they would put some of their efforts in
versus some kind of. . .it changes all the time.
Todd Gerhardt: We could do that but to emphasize. . .
' Councilman Johnson: I'll tell you where you could $4,600.00 a lot better than
something to emphasize same flowers.
' Mayor Clniel: I guess you know where we're caning fran. I don't know if we need
any more discussion.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15
p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
66
I
' •
I CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
• REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 4 , 1990
' Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m . .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings , Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad,
Brian Batzli , Jim Wildermuth and Joan Ahrens
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Planning Director ; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior
' Planner ; and Dave Hempel , Senior Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 30+ SEAT RESTAURANT WITH TAKE OUT ON PROPERTY
ZONED BN, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT, IN THE RETAIL CENTER LOCATED AT
SEVEN FORTY-ONE CROSSING ADDITION, WAYNE SALDEN.
Public Present:
Name
Wayne Salden , Applicant
Roger Zahn , HSZ
' Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the
public hearing to order .
Erhart moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
' favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Ahrens: It 's pretty straight forward. I read the staff report . I don 't
' really have any questions on the garbage enclosure . If staff thinks . . .
I go along with the staff recommendation .
' Wildermuth: I support the staff recommendation very thorough .
Batzli : I just had two questions. One was weren 't they proposing to put
' a restaurant or a drive thru on the end of that corner?
Olsen: At one point . Recently that was proposed.
' Krauss: Well , it wasn't officially proposed. It was discussed with staff
and the owner was told that that's not a permitted or conditional use for
that district .
' Olsen: You might be thinking about Market Square. It was never brought
before you .
' Batzli : For some reason, I don't know, I thought I heard that. I was
just curious if it was going to be right close to this or not. Since it
is a conditional use, I think we might be able to soften this condition
' even that that would be monitored by staff or something else if it's a
problem. I don't know why we'd require it other than if it's been a
problem at other restaurants but I 'd be certainly willing to allow staff
to monitor that and if it becomes a problem, to require it as a condition.
Planning Commission Meeting
' April 4 , 1990 - Page 2
' Krauss: If I could add. It 's become a problem in another restaurant that
we 've had in the City , Ahn Le which is just behind City Hall , and I 've had
a number of these crop up as problems over the years in different
' communities . What tends to happen is first of all they have to walk a
fair distance or further distance to a trash enclosure. The restaurants
tend to generate a greater than usual trash volume . They also generate
trash that has a lot more potential for vermin and odor and whatever else .
' You almost need to segregate it so that if we have a problem with them
with the hauler coming more frequent enough, given enough intervals , we
can specifically segregate that out from everybody else . There's
' sometimes health issues that develop over time and depending upon how
frequently they clean it up . It 's just been our experience that it 's best
to have it segregated .
' Erhart: I think it looks good . I tend to think that having the separate
trash enclosure makes good sense to avoid future problems and easier to
define the contribution of trash in the future. I support staff on that
issue . Other than that , I have no more comments .
Emmings: Nothing .
' Ellson: I was curious as to what the hours were going to be . I just
thought it 'd be interesting to know . I know SuperAmerica 's sitting there
' open 24 hours right there and it 'd be pretty convenient for people to go
get some gas and run in for some manicotti or pizza . Do you have that
decided yet?
Wayne Salden: It will probably run until midnight . . . I had one other
comment on the trash thing . We already have a separate container for ours
which is right behind our door . Do you still want us to have another one
besides that? Our garbage pick-up is right behind our door .
Conrad: I think what staff is saying it would be your , they want a
container just for you so if the building has provided one just for you ,
then that 's what important .
Krauss: That would satisfy us .
Olsen: Yeah, we knew it was there but we just wanted to make sure it's
their 's .
Ellson: I agree with doing the trash thing. I think it 's real easy to
say staff 's going to monitor this kind of thing but I 'd hate to see . . .
Conrad: It 's a good staff report . No comments. Is there a motion?
Erhart: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of a
' Conditional Use Permit #90-2 for an Italian Restaurant with the one
condition as listed in the staff report .
Wildermuth: Second.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4, 1990 - Page 3 '
Erhart moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend '
approval of Conditional Use Permit *90-2 for an Italian Restaurant to be
located at Seven Forty-One Crossroads Center as shown on the plans dated '
March 29, 1990 and with the following condition:
1_ The applicant shall provide its own trash enclosure at the rear of t
restaurant which shall be enclosed with the same materials as the
exterior of the shopping center.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, LOCATED ON LAKE DRIVE EAST AND DAKOTA AVENUE,
ZONED BH, HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS DISTRICT:
A. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOTS 1 AND 2, CHAN HAVEN PLAZA FOR THE I
EXPANSION OF PARKING AREA.
B. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR EXPANSION OF RESTAURANT.
Public Present:
Name Address
Gene Borg 6897 Chaparell Lane , Owner/Operator
Ray Schleck Construction Engineer for McDonald's
Tom
Paul Krauss presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the public'
hearing to order .
Gene Borg: I 'm Gene Borg . I live at 6897 Chaparrel Lane . I 'm the owner'
operator of McDonald 's .
Ray Schleck: I 'm Ray Schleck. I 'm a construction engineer . I work for I
McDonald 's Corporation.
Gene Borg: I guess what we'd like to do is go through it one at a time.
That seems like the easiest way on any problems that may develop instead
of talking about it all . Just go through like maybe start with
landscaping since it's on the screen. However you'd like to do that . Can
answer any questions and stuff like that. '
Conrad: If you had something to talk to us about, go ahead. Usually
we'll go through and every one of us will have a specific question and
we'll ask you directly later on so it's up to you . If you'd like to talk'
about what staff recommended or have any problems with it , you could do
that . Otherwise you could wait for our comments later on.
Gene Borg: Okay, on wetlands for example . I guess I was misinformed . I'
didn't think we were encroaching on that .
1 ,
Planning Commission Meeting
IApril 4 , 1990 - Page 4
Ray Schleck: That was kind of new news to us .
Krauss: Well , Ray during the course of the meetings that we had with you ,
I we asked on several occasions for more detailed information on where that
feature was . Ultimately we figured it ourselves when we had the final
plan set in here and where the grading limits were . Mr . Hempel over there
I figured it out and we realized at that point that there was encroachment
into that area .
Gene Borg: You said something, I forget what it was a little earlier
Iabout . . .
Ray Schleck: Wetland enhancement?
IIGene Borg: Yeah , what is that?
I Krauss: Well basically your going to be filling a portion of the wetland
over here . What we were asking is that a commensurately sized piece of
area on that side be excavated and that the wetland bottom be sculpted a
little bit and that the wetland vegetation be established there . . .
IGene Borg: What about if we took those parking stalls out of the corner
there? How about if we pulled those out and changed the line?
UKrauss: If you could avoid filling into the wetland, sure .
Gene Borg: And then avoid filling here?
I
Ray Schleck: The other question I had was on drainage . Can we in lieu of
installing a catch basin to tie into the storm sewer system , the only area
I of the parking lot that is draining toward that eastern curb cut . It 's
not a very large area . I 'm wondering if we can't adjust the grades there
to drain into the wetlands .
IHempel : Additional runoff into the wetlands , I guess there is no outlet
for that wetland . As the site develops and additional runoff is
contributed to that area , it will increase in size I guess over it 's size
I right now and there 's no outlet for it to go so eventually if we do have
rainy seasons someday hopefully, it could get us back up and innudate the
parking lot to a point .
IRay Schleck: Yeah, you can see the area that I 'm talking about . It 's not
a very large area that will be draining into that wetland. I 'm asking if
I it 's going to impact , if we can adjust the grades to less impact the
wetlands as they are now and also adjust the site plan as Gene said to
eliminate some of the stalls. We 're willing to work that out .
I Hempel : We looked at a more permanent solution I guess . We looked at
installing storm sewer to the property line with the Lake Drive East
project and letting McDonald's hook onto that and just install catch
basins for the drainage situation out there would be . . .
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 5
'.
Ray Schleck: It will be a short run from the catch basin to the storm
sewers or how far of a run is it about? Just guessing . '
Hempel : I would guess 25 feet .
Ray Schleck: Is there an opportunity though? Right now the plan does I
show a spillway into that lower area . Is it feasible at all? Is it worth
pursuing?
Hempel : I guess Ray , with some modifications to your parking lot grade .
Changing the drainage pattern out to the access onto Lake Drive East would
shorten your storm sewer connection. '
Ray Schleck: Because now , more than half the lot drains to a low area on
the northeast corner of the plan that 's up on the screen. That does hail
an outlet .
Hempel : That 's correct . Out into MnDot 's right-of-way . So the remainin
half of the parking lot would then drain south towards the wetland or yo
modify it out onto Lake Drive .
Ray Schleck: Right . There still would be some drainage out to the
eastern curb cut . Not much but some . I 'm not sure if we 're going to
adjust the grades that much to accommodate that .
Hempel : I think it's something that could be worked out I guess between "!
us .
Ray Schleck: As far as landscaping and screening , I think the site plan '
or the landscape plan that was submitted and it's probably the third or
fourth plan that we submitted to you , and each time was increased a little
bit. On the northern side of the , on the TH 5 side of the plan , that
obviously has been beefed up quite a bit from what 's there now . As a
matter of fact , I think most of the shrubs that are shown are not there
now. I would say probably all of them. There are a few coniferous I
trees , pine trees . Those three on the corner . On the corner of Dakota
and TH 5 . Those are there and those, Gene and I were looking at those
tonight and with the salt spray from TH 5 in the winter , those trees , two
of those trees are pretty well stunted. They were all planted at the sall
time and the one in the middle is the only one that 's really done
anything . We're a little hesitant to plan a species of tree that may not
thrive in that location.
Gene Borg: I had a landscaper out and mainly I was talking about what we
could do with those trees on the west side but I mentioned what was wron
with these couple that are back here and he said it was the salt spray
from TH 5 that 's stunting them and the one doesn't do that well . It's be
holding on over 5 or 6 years now but it 's still not doing that well . He
says it 's the salt spray . When you go to 4 lanes, the salt spray will II
worse and it will be closer so I 'm not opposed to the plantings there .
would like to plant something maybe other than a bunch of evergreens that
could be proposed to die in the future. Because salt and evergreens don'
get along .
.1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 6
Conrad: Are you talking about the west side or are you talking about the
north side?
Gene Borg: The TH 5 side .
Conrad: There's some logic to that .
' Ray Schleck: We are interested in landscaping. Don't get us wrong at
all . That 's not our , we are interested in landscaping with plants that
' are going to thrive and do well and logically putting in things that are
going to make a difference and not , and I 'm not saying that staff 's
recommending things that aren't going to work either but we 're trying to
work it out with them .
Gene Borg: Then I 've got a question . We don 't have much room on Dakota ,
but not Dakota , after they put the sidewalk in on Lake Drive and put in a
' retaining wall there . There 's only a few feet left . It was recommended
for berming and planting of shrubs and different things up there . We can
plant some shurbs and stuff but I don 't think it 's hardly , it 's a little
' tough to berm and expect anything to live there .
Krauss: The recommendation was to install berming at those points where
' you a? e able to do it . One of those points would be in this vicinity.
here . We had recommended that this end parking stall be taken out . . .we
have then probably enough depth around here . Here I would agree , that 's a
real tough area . . . You 've got a very tough situation. There just isn 't a
whole lot of flexibility on that site .
Gene Borg: I guess I 'm intersted in having real nice landscaping . I
' think when the McDonald 's came in here , I wasn't the owner at the time but
it was probably the best landscaping this town had at that time. Since
then, landscaping around town 's a lot better and I want good landscaping .
I 'm an operator and I want good landscaping and we 'll have good
' landscaping . My concern is , based on the last couple years of drought , is
keeping this stuff alive. That 's my main concern. I have a sprinkler
system and I 've been sprinkling and everything is green . . . There have
been drought seasons , I don't know if we're out of it now or not . It
doesn't look like it . If you berm around, it 's the first thing to dry
out . If you put plantings on that berm, they're the first ones to die.
Then if we have a restricted watering schedule, and I don't need to water
everyday. I don't need to water every other day but I want to keep it
alive . A couple years ago we had a total watering ban and we were
informed at that time that . . .would go dormant and live. Well , I have
' $5 ,000.00 that says it didn't because I replaced all that sod at
McDonald's so it concerns me now we're going to spend, I don't know, a lot
of money in landscaping . I just want to keep it alive . If we're going to
' spend the money and keep it alive, I want to keep it alive to make it look
nice . That 's my concern . And bermings don't help that in a drought .
Conrad: So your concern is the berming on the southeast section?
1.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4, 1990 - Page 7
Gene Borg: Well berming all over really in a drought because those are II
the first things to die . If you drive around town here , a lot of things
that are bermed are dead. If you go down on Kerber on those developments ,
all those trees are dead . They have no way of watering them so they relli
solely on rain but if we have an all out ban, And I understand that we
need water for fires and stuff like that . I understand that but berms
don't help that situation is all I 'm saying. And we can plant stuff in
that , hedges that will grow . Grow higher and offset a berm . My main
thing is to keep them alive . Or else if you can guarantee me that I 'll
able to water and keep them alive and I think if you water every fourth
day you could keep something alive.
Krauss: We discussed that item with Mr . Schleck . . .and the last few years
have been tough and when you do plant on berms , you do run more risk . I
mean there are ways to stick plant material in the berm so it catches the,
water that runs off . Put a pot around it but there's no question that
stuff dries out quicker on a berm . At the same time , we don 't have a to
of room to work on this site . We 've got a site that doesn't come close
complying with current standards and we're not asking that it comply wit
current standards . What we 're asking is that they make some accomodations
to the restricted nature of the site and the fact that we have homes
across the street and that we have a major intersection adjacent to it all
do the best job we can do . The drought that we 've had in the last 3 years
is the worse one we 've had in the last 50 years . I don't know if it 's 1111 going to continue . I 'm not God , I can't tell you but if the drought
continues , we 've indicated to Mr . Schleck that we would not require the
installation of the material this year . We would have a landscape bond
outstanding . If we have a severe drought again this summer , it 's fine II
with us to install the material next year .
Gene Borg: . . .long term landscaping because as time goes by , it should
look better . We 've got to plant someday and I don 't want black dirt
around there . When we go and do this, I want to plant landscaping.
That 's what I want to do . I don't want black dirt .
Conrad: Okay , when we go around the Planning Commission, we'll get
reaction to berming versus planting or whatever . Did you have anything
else? '
Ray Schleck: On the staff report also, you sketched on some islands and I
had a question on that . I think the islands that were sketched on .
You 've got a larger island here and also, there is one here now but we 're,
proposing to take that out. Also , finishing off this. This area right
now has parking stalls to this point here. We've eliminated. . .compromise
to eliminate some of that area to. . . What happens here is that this area,
is restricted to truck traffic turning. The only way a truck can get out
is to come back through here . This existing island. . .to allow for a large
turning radius to allow a truck to make this turn. Having an island they'
I think is going to restrict that . . .
Krauss: Then the car that is parked there will get crushed?
Ray Schleck: Exactly .
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 8
:I
IIGene Borg: We get semi 's in there now that park on that edge . We 've never
had an accident there and I tell you what . It 's tough in there . Those
semi driver 's got to know what they 're doing in there . Really know what
I they 're doing . But so far we haven 't had an accident and I think with our
plan, it 's a lot better than it ever was.
I Ray Schleck: As far as green , percentage of green area , we comply with
that .
IKrauss: You're right on the numbers .
Conrad: Is that right? See that doesn 't even look close visually . So
what 's the lot coverage?
IIRay Schleck: There 's a 20 foot setback area in here that 's all green.
I Gene Borg: And there will be more green area when we pull out those
stalls to accommodate for wetland.
IIKrauss: The allowance is for 65% and that 's what they 're going to be at .
Conrad: Boy , that 's just hard to imagine . Simply because your setbacks
are so minimal . In fact I really don 't believe it . I think that 's my
I biggest problem and again, I want to hear you talk but there 's sure a lot
of asphalt there and staff is saying greenery . There 's got to be because
you 're really , there 's a lot of asphalt in that and we 're not trying to
I have Chanhassen have a lot of asphalt . We like to break it up . We like
to buffer and I hear you 're sensitive to that but still , that does not
look like our 65% coverage .
I Ray Schleck: But there are a lot of additional areas out in here . . .along
here as well . Every square inch of course is counted so I can understand
where , but this area here . . .
IKrauss: That would be fine . The primary purpose of that island is to
protect the cars that are parked adjacent to it .
IRay Schleck: This area here . . .just asphalt for asphalt sake .
Conrad: Okay, anything else?
IIRay Schleck: What did we touch on Paul?
IKrauss: I don't know.
Ray Schleck: I think we're all set. Is there anything else in here Paul
that I might have missed?
IIKrauss: There's been some question about the retaining wall along Dakota
but that 's a matter that 's being worked out between the owner and the City
I Engineer . The question becomes one of design of the road improvement
iself . The existing McDonald's retaining wall is built in the city
I
Planning Commission Meeting It
April 4 , 1990 - Page 9
IF
right-of-way. The City needs almost every square inch of that to widen
Dakota and put the sidewalk back in so there 's some fine tuning of the 11
design going on right now to see whether or not those trees that are there
right now can stay with the newly located middle . I don 't have the
answers yet .
I
Ray Schleck: Yeah , I talked to the Barton-Aschmann engineers that are
designing that Dakota , widening of Dakota and basically he said , well the"
State 's not requiring a sidewalk . The City wants a sidewalk and I can
understand why you need a connection over to the , whatever that greenway
is or what do you call it? That 's fine. I couldn't find any record tha
we built it . I don 't know who built it . I assume we did . I don 't know
what contractor did it but how it got where it is , that I don't know
either . How it got snuck past the City or if it was just put in because
the sidewalk was there and it was why not make it look better or whatevell
at the time . So we 'll have to work something out with that . I think
that 's it . Can you think of anything else Gene?
Conrad: Okay , thanks . I 'm sure we 'll have questions later on for sure . l
Any other public comments? Yes sir .
Tom Kursonas: My name is Tom Kursonas and I live in the residential are."
right behind McDonald 's and I thought I 'd register my objections to the
increased size of that parking lot . The amount of traffic that I and my
neighbors see right now is not something that we desired when we moved i
before McDonald 's came . At nighttime the way McDonald 's is laid out rig
l�
now with my house being in direct headlight range , I get to look at the
headlights and during the summertime in my backyard coming out of
McDonald 's . The amount of trash that gets blown into my yard and down thl
street and down Lake Drive East . If anybody would ever take a walk to go
down there and look . We were told at the time it was coming in that they
would pick it up and get out and take care of that . Nobody comes around
and picks up the trash. I can pick up during the Vummertime trash bags ill
a week . Maybe they pick up around their property but we get the rest of
it . Now I 'm looking at semi-trailer trucks coming in and having a huge
parking lot further on down which means increased traffic and noise in tl-1
evening . Dinner time especially when people come in there. We get all
kinds of automobile traffic noise now. All and all it does not , in our
area , it does not look like something that's beneficial to our residential
neighborhood. I listened to the Planner talking about what's good for
McDonald 's or for the semi-trailer drivers so they can come in and buy
their burgers . I didn 't hear one thing concerned about the residential II
area . So thank you very much.
Conrad: Thanks for your comments . Other comments?
Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public heairng. All vote
in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Ellson: I started getting a little confused. There's no outdoor dining l
is there?
Gene Borg: No. l
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 10
Elison: When this originally came in in '82, I don't know how thoroughly
we went through the thing . I know some people when they propose something
to us and say you know , additional expansion someday . Was that proposed
originally back in '82 that there was the possibility of an expansion
someday?
' Krauss: I read through the file . I guess I wasn't specifically looking
for it but I don't recall there being a concept showing the expansion.
Ellson: I don 't know that we can prevent them from doing that but I agree
11
with staff that they 're on the border of even meeting a lot of the things
and I think we should be able to ask them for the berming . We ask an
awful lot of people for berming and I know that everybody 's intention is
to have all the plants live and things like that so I think he 's in the
same situation that we 've put a lot of other people that are developing in
asking for a berm and I agree that in some of those areas it might not be
worthwhile but I think in the corners especially , maybe that would protect
the trash from flying out if we had more barriers or something like that .
I can see changing the landscaping plan to your approval . If it 's not pine
trees , if it 's something else that accomplishes what staff would want , I 'm
not opposed to allowing the landscape plan to be modified as long as
staff 's in accordance with it . But nothing else .
' Emmings: If they modify the parking lot in that corner by the wetland ,
would they still need a wetland alteration permit because they 're doing
work close to the wetland or not?
Krauss: It 's a Class B wetland so they would not .
•
Emmings: They would not . Well , there 's a lot of things that have gotten
' changed as we sat and discussed this here so it 's a little hard to know
exactly what we're doing . I suppose the thing to do maybe is to leave the
language in for the wetland alteration permit and then if they change the
' plan , you can drop that as a requirement . Is that the way we should do
it?
' Krauss: Yes sir . I would hope that all these issues should be resolved,
would be resolved prior to going to the City Council .
Emmings: When you look at page 6. At the top it talks about the proposed
' parking setbacks . It says that there's 25 feet exterior . I 'm not sure
what exterior means .
Krauss: There is a separate setback standard for interior parking . On
this east side over here , there's another parking lot on the other side I
believe . It goes down to 10 foot .
' Emmings: Alright . Then underneath where it says proposed, in all four
directions it does not meet the ordinance . Is that right?
Krauss: It meets it on the east side which is that reduced standard .
I.
Planning Commission M eeti n g
April 4 , 1990 - Page 11
Emmings: Well if 25 is what 's required and it 's only 22 , how does that II
meet the standard?
Krauss: Because it 's an interior . I should have listed the separate
interior standard .
Emmings: Okay. Anyway we're not , the north and the west were already
granted variances the last time around? ,
Krauss: No they weren 't . They just happened to be there and I really
don't know why or how but that was the way the site plan was approved andll
there was no mention of variances . Although the standard was the same all
the time .
Emmings: Okay. There 's a memo in here from Steve that talks about
handicap signage and curb cuts that were not shown on the plan . Has all
of that been taken care of? It didn't make it in as a condition so I just
want to make sure it got . '
Krauss: Oh , about the building code?
Emmings: There 's a memo to Jo Ann that says . '
Krauss: Oh , yeah . They would be accommodated . If you want to add a
condition to make sure , that'd be fine . ,
Emmings: I think it should be . I 'm not sure what he's looking for there
but I didn 't see it in the conditions and I think it should be there . I '
frankly a little confused about the issues about where the island should '
be and all of that and I guess I 'm content to leave that between staff and
the applicant to work something out . I think that the island between the
two driveway entrances or entrance and exit should be expanded the way yo'
said . If nothing else , I think the neighbors , I don 't think it 's going to
help that much but I don't think there 's a heck of a lot of we can do .
This thing exists and we 're probably adding to the problem somewhat but I�
think we ought to get all the buffering on that edge that we possibly can
If staff thinks a berm is best to get that done . I think we should
increase the size of that island and anything else you think you need to II
get that done. I don't have any other comments.
Erhart: Well this whole south frontage road thing is going to be a bigge
problem because now as we develop that industrial area to the east, as fa
�
as the neighborhood , this McDonald's is just part of one component of an
increasing problem is it not?
Krauss: The construction of Lake Drive to Dell Road and opening up that II
other end, over time sure . Traffic's going to be building on that street .
It's designated as a collector street in the city and it will build . '
Erhart: So it 's really the same issue that the neighbors to the west of
there complained about with changing TH 101 and the whole thing?
Krauss: Well it 's a related issue but .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 12
Erhart: But fundamentally it 's .
' Krauss: One of the things that the realignment of Lake Drive is doing
though is actually shifting portions of the road further away from the
homes .
' Erhart: North?
Krauss: Yes .
Erhart: Okay , so what are we doing then on landscaping? Are we
increasing the landscaping on the south then to try to protect them more?
' Hempel : There 's no plans in this project to upgrade the landscaping .
' Erhart: I 'm not referring to this project but the whole Lake Drive East
project .
Hempel : The Lake Drive East project , no .
Erhart: How much property do we own from , what 's our right-of-way from
the street edge to the residential property 's edge?
Hempel : There 's a 60 foot right-of-way and I think the boulevard in there
was probably , I 'd have to double check but I would estimate it about 12
' feet .
Erhart: That the City would own . That 's not being used.
' Hempel : The way it exists right now , yes . But with the road being pushed
further to the north approximately 10 feet , there will be a buffer of
approximately 20 feet .
Erhart: Can the residents plant , or the people who live adjacent to that ,
can they do plantings in that 12 foot area?
Hempel : I guess yes. We would entertain something like that as long as
it didn 't create problems with snow plowing .
' Erhart: This is the kind of thing that if you have good planning you try
to avoid and obviously you can't do anything now but maybe there 's an
opportunity in addition to the landscaping that we're requiring of the
McDonald 's , maybe do a little bit of our own or work with the neighbors to
add some landscaping.
Krauss: There's also another possibility that we didn't explore but I 've
' had done on several site plans where , I mean basically you 've got a drive
up facility that 's not moving. I mean it's where it 's been for 8 years
and it 's going to continue to be there . But the net effect of it is that
any car that 's in there in the evening has headlights shining right into
the neighborhood . We've already , no matter what we do on the McDonald's
site , we 're going to do as much as we can but it 's going to have limited
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 13
IF
effectiveness . There are a number of situations where property owners II
developing sites have been required to put some landscaping on somebody
else's property because that 's the only effective spot for it to go. You
may want to consider requiring installation of some trees on the back '
lines of those home sites as well . Particularly where the drive-thru
comes through .
Erhart: Let me think about that one a bit . That isn't where I was going,
but you brough it up , I don 't know . Where 's the trash coming from?
Where's the trash coming from? Is it people throwing stuff out? Not
using the trash bins inside? '
•
Tom Kursonas: We get a certain number of walkers in our area plus we get
people that drive out of the drive-thru and it takes them how long to get,
their stuff unwrapped and it goes out the window . Where it comes from , i
comes out of McDonald 's . It 's their stuff . It comes out of cars or
anybody walking . There aren 't that many walkers there to. . . but it 's th
drivers . If you go down Lake Drive East , like I said , it 's loaded and it�
gets into our yard and you get tired of picking the stuff up.
Erhart: Gene , what do you do now to try to control that? I
Gene Borg: We do send people out to pick up garbage . Somebody called a
couple weeks ago . We were picking up along the trees there . . .and we got ,
call from someone who lives down further . We didn 't go down far enough.
She called us and said, I seen your guy out there and he didn 't come down
far enough so we went down and picked up the rest of it . I don't know if,
we could do more .
Erhart: I was wondering , is there like , when you go out of the post
office you 've got a place you put your envelopes in and you don't have to
leave your car . Would it make sense to have a trash bin at the exit of
the drive-thru?
Gene Borg: Well we could. When McDonald's was first built , they had soli
sort of thing that came up . People could throw their garbage in . At that
time it . . .It served it 's purpose. The problem you 've got is the reason
why McDonald 's doesn't have them anymore, people would be not paying
attention, get too close to their cars and scrape up their cars and run
things over and things like that . So which problem is worse , I don 't
know. 1
Ray Schleck: Most people miss those things .
Erhart: Make the problem worse huh? ,
Conrad: Well they were always on the right hand side and the driver 's on
the left hand side so as you exit , you can't get it there. You know '
you 're flipping it over your car trying to . But that is a unique
situation here . That is an exit only so the trash container could be on
the left hand. The other side.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 14
Gene Borg: We have trash containers on the parking , physical but there 's
none right at the exit .
Erhart: Well I tend to think whoever , someone made the statement that
they miss , I tend to think that there's as good a probability that you'd
contribute to the problem than solving it . I think at a minimum though
you could put some signs out that . I don 't know if there 's any signs now .
Gene Borg: There 's a $500.00 fine for littering in this state .
' Erhart: What , putting the signs out? We have a sign ordinance that
wouldn't allow it probably. Do not litter sign. What I was thinking was
adding . . .
Gene Borg: We could put a sign up . I 'm not opposed to that .
Erhart: I agree with the comment that I think additional landscaping
' probably would help with the trash. Regarding the berm , we 've committed a
lot to landscaping on top of the berm in the City now for a lot of years
and boy , you bring up a valid point . Yeah , berms tend to dry out faster
than level ground but if we 're going to react on this site to that
potential problem , we have a much bigger problem to deal with . I guess
maybe what we ought to think about , the whole problem on a bigger scale if
that is a problem , particularly if we have one more year of drought I
suppose . Let 's hope that we don 't so I guess I 'd prefer not to respond to
that particular problem and assume that we aren't going to have a drought .
But if we do , I think it's everybody 's having the same problem Gene . The
other thing is , I 'm a little relunctant to switch to deciduous trees
along TH 5 without exploring a little bit the various types of evergreen
tree's tolerance to salt spray . Have we don 't any of that? Do you know
' what species is up there now? Probably a Norway Pine .
Gene Borg: Norway? Because I was talking about Blue Spruce and they said
they wouldn 't do well . I also have a limit on trees there . The variance
' on that power line to come through, I can't plant anything that will grow
15 feet tall . . .
Erhart: Well Norway Pines will grow a lot taller than 15 feet .
Gene Borg: Most pines will grow 15 feet tall .
' Erhart: Well that adds another piece of data .
Emmings: How about arborvitae? That will stay around 15 feet?
Ellson: I 'm sure they can figure out one.
' Erhart: Well I was going to suggest Austrian Pine but they've obviously
bigger too . Anyway, my point is , I 'm reluctant to switch to something
without exploring some kind of evergreen that would . . .
Krauss: We are too because clearly , I mean you 're talking about the most
intensive part of the site and not screening it for 6 months of the year
11
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 15 1
is an issue . But these are the kinds of things we can work out or will II
work out with them prior to going to the Council .
Erhart: Another thing is , it would seem to me that , was it your request "
Paul to remove the end of that island? Is that what the dot 's there?
Krauss: Which? a
Erhart: You interjected the dots? To remove the north end of that
island.
Emmings: He wanted it back in. II
Erhart: Oh , you wanted to put it back in? • I
Krauss: This thing?
Erhart: Yeah . I
Krauss: We wanted to restore the traffic island there for the reason , a
trucks went through there , if you park there , you should have a reasonab
expectation that your car 's going to be there when you get out .
Erhart: Well my point is that we ought to take that parking lot out as
opposed to saying at your own risk . I mean they can still put their car '
there even if the line 's not there at their own risk but it doesn 't make a
lot of sense to encourage that activity . I 've got one last point , are w
going to remove , are we going to put in real curb cuts here as opposed t
these jawbreakers that you 've got now? If you answer yes , I won't even
ask you about it .
Gene Borg: Whatever the City puts in there. That 's a rolled curb . . .city,
standard.
Erhart: Well we torn them out on West 79th Street and put in real curb I
cuts, thank goodness . Can we do that here too?
Hempel : Yes. As a part of the Lake Drive project we are going to provi
a concrete apron, typical industrial apron into the site. Both of them
it will be much smoother .
Erhart: Great . How many trucks come into this place now? I
Gene Borg: I 'd just be guessing. We 'll get 3 or 4 , maybe 5 a day.
Sometimes more . Sometimes less . I think we only had 2 of them today . 41
course I 'm not watching every minute .
Erhart: You 're expecting then that by putting this in you're going to I
increase that volume?
Gene Borg: I don't know if it will increase it or not . . . I was doing ,
this to pull them off the road.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 16
I
' Erhart: But right now they 're parking along . . .
Gene Borg: They 're parking along the edge .
' Erhart: Along Lake Drive East?
Gene Borg: Well no , they 're parking . The guys that don 't feel confident
about coming in there , park over there . The guys that feel confident
about it , they park right on the bottom side of that semi parking where
the existing curb line is and it doesn't leave a lot of room for cars to
' back out . We haven 't had any accidents but it has potential .
Erhart: Okay , that 's all the points I had .
' Batzli : Jo Ann , do you have an overhead of the preliminary plat? Can you
show me on there what is the piece that they 're adding on to the 79 feet
or the 90 feet or whatever the heck it is they 're adding? Why don 't you
trace the whole piece there .
Olsen: Is this right?
Krauss: Yep .
Batzli : Okay , so it 's the dotted line on the map there?
' Olsen: Yes .
' Batzli : So the current solid line on the map shows what 's existing and
the dotted line is the addition which will then form Lot 1? In the staff
report it talks about the sizes and the development of those particular
lots . On the plat it indicates that both Lot 1 and Lot 2 together are 7 .9
acres . Is that right? Here 's where I 'm going with this . On page 6 you
indicate that the remaining undeveloped lot is 7 .96 but it shows on the
plat map that both of them together are 7.96 acres . My concern is that
Lot 2 , it looks big but if part of it is a Class B wetland , you 're not
going to be able to develop that portion without significantly affecting
that Class B wetland and it would be nice to know what portion of Lot 2 is
' really buildable or excluding that wetland. The second thing that I would
like to know is why are they only adding that portion which it seems to me
that , I 'll take your word for it that there's enough green space on this
thing but it doesn 't look like it . Why can't they move that line over
further into the wetland so at least they have more green space there on
an area which isn 't developable in any event?
Krauss: The answer to your second part of your question is, they could
push the line theoretically wherever they wish. Clearly they had a
balance for themselves the cost of additional property with the need to
' meet city ordinances . McDonald's staff knew that we had a 65% hard
surface coverage max . They pushed the line apparently exactly far enough
out to achieve that number .
Ray Schleck: Plus a little.
Planning Commission Meeting
I
April 4 , 1990 - Page 17
I
Emmings: No . Not a little bit because you hit 65 on the button according
to their plans . I
Batzli : Is the plat correct that the remaining acreage is 5 .7 acres
rather than the 7.96 in the staff report? Obviously it still exceeds th
minimum but then the question is , how much of that is a Class B wetland?
�
Krauss: I think you can outline it right there . It 's a very small area .
Batzli : Just that portion there? II
Olsen: It 's also part wetland that we were looking at with the tracks .
Where the new storm water 's going . They still have all . . .
Batzli : If you required , initially there 's talk of requiring the catch
basin or something and I didn't really understand what happened to that II
exchange here . If they put in the catch basin , would that affect the
green space and would they not then have 65%?
Krauss: Catch basin wouldn 't have any bearing on that . II
Batzli : Where would you put it?
II
Krauss: You 'd just set it in the parking lot . Put a grate over it . If
they went with their alternative proposal that they made tonight to
eliminate 3 or 4 parking stalls to avoid impacting that wetland , you 're II
green coverage would increase commensurately.
Batzli : My only other question , other than the , I think the issue of
landscaping can be handled between staff and McDonalds to find something II
that 's going to grow with salt and adequately screen the site . I do think
several parking stalls should be eliminated for safety sake and I also II
think the internal traffic pattern , I agree is, I think I agree with the
staff report that it 's very poor . Just by looking at it , it seems that
you 're going to get people during busy periods when there are fewer
parking spaces. They will be parking in the truck only area . I don't II
know how you 're going to restrict them out of that area .
Gene Borg: As far as the parking/seating ratio that the City has, that
coincides with McDonald's users . We've actually, I never ever had that
parking lot full as it exists today.
Batzli : No , and I 've never seen it full but I think during heavier lunch!'
hour periods which I think is the peak time there.
Gene Borg: It 's my peak time but it's not even close to being full .
II
Batzli : I think you're going to get some people in any event and if
you've included some spots out towards where the wetland is , I think
• you 're going to get people backing up into the entrance . Perhaps trying 1
to exit out that area and it would be interesting to know why , at least
those particular ones are there .
II
II
II .
Planning Commission Meeting
IIApril 4 , 1990 - Page 18
I Gene Borg: We just put them in there just to put them in . That 's why we
can just pull them out easier . It 's not a big deal .
I Batzli : Well yeah , unfortunately they 're still on the map here that we 're
looking at . But I think those things need to be looked at and it 's
unfortunate that we 're really not looking at the map that probably the
ICity Council 's going to look at . That 's all I have .
Wildermuth: The other area that is labeled as a low area , is that a
wetland? That one .
IIOlsen: We had. . .we did the Lake Drive and the wetland that they defined
was low area .
IRay Schleck: That area does have an outlet to the TH 5 drainage .
1 Wildermuth: I 'm very sympathetic to the property owner across the way and
the trash problem , although I don't know what can be done about that other
than possibly to have a fence installed across the street in the city
boulevard which might also serve to block the headlight problem at night .
I I would be in favor of the applicant installing a fence across the way
both to contain the trash problem and to act as a barrier to light .
IConrad: Fence where Jim?
Wildermuth: Across the street . Across Lake Drive from McDonald 's . It
could be something like a 4 foot high or 4 1/2 foot high fence . That
I
would be in the city boulevard that we were talking about correct?
Krauss: Mr . Wildermuth , if you wanted to go with something like that , if
I that was acceptable , I would strongly advocate that you ascertain if it
was possible to put it on private property so after it 's constructed , it
would be privately owned and maintained . The City 's not in the business
I of maintaining fences in the right-of-way and those things tend to need
maintenance from time to time .
I Wildermuth: That 's true but you were just talking about applicants being
required to put plantings on property other than their own.
Krauss: On private property , yes .
1 Wildermuth: Right . And I think the same issue applies there . Maintenance
and so on .
IKrauss: Well in my experience, when trees are in essence given to
adjoining property owners , after they're installed they become the owner 's
property responsibility.
IWildermuth: Yeah , but if it 's City property. If the boulevard belongs to
the City then , you 're saying that the City would be responsible?
11 Krauss: We would be responsible .
II
Planning Commission Meeting II
April 4, 1990 - Page 19
11
Wildermuth: Okay. Regardless of whether it 's a fence . What about making
the applicant responsible? No precedent huh?
Krauss: I 'm sure it 's possible but it's rather clunky .
Wildermuth: In a way I 'm kind of surprised that you 're willing to spend
all this money to expand your parking lot for 4 or 5 truckers in a day .
Gene Borg: Well that 's not the reason . We 're buying the land because thi
land is there. We 'll maybe build on it someday. . .and I just want to make
some use of it as long as I pay for it . And I see the semi 's parking ,
since I have enough other parking , the semi parking seems like the thing I
to do because it serves to take care of some of the problems that I have
with semi 's and they 're problems for me. If I don 't have any semi 's , I 'm
not going to go broke over it because I don 't get that many . The cost of
material . . .
Wildermuth: Right .
Gene Borg: It serves to get the semi 's off the streets when they park ou
there.
Wildermuth: What can you do to help your neighbor 's concern about the I
trash?
Gene Borg: Pick it up more , you know . I haven't had a call that I 've I
heard of . Maybe somebody has called and said something but I 've never had
a call that I 've heard of . I
Wildermuth: Any ideas Paul?
Ellson: Not that we could enforce but maybe you can just have a routine
maintenance .
Krauss: This is a common problem with fast food establishments . I
McDonald 's is usually more conscientious than most as a corporation for
maintaining property .
Wildermuth: Well I guess it isn't practical but I still like the idea of
a fence . When TH 101 is upgraded or the intersection of TH 101 is
upgraded, Dakota Avenue will remain open to TH 5, is that correct? I
agree with the recommendation that you made to divert parking lot water II
run-off into the storm sewer system. I don't think it 's a good practice II
to drain a parking lot into the wetland. Other than that, I guess staff
can work out the details in the landscape plan and can work out the islan
cut details . Just one more question. Why wouldn't we have one large cur
cut rather than 2 curb cuts with a separate entrance and a separate exit?
Krauss: If we're working with a clean sheet of paper? ,
Wildermuth: Yeah .
I
II
.1
Planning Commission Meeting
' April 4 , 1990 - Page 20
' Krauss: Because at one point , you can have two exit lanes . One in .
Focus all the turning movements at one spot . Here we 've got two curb cuts
in relatively close proximity to one another . Also very close to the
corner . It 's not an ideal situation .
Wildermuth: Why don 't we close one off and open one up?
Krauss: Well we looked at that early on in working with Mr . Schleck . In
fact we looked at a number of options but the changes are so drastic and
the internal circulation just doesn 't allow you to .
' Wildermuth: It doesn't improve .
Conrad: Why not?
Krauss: Well basically you 'd have to tear down the restaurant and move
it . If the drive-thru was coming through right here , what you 'd then have
to do is come out this way and come further down which really boxes up the
internal circulation . I 'm not saying it couldn 't be done but it 's a
pretty drastic change .
Conrad: That 's the logical thing to do from a planning standpoint . Trom
a neighborhood standpoint . Closing the west curb cut . Berming it or
' whatever , which is really where we care about . I 'm not too concerned
about the appearance on TH 5 . I think traffic should see McDonald 's
there . That 's what brings them in . I 'm not too interested in blocking
off view there but I am interested in how we abut the neighborhood
' property . Without a doubt that would solve the problem . We 'd lose some
parking stalls but boy , you berm that and you immediately solve a lot of
little problems.
Gene Borg: The semi 's have a hard time negotiating that turn .
' Conrad: You know , I 'm sure they do . It 's a real lousy site for semis to
begin with you know. It 's like I don't even know I want to encourage that
and you 're not . It doesn 't say semis welcome out front and they 'll go
where they want to but the turning into McDonald's there is not an easy
' turn . It 's more than a 90 degree turn . It's probably 120 degree turn .
That 's really, the way it is today, it 's just not a good entrance and it
just seems like at the time, with more space available , it seems like it's
a time that we could solve some of the problems but I don 't know that
we 're solving any problems .
Erhart: What problems do you eliminate by eliminating one of the curb
' cuts?
Conrad: You 're moving traffic away from the intersection for one . You 're
' basically having another way of putting a barrier up between the
neighborhood and McDonald's.
' Erhart: I know but you 're moving the headlights from here to here .
They're still going to shine over here .
I.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 21 IF
Conrad: There 's going to be one focus yeah , you 're right . They're still,
going to come out .
Erhart: Yeah. '
Conrad: It's primarily the barrier . One barrier , visual barrier betwee
Maybe it 's a wind barrier for trash . It 's a green space . The other
thing. I still have a tough time Tim with the fact that this is 65%
coverage . I just can 't , and I know these are deceptive , but it still
looks like we've got a real big asphalt piece of land here which is not , "
it 's not real appealling .
Erhart: Add that as a condition that staff checks that .
Conrad: For sure . We 'll have to . But primarily what I don 't want to do
is restrict the parking and I 'm not trying to say we should restrict the
parking in there . I want it as convenient as possible . And they 're not '
coming in asking for a different curb cut . They 're trying to keep the
costs down a little bit but you know , it just seemed like routing
everybody out of the same intersection and improving the far away
intersection in the long run has a lot of merit . If you 've driven in
there , you know that that 's not an easy turn coming in no matter what . If
you 're driving a semi or a car , it 's more than a 90 degree turn.
Erhart: You mean the entrance?
Conrad: Right . Because the angle is going away from , it 's not
perpendicular at all .
Krauss: Ladd , that 's going to get straighten out a little bit . The
entrance issue anyway. The new alignment is coming through here whereas I
the old one 's tailing away .
Conrad: Okay . That will help won 't it .
Ray Schleck: The traffic flow, we did look extensively at trying to close
off one of the curb cuts . Not only the truck , what I like to call truck ,'
RV, boat , trailer , camper . You get cars with boats and trailers coming
through and they can park in these stalls as well but besides the truck
traffic , you 've a got a few that come in right now, they're coming in the
east curb cut and you 're parking where the parking's directed to direct
the traffic that way and you have one curb cut , people are going to try t
go out that way . If you try to back, those stalls then should be drawn a
90 degrees. We don't enough aisle width there to do that safely and
you 're double loading that aisle which is primarily to direct traffic
around drive thru . . .without causing too much confusion. The more
decisions you force a driver to make , the more dangerous the parking lot I
becomes . This way it keeps the traffic flow simple and they won't have
any decisions to make . The Lake Drive, the new direction of Lake Drive
drastically helps the situation with the businesses up there. . .
Conrad: So basically you can't make a total counter clockwise flow work
with only one entrance and exit . You can't make it work .
1
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 22
Ray Schleck: You can make it work . You can't teach every driver how to
do it . That 's tough .
' Conrad: So it 's unsafe.
' Ray Schleck: That 's why we try to make the lot as simply as possible .
This plan works the best for that . There are other ways to do it but . . .
Conrad: Is the easterly entrance still an in only?
Ray Schleck: Yes .
Conrad: Okay.
Wildermuth: In any event , that 's all I had.
Conrad: Oh, it wasn 't my turn . Joan?
Ahrens: I 'm abstaining on this .
' Conrad: I probably took my turn . I think just some quick additional
comments . I don 't think we want drainage going into the wetland do we?
' Hempel : No . From a water quality standpoint also .
Conrad: I just don't think that 's the way we want to do it so we toyed
with that a little bit but it seems like there are other ways to drain
this that makes sense . The trees on TH 5 , they do get salt burn so I
guess , you know it 's an absolute . That 's what does happen . We 've got to
' be able to come up with some kind of tree and if we don 't , there 's no
reason forcing them into something that 's going to die . Paul , if you
could work with them on that . I guess my intent is not to , I like the
' small berm that you proposed on the north . I don't want to hide
McDonald 's at all . I think that 's not your point but if we can hide a
little bit of the dark , the asphalt which really bothers me a whole lot in
this one . The asphalt is just not pleasing to me so if we can, if that
' berm helps and if the greenery , if we can work out some kind of greenery
that works for you . It 's going to attract them as much as anything and
I know that you care about that but hopefully you can work with staff on
' that . I guess I still , Paul , if you 'd check out the impervious surface .
It 's not to say I don 't trust our friends from McDonald's but dog gone
that looks like , that 's just visually amazing that that's 65% coverage so
' if you could follow up for me on that Paul . Let's see . I guess that 's
all my comments . Any other comments? Anything else? Is there a motion?
Erhart: i 'll give it a try. I 've been writing . Probably get as close as
t anybody . I 'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
site plan request #90-4 as shown on the plan stamped Received March
something , 1990 with the staff recommendations except that item 1 will be
' changed to read , apply for , obtain and complete a wetland alteration
permit if required and as outlined in the report . Add item 7 , something
to do with handicap parking . Do you have some wording?
II
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 23
II
I
Emmings: Well yeah .
Erhart: To include required handicapped signage and curb cuts that are I
currently now shown on the plan and item 8 that staff will check the 65%
coverage before and do their own calculations before this goes to the Ci
Council . I guess that 's it .
Conrad: Okay , is there a second?
Ellson: Second . II
Erhart moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend I
approval of Site Plan Request #90-2 stamped 'Received March , 1990
without variances subject to the following conditions:
1 . Apply for , obtain and complete a wetland alteration permit, if t
required, and as outlined in the staff report.
2. Revise parking and internal circulation plans to improve circulation '
and provide increased setbacks as outlined in the staff report.
3. Revise drainage plans to utilize catch basin and storm sewer . Utili
concrete curbing in the parking lot. Provide an erosion control pla
Project approval by the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed Distric
is required.
4. Revise landscaping plans as outlined in the staff report. A financiell
guarantee for site improvements is required. An additional #10,000.00
guarantee for completing required wetland improvements will also be II
required.
5. Relocate the retaining wall onto the McDonald's site, providing a
Iminimum of 1 foot clearance from the right-of-way.
6. Approval and filing of the plat is required prior to the issuance of
any building permits.
I
7. Include required handicapped signage and curb cuts that are currently
now shown on the plan.
I
8. Staff will check the 65% coverage and do their own calculations before
this goes to the City Council .
All voted in favor except for Batzli who opposed and Ahrens abstained and,
the motion carried.
Batzli : I would table it until a lot of these issues can be resolved so I
that we 're looking at what we're actually approving .
Conrad: And Joan you abstain?
II
Ahrens: Yes .
II
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 24
' Conrad: The motion passes on a 5 to 1 vote, 1 abstention. And the issues
that you 're interested in really is dealing with wetlands . Dealing with
berms . Dealing with curb islands or whatever we would call them . Any
other specific issues?
Batzli : No . I 'm concerned with the 65% mostly as well as there 's a lot
of little issues that seem like they 're resolvable and I think they should
be resolved .
Conrad: This item goes to City Council on April 23rd . Thanks for coming
' in .
Krauss: Mr . Chairman , two things . We have the preliminary plat tacked
' on . Also , we would intend to keep the schedule for the City Council
meeting if , that 's contingent on the applicant 's ability to resolve these
issues and work with us to resolve those issues in time for that meeting .
Otherwise it would have, to be delayed .
' Conrad: Is there a motion for the plat?
' Emmings: I 'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Preliminary Plat #90-4 with the conditions contained in the staff report .
' Erhart: Second.
Conrad: Any discussion?
' Batzli : Yeah . Should we include the wetland type of thing in this one as
well? Do we normally do that in the plat? Do we include that as a
condition usually Steve?
' Emmings: Well , let 's do something there . Let 's add as a condition 4 that
they comply with all conditions of the Site Plan and Wetland Alteration
Permit if required . I 'd amend my motion to that .
' Batzli : Did you include the , as shown on the plans stamped Received March
19, 1990 to your motion?
Emmings: No .
' Batzli : Is it? Nothing as shown in the plans is in the motion .
Emmings: The preliminary plat that we're looking at is dated March 19 ,
1990 .
Batzli : Right .
Conrad: Whoever seconded it .
Erhart: Okay, I 'll second Steve 's amendment .
' Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Preliminary Plat #90-4 as shown on the plans stamped 'Received
. 1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 25 1
March 19, 1990' without variances subject to the following conditions: 1
1 . Provide the easements outlined in the staff report and described on
the attached illustration.
2. Dedicate illustrated right-of-way to the City.
3. Enter into a development contract with the City and provide necessary)
financial guarantees prior to having the City sign off on the final
plat.
4. The applicant shall comply with all the conditions of the Site Plan
#90-4 and Wetland Alteration Permit, if required.
All voted in favor except Ahrens who abstained and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: 1
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLE IV, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND
ARTICLE XXVII , EXCAVATING, MINING, FILLING AND GRADING ACTIVITIES.
Public Present:
Name Address 1
Tom Zweirs 9390 267 Street West , Lakeville
Jerry Rypkema 18601 Panama , Prior Lake
Mike Dwyer 1600 TCF Tower , Minneapolis
Terry Beauchane 240 Flying Cloud Drive
Leon & Delores Messenbrink 250 Flying Cloud Drive
Richard Vogel 105 Pioneer Trail
Willard Halver 470 Flying Cloud Drive
Paul Krauss presented the staff report . Chairman Conrad called the
continuation of the public hearing to order .
Terry Beauchane: Maybe before you start , this proposed ordinance that
you 're talking about , all you people have up there have a copy of it but
we don't . We have no idea what you're talking about .
Krauss: We would have been happy to have supplied it to anybody that was
interested . We have developed a special mailing list for the area around
Moon Valley and we've notified them of each meeting.
Terry Beauchane: Well we were notified of the meeting but we didn 't know
that there was a draft proposal already drawn up. Could we possibly see
it so we know what we 're talking about? I
Conrad: Are there any comments?
Willard Halver : I live in the very close vicinity. I 've been absent for 1
3 months. I 've been getting mail in regard to these meetings . Now why
1
Planning Commission Meeting
IIApril 4 , 1990 - Page 26
Ihasn 't a copy of that ordinance been sent to us along with the meetings?
We know nothing .
IConrad: Normally. . .
Willard Halver: The blind leading the blind, is that what it is or what?
IConrad: Normally what we do is we sent notice to those properties within
x number of feet .
IWillard Halver : Well I 'm in that .
Conrad: In this particular case , this is an ordinance and Paul , who did
1 we send notification to?
Krauss: We not only sent notice to properties within 500 feet . Because
I of the nature of this , we greatly expanded the mailing list and we 've sent
numerous notices out to a variety of people and the notices that we 've
sent out basically say an ordinance will be discussed . If you want to get
information , contact us .
IConrad: Typically that 's the way we handle it . We inform people that
something 's occurring . If they 're interested in knowing more , they can
II contact City Hall for an ordinance . For Minutes . For whatever . That 's
standard procedure .
IWillard Halver : That 's what I 'm here doing .
Conrad: Are there any other comments?
IRichard Vogel : Is this a public hearing?
Conrad: Sure is .
IRichard Vogel : I 'm Richard Vogel and I live at 105 Pioneer Trail . I have
two interests in this . I 've lived in that same house all my life and the
original Moon Valley that was grandfathered in before the ordinance took
I
effect is one thing and the clay mining that was started on the old Fred
Zimmerman property is another thing. I think they are two separate sets
of property . I don't think you should buy another piece of property and
I have your original , what do you want to call it, grandfathering non-
conforming use move to the other piece of property . The other thing on
Moon Valley , the way it is , the old Moon Valley . When you 've lived in
I that bluff area all your life, it's sad to see where it's going now . Now
I 'm no attorney and I don't know what non-conforming uses have or don't
have but when you come from Shakopee , you can see very well where Moon
Valley is . They're up to the tree line now. It's sad to see that happen.
I At the last public hearing on March 7th or the 4th, whatever it was , there
was some talk of I 'll say terracing. After the mining was done , terracing
it . I would judge that all the homes you see from Chaska through
I Chanhassen to Eden Prairie are up there because of the natural setting
there is and I don 't think they would be there if there was a terrace
there . I 'm just saying that as a broad statement . But anyway, I 'm just
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 27 1
saying , I think it 's too bad that they have to take those hills down . Yol
that's all , I 'm saying that from a personal standpoint . On the clay
mining on the old Zimmerman property, that I 'm just saying, I think this 'll
is a separate piece of property and I don 't see why it should be
grandfathered in . Thank you .
Terry Beauchane: My name is Terry Beauchane. I live just across the hill
from the Moon Valley operation . I have a number of comments I 've
addressed to you people before along with the City Council . The statement
was made earlier by the City Planner that this is supposed to be an all '
encompassing ordinance that you folks are considering here . I guess my
first question that comes up , if this is an all encompassing ordinance ,
why do we need prior approval of this ordinance from the attorney from II
Moon Valley . Why did it have to be sent to him in the first place? Is
this a city matter or is this a Moon Valley matter?
Conrad: I don 't think that that 's bad policy . It 's not that we 're
I
looking for that attorney to write our ordinance but it is going to
represent Moon Valley and there could always be litigation at some point
in time so having him aware of what we 're writing is probably pretty
smart . I guess I think that 's good but it 's not that he 's writing our II
ordinance by any means .
Terry Beauchane: Well then I guess I would have to ask how much input wall
there from Moon Valley 's Attorney?
Krauss: I think the premise is wrong here . The point of fact , we give
copies out of an ordinance to anybody who requests it . They were here at,
a meeting . They requested a copy of it . It does have a direct bearing on
them. We gave them one . Mr . Beauchane , if you had requested one , we I
would have sent you one . They're property owners . They have an equal
right to see what we 're doing affecting their property . In point of fact ,
they have a lot of concerns about this ordinance that they feel it 's
restrictive or punitive or whatever . The ordinance was not modified
II
specifically to allow them to continue what they're doing . The whole
premise of this ordinance is to get some requirements placed on them so
the City has some control over what they 're doing. I don't know . We will
give copies of this to anybody that asks.
Terry Beauchane: Okay, in terms of control . There obviously has not bee
any control down in our neck of the woods probably since the incorporatio,
of Chanhassen or maybe even long before that. There doesn't appear to be
any control going on down there now. What kind of enforcement methods ar
there going to be in this ordinance if any? I don't see any in here , at
least in the , I only had a few minutes to read this but the first few
pages at least I see nothing that is going to be punitive in any way if
somebody does not live up to the ordinance standards and rules and so on . '
Conrad: Paul , what would be the normal?
Krauss: The ordinance does have a paragraph that requires that not only II
new operations be subject to the ordinance but also that existing
operations come in and get a permit to operate under it. We would then
II .
Planning Commission Meeting
IIApril 4 , 1990 - Page 28
IIgive them a time period in which to develop an ordinance . Bring it
through the Planning Commission , City Council for approval . If they
failed to do that or if they failed to live up to the requirements of the
II permit when it is granted , the City always has legal recourse as we do
with any other property owner in the City .
I Terry Beauchane: Well that brings up the issue then of the portion of the
pit operation that 's taking place north of the original Moon Valley
operation . The big hole in the ground that I 'm sure everybody is aware of
at this point that was started without city approval . Without permits .
II
In fact without anybody 's knowledge . They just went up there and started
digging a hole in the ground. That 's been going on for what , 2 years?
Nobody 's done anything about that . So you pass an ordinance and they
Ithumb their nose at it .
Emmings: Well we don 't have an ordinance yet . We 're here to pass an
II ordinance .
Terry Beauchane: That 's what I 'm saying . You pass an ordinance but I see
nothing in this proposed ordinance that says if they don 't meet the
I stipulations of the ordinance and the permits and so on , what recourse is
there?
II Batzli : There is a section that they have to go before the City Council
and get a permit with certain conditions on it . They need to meet certain
criteria which may be relaxed given existing conditions . In other words ,
I there 's a setback requirement . Moon Valley 's already exceeded that
setback requirement .
Terry Beauchane: Okay , but wasn't there already existing ordinances and
IIso on that governed the second hole in the ground up there?
Krauss: That 's open to some serious question .
IIEmmings: We 're trying to fix that . Those ordinances were very inadequate
and our effort to pass an ordinance now is to get an improved ordinance so
we can get a handle on these things when they happen .
IITerry Beauchane: Okay, then very specifically then let me ask. When they
are done mining the pit and they close down the operation , what is to
I become of the land? Either at Moon Valley or anyplace else if someone was
to do this? What is to become of the land?
II Conrad: I think there is a section in the ordinance that speaks to
restoration and I think there are some things that can't be restored . You
just don 't fill in the whole pit and fill it up but I think there's a
section in here that hopefully governs a little bit of that . Puts some
IIkind of a direction. Sets a direction for what the operator has to do.
Terry Beauchane: And then what if the operator or the owner of the land
Idoes not comply with that and he's gone. The business is done.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 29 1
Batzli : Here 's a bonding section in the ordinance for restoration . A
letter of credit specifically which the City could draw down on to restore
it themselves and enter upon the land to do so if the owner did not
restore according to his plan which he submitted during the permit
process. Additionally there 's a section that the City Engineer would
annually review the permit to determine if they were in compliance and if
it should be extended. If there was a serious question, it would go in II
front of the City Council to decide if they should revoke the permit and
there's another specific section indicating that if a permit is revoked ,
no further excavating can be done or it 's in contravention of the law . I,
mean you can 't do anything more than that . You have to hold a public
hearing and allow the person to speak his peace .
Terry Beauchane: Okay , along that line . Can I make a suggestion for an '
insertion into this ordinance then that might help this particular matter
of what happens to the whole mess over there when all is said and done .
Included in the ordinance you might want to consider what is commonly II known as a mineral extraction fee or tax so that you 're collecting the
money as the stuff is being taken out . That to be used for the
restoration of the land for whatever other purpose if they do not hold up'
to their end of the bargain .
Batzli : Would that be in lieu of the letter of credit that we require?
Terry Beauchane: Could be in lieu of or in addition to . Mineral
extraction , taxes and fees are quite common in the mineral industry .
Everybody is calling this whole operation over there mineral extraction. I
Wildermuth: But it isn't mineral extraction . It 's mining in a pure
sense .
Terry Beauchane: All depends on definition. The times that I 've been
talking to you people and the City Council , everybody seems to have a
different definition, including the City Planner , the City Attorney. 1
Wildermuth: Mineral extraction is separating metals from their ores .
They aren 't doing that . '
Terry Beauchane: Well , as I say. It's a matter of interpretation but I
think the concept might still apply . They do it in coal mining. They doll
it in gold mining.
Wildermuth: It 's a mineral depletion tax just like an oil depletion tax .
Terry Beauchane: That 's right . Just like an oil depletion tax . 1
Wildermuth: Very common . '
Terry Beauchane: That way you might insure that at least if they run out
on the deal , that you 've got something to go back in there and make it
right . Right now from what you've said and what I 've read in here, if an'
operator moves out of this particular type of business and vanishes, the
City of Chanhassen 's going to be stuck with it .
Planning Commission Meeting
IIApril 4 , 1990 - Page 30
IConrad: Oh no . That 's not right . Not with the bond .
Terry Beauchane: Could be .
IConrad: Not with the bond . The bond is there .
II Batzli : As long as you get an adequate bond and the City Engineer has the
authority to review that from year to year to adjust it for inflation and
changing conditions and so the City Engineer would be able to increase or
decrease it at that time .
IITerry Beauchane: What would the amount of bond be on an operation such
as?
IIBatzli : I don't know .
IKrauss: It 's established specifically related to whatever . . .
Wildermuth: For that permit right?
IIConrad: It seems like a better route to go in my mind .
Batzli : You 'd be getting it up front rather than as the extraction took
I place because if you took it as the extraction initially took place , it
wouldn 't be properly funded to restore it . I think it would be better to
get a bulk of it up front if it 's possible . I think your idea has some
merit but I don 't think it 's something we 've really considered .
ITerry Beauchane: I 've got some other questions . Again, not having a
whole lot of time to go through this . Your number 3 on page 2 where it
I says perimeter fencing , deals with that issue . It says , will only require
fencing where it believes that there is a safety hazard. I guess that
sounds a little nebulous to me . It 's not very definite as to who
I considers a safety hazard or what is considered a safety hazard and so on .
Now I understand a number of you people may have seen the Moon Valley
operation over there . Granted there aren't a lot of little kids that live
over there but if you 've seen the drop offs that have been created with
I the excavation that has been going on over there , again what do you
consider or who considers or who determines what the hazard is?
I Conrad: I 'd rather have a person do that than a general policy or
whatever . I think again, this is trying to be sensitive to a situation
and I like being able to look at a site and saying this is a dangerous
I situation and this is not. I don't think you can create an ordinance that
can be specific and say we 're always going to fence everything. You can 't
do that . This seems to be more rational .
I Emmings: Not only that but there 's a standard in there . It says that
they have to be fenced if they're steeper than 1 foot vertical to 1 1/2
feet horizontal unless the City determines that they don't pose a hazard
IIso there 's a standard right in it . It 's right there.
II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4, 1990 - Page 31 1
Terry Beauchane: Okay . Concerning number 4 with the 300 foot setback bull
they're saying the Moon Valley is a 50 foot setback . Is that a setback
from what? The property line or what? '
Krauss: Yes . It's from the property line and 50 foot is Teich , has the
lot between where your home is and Moon Valley and that 50 foot is up
against the Teich 's property . 1
Terry Beauchane: Who has determined that it is 50 feet?
Krauss: That 's the information we got from Mr . Zwier . I 'll take his wort
for it .
Terry Beauchane: Oh you will . Okay . Again , I have to ask the question ,'
who 's drafting this ordinance?
Ellson: Well 50 feet has nothing to do with the ordinance . When Moon 1
Valley comes through , that 's when they 'll have the official measurement
and everything like that . We 're saying 250 .
Terry Beauchane: You 're saying you're going to set a waiver for Moon 1
Valley in particular for the 50 foot setback rather than the 300 foot
setback based on what he 's telling you .
Krauss: What we said is we would consider one and if he 's 50 feet , that '
where he is right now .
Terry Beauchane: What if it 's zero? 1
Krauss: If he 's zero right now , we have to deal with it . What are we
going to make him do? Put back a mountain? You know , wherever it is at 1
the point at which the ordinance is put . . .
Terry Beauchane: I guess that 's why we 're here and the homeowners and 1
stuff are getting a little upset with this whole thing because you keep
saying we're going to deal with it . Hell , this crap has been going on for
years over there and nobody 's been dealing with it. They went out and dull
a big hole and you didn't deal with that . How are we dealing with
anything other than going to them and saying what do you want? I 'll give
it to you . .
Leon Messenbrink: It 's not 50 feet , I 'll guarantee you that because I wa11
just up there the other day .
Conrad: Right now we 're looking at an ordinance that really talks about 1
300 feet or whatever the standard is . I think when Moon Valley gets
measured by our standard, we have to look at that particular situation son
right now the 50 feet is inmaterial . I don't care if it's 4 feet or 12
feet. We 're setting a standard of 300 feet in our ordinance. That's our
standard . When Moon Valley , if this ordinance passes and if Moon Valley
comes in to apply for the permit, we'll have to look at that particular II
standard and how they fail in that area and we're going to have to figure
out how to solve that problem. But right now we're not writing an
1
II I .
Planning Commission Meeting
IApril 4 , 1990 - Page 32
Iordinance for Moon Valley . This is not a Moon Valley ordinance tonight .
Period . This is a general ordinance for Chanhassen .
II Terry Beauchane: You wouldn't even be looking at this ordinance if it
wasn 't for Moon Valley .
IIConrad: Obviously stimulated the interest .
Leon Messenbrink made a comment .
IIConrad: No , we 've all walked it .
Leon Messenbrink: You don 't even know we exist down in that corner .
IConrad: I will debate that .
ILeon Messenbrink: I 've lived there 35 years .
Conrad: You 're wrong sir .
IIBatzli : I don 't understand your point . Just one more thing . Do you want
us to not do to anything? I mean what's your point? We 're trying to pass
an ordinance . We 're not talking about Moon Valley 's compliance or not .
I Would you like to see certain things in here that aren 't in here? Would
you not like us to do anything?
I Terry Beauchane: I guess my point is is how much latitude is this
ordinance or you people going to give Moon Valley or any other operation
like them , but in particular Moon Valley because they are a unique
situation because they were in business before this whole ordinance
I
business came up . So my concern is , when all is said and done and you
pass an ordinance , however it turns out , what is Moon Valley going to be
able to do or not do?
IConrad: And we don 't know .
I Ellson: We won 't know until that time comes and then you should follow it
at that meeting because that will be when the decision is made .
Terry Beauchane: Okay , the bottom line is , are you telling me then that
I if an ordinance is passed and it's passed in the form that it is here,
that Moon Valley is going to have to come back in for a permit?
IEllson: Exactly .
Terry Beauchane: Now, what happens between the time the spring operations
IIstart up and the time the ordinance actually is passed and becomes law?
Conrad: They're not governed by any ordinance . .
ITerry Beauchane: So they 're free to do whatever they want?
Conrad: Whatever has been permitted in the past .
II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 33 1
I
Terr
y Beauchane: Does that also include the hole in the ground to the
north?
Emmings: They 're not working there now are they? II
Krauss: The hole in the ground to the north has been the subject of a loll
of discussion . The City Attorney originally believed that since they wer
digging clay out of the top and clay was a different material , and the
gravel that we presumed had been coming off from the bottom and it was II
physically separated , that we had some ability to say no you could not
work up there . We 've since found out that they 're mining clay from down
below as well which makes that argument a little more tenuous than it was
Mr . Vogel has talked about the fact that we 've said all along and still
would say that Moon Valley has no right to acquire new properties and the
mine on them . That the grandfathering would not cover that situation . We
originally researched the matter and concluded that the property up to th'
north along Pioneer had been acquired by Mr . Griepentrog was the
predecessor to Mr . Zwier at a date prior to the adoption of the ordinance ,
i .e . then it was grandfathered in. Mr . Vogel and I have been talking on II
the phone that he says that he 's been down to the County and has some
information indicating that that acquisition took place in 1986. We
checked again the tax records that we have and as near as we can tell , th
computerized records started in 1980 , Mr . Griepentrog owned it in 1980 . S
I want to see Mr . Vogel 's information . If it 's better than what we have ,
there possibly is an avenue to follow up . At this point in time though it
doesn 't appear to us that we can treat that hole any differently than the,
main pit .
Ahrens: Is that the opinion of the City Attorney?
Krauss: Yes . II
Wildermuth: I think the interesting thing though is that Mr . Zweirs • II doesn 't have any intention of doing anymore mining up on top . What he
wants to do is recontour the top so that it solves an erosion problem that
he 's got in preparation for development at some point . Is that true Mr . I
Zweirs? I think you 're concerned about the continued clay mining up on
the top side . It's a valid real concern but. . .
Terry Beauchane: Mr . Wildermuth, are you personally going to guarantee 1
what he 's telling you?
Wildermuth: How could I possibly do that? I
Terry Beauchane: Okay, my point .
Wildermuth: But the point is that he has stopped. I
Terry Beauchane: Well sure , it 's wintertime . It's wintertime but wait
until the roads open up.
11
II
II .
Planning Commission Meeting
IApril 4 , 1990 - Page 34 t
IIEllson: The sooner this gets to Council , the sooner it passes , the sooner
all that will have to be dealt with I guess .
IITerry Beauchane: Another point that I do not see addressed in here and
again I have not read through the whole thing , is traffic considerations
out there on TH 169 . I guess I don't know how that can be addressed but
II it is definitely a hazard the way it exists right now . I don 't know if or
how you would go about improving upon the ordinance or whatever to take
those types of things into consideration . Such as the large trucks that
I have to pull out and pull in to that operation from a very busy highway
which we 've talked about in the past . The no turn lanes on that highway
to make it easier and less hazardous and when we have had rain storms , the
Imud that flows out of that pit right onto the highway . Now I don 't see . . .
Ellson: There is something in here about controlling and minimizing
tracking of dust and dirt by having a paved road and also it says that all
II hauled routes to and from the mine have to be approved by the City and
shall only use streets that can safely accommodate the traffic . So if we
felt that it wasn't safely accommodating traffic , we would have reason to
II tell them no or make them change their routes or whatever so there is a
little area in here that does address that .
Terry Beauchane : Will this ordinance then give you authority over the
IItraffic problems on Th 169/212?
Ellson: Sometimes we limit like hours and things like that . If it 's
Isomething that we can address . . .
Krauss : We can address the turning movements out of this site . We
I haven 't dealt with it directly yet but TH 169 is a State Highway and is
carrying a lot of thru traffic and I don 't have specific numbers for you
but I 've got to believe that the amount of turning movements by anybody on
that stretch of highway in Chanhassen are a very small percentage of the
I traffic that we see on that road . Yeah , we want to make that as safe as
possible but we 're not talking about putting the bulk of the traffic on
that . What 's going to alter that is opening up the new TH 212 which is
Igoing to off load it significantly .
Terry Beauchane: So again it would be up to the determination of the City
Ithen as to whether or not it 's a hazard and so on?
Conrad: In this ordinance we 've looked at internal traffic concerns and
dust . We haven't , the ordinance doesn 't really, correct me if I 'm wrong ,
I doesn't really talk about external . That would be a site specific
concern .
1 Batzli : There is a requirement that trucks haul , or you present the
plan . . .where you haul .
Krauss: That 's right. We want to know what streets they'll be using and
II where they 'll be turning . If turn lanes are necessary into a site like
that that 's fixed . You can require that .
II
. 1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 35
II
Terry Beauchane: And the City then under this ordinance could make those'
determinations for TH 169 also? Is that correct?
Krauss: Well , TH 169 is not our street so we have to work cooperatively I
with MnDot on that but we would certainly try to get the safest street
possible .
Terry Beauchane: So that could be circumvented by saying that the City o1
Chanhassen has no control over TH 169?
Conrad: That 's possible . Basically it means that we would have to work II
with MnDot and if they didn't want to deal or they didn 't perceive the
issue to be significant , then we would have no control over that .
Terry Beauchane: Well I appreciate your time . You didn 't answer hardly II
any of my questions and I can sense that this ordinance is going to be
drafted to accommodate Moon Valley . It 's unfortunate . I guess we 'll hay
to deal with it with the City Council . At least we know they 're elected
officials . Thank you .
Conrad: I beg to differ with you . I think we answered most of your ,
comments and I 'm sorry you don 't see how we 've tried to reflect on the
issues at hand . Maybe we 're not communicating clearly and I know you 're a
neighbor down there . In our mind , this ordinance appears to be dealing II
with the issues as best possible . You will have to stick with this
through City Council and obviously they are your elected officials and
that 's why I prefaced our meeting tonight saying stay with the issue . Bu
our job is to draft an ordinance that works city wide and this ordinance
is not site specific . It will work and it will control some of the things
that I think you 're concerned about . I 'm sorry you didn't feel that we
were looking out in your best interest at this. Other comments . I
Leon Messenbrink: I am Leon Messenbrink . I live down there too . I guess
my only question is , how far down the line are we looking for this II ordinance? Are we looking like 3 months? 6 months? A year?
Ellson: 2 weeks until the City Council .
IIConrad: No , it will be longer .
Leon Messenbrink: Let's be realistic. Are we looking at 3 months?
II
That 's what I 'd like.
Conrad: A couple months I would guess wouldn't you Paul? I
Krauss: Well if we assume that the City Council approves it , which is 2
to 3 weeks from now, we have to then publish it in the newspaper so t'ou 'r
looking at about a 2 month span . At that point we have to set a deadline
for Moon Valley to develop their plan and come in to us. An equitable
period has to be established . I 'll ask the City Council to set a deadline
and I don 't know what date they'll pick . I
II
i .
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 36
' Leon Messenbrink: That 's only one thing that you bring up again now . Did
I understand you that you 'll have to wait until Moon Valley responds to
this?
Krauss: They will be given a deadline to respond.
Leon Messenbrink: No , I 'm not talking what they're going to- do . I want
to know the ordinance .
Batzli : Within 6 months of the passage of the ordinance .
' Leon Messenbrink: No , I 'm not asking that . I 'm asking when will this
ordinance be passed . Not what they think about the ordinance . I 'm just
talking about the ordinance .
Conrad: About 2 months . If they . . .
Leon Messenbrink: That 's all the question I asked. How long .
Irregardless of what we say or they say , the ordinance we 're looking at
about 2 months right? Fine . Thank you .
Mike Dwyer : Mr . Chairman . I 'm Mike Dwyer . I represent Moon Valley .
We 've had some discussions with Mr . Krauss since we met here last March
' 7th I think . One of the commission members pointed out that Moon Valley
was taking kind of a rigid stance and we 've assessed that and we 're here
tonight to suggest to you folks that Moon Valley is more than willing to
sit down with the City and discuss legitimate safety problems in terms of
fencing and the dust and noise problems and whether that needs to be a
trap or 300 feet of asphalt . Those are things that we think we can work
out among staff and Moon Valley 's personnel . But in terms of this
ordinance , we still have to oppose passage of the ordinance . It is too
broad in terms of it 's effort to lay upon a non-conforming use some land
use regulations . I 'm trying to make the distinction between your
' legitimate safety concerns and then your land use concerns . We 'll be
happy to talk to you about the safety concerns . It 's burdensome in terms
of the cost . We 've obtained estimates that if we were to comply with the
permit application process , on the outside that would cost $35,000 .00 . If
1 we were to do 300 feet of paved surface , and again with the caveat that
that may be negotiated down, that would cost $43,000 .00. Fencing is , it
depends upon what the City indicates is hazardous but we're estimating
that at $15 ,000.00 and as a side issue, I should point out that the City
is suggesting that we use MnDot fencing . This 6 foot tall cyclone fencing
that you see along the freeways. In order for that to be installed, the
cyclone fence people have to come in with some pretty heavy equipment .
There would be an additional cost in preparing a trail for that equipment
to come into the bluff area and I believe it would necessitate taking down
a lot of your trees , or a lot of the trees on Moon Valley and I don't
think anybody wants that . So there's a definite cost to the actual
fencing materials but there 's a collateral cost that is significant as
well . But as I said earlier , we 're willing to talk to you about the
fencing . From the comments tonight , you folks appear to be pretty intent
upon having a letter of credit . We believe that that 's inappropriate and
will be costly. I don't know what an operation the size of Moon Valley
i
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 37 '
would command in terms of a bond or letter of credit . No one has been II
' able to tell us that but that would cost a lot of money . Mr . Batzli says
it 's important to get that money up front . That would cost a good deal . II
We also have to continue to oppose this ordinance because it 's
discriminatory in terms of mining operations in general and Moon Valley in
particular in that you are dictating certain safety standards to this lan
use and not other land uses that are identical to it . For instance , as I
drove through Chanhassen today and a couple times 3 weeks ago , I noticed
lots of lakes without fences around it and I 've noticed lots of bluffs
that have a greater degree of slope than indicated in here that have no
fences on it and they have to pose the same hypothetical safety problems II
that have attracted your attention in Moon Valley . Yet I don 't understand
and believe that there 's any ordinances that deal with that . So we would
request and renew our request that you recommend to your City Council tha
�
you not adopt this ordinance and that you send Mr . Knutson back to the
drawing board , the blackboard , and that he draft an ordinance that would •
address legitimately your safety concerns but at the same time would
protect the vested property interests of the citizens of the City . Thankll
you .
Conrad: Could you go back to the permit costs. $35 ,000 .00 . Can you . . . II
Mike Dwyer : If I might , I have some copies . This was prepared Mr .
Chairman for us some time ago and $35 ,000 .00 total is responding to the
initial draft and since that time , Mr . Krauss may have touched on it , tha
tree survey has been sought and is now requested . . .various wooded areas.
Here 's a fencing estimate and asphalt estimate . '
Conrad: Paul , have you seen any of these numbers?
Krauss: No . I 've heard them mentioned from time to time and one of the II
things you had asked us to look into was getting some cost estimates on
compliance and as I thought about that , I guess I really felt it was
inappropriate . First of all we don 't know what the plan is so we don 't
know exactly what they 're complying to . But I 'd also have to point out
that when I was out at the site with Mr . Zweirs, he gave me an estimated
value and I don't remember how many millions of dollars it was of the
material that 's out there. There's no question that this ordinance is
going to cost somebody something . But the real question is, is that a
legitimate cost of business and that's what you need to decide .
Mike Dwyer : Mr . Zweirs asked me to point out one thing here on the letter
of credit issue. The City has indicated a willingness to accept the
functional equivalent in terms of , at least this 300 feet of paved road , 11
trap . The functional equivalent of the letter of credit in our opinion i
the 80 some acres of land here in Chanhassen that I think is selling at
$12,500.00 an acre . We think that that 's a million dollars of land there ll
and Mr . Zweirs isn 't about to walk away from a million dollars of land .
So I think the land , as I said earlier , is security enough to backstop Mr .
Zwiers ' intentions to develop that land. Mr . Wildermuth , you made a
comment earlier , I just want to clear up the record. It is Mr . Zwiers '
intention , present intention anyway not to mine on that northern property
beyond leveling those knolls. Those 3 knolls of clay to grade . It is his
I
1 .
Planning Commission Meeting
11 April 4 , 1990 - Page 38
intention to continue to remove that high quality grade clay from there
but at that point , keep it level and develop those lots . So again , we
reconize your safety concerns and we 'll work with you on those but in
' terms of this ordinance , we think it 's a poor one for Moon Valley ,
although it 's not directed at Moon Valley , and for any other mining
operation that were to come into the City .
Conrad: Other comments .
Terry Beauchane: I 'd like to respond to those comments that were just
' made . Number one , now I don 't know these gentlemen from Adam but if
you 're going to allow any kind of operation such as this without any kind
of bonding , what 's to prevent them from just walking away when it 's all
' over? Then who 's going to get stuck with it? The taxpayers . Now you may
have the land and they may think it 's worth $1 ,200 .00 an acre , or
$12 ,000 .00 , whatever the number was , but I can guarantee you by the time
they 're done with it , it 's not going to be worth diddily beans . Now if
you pass an ordinance without any kind of a bonding to go with it , that
would be the most foolish ordinance I 've ever seen . The comments about ,
well let 's see . I lost my train of thought . The comments about the hole
in the north not going to do any more mining on it . I guess I would take
that with a grain of salt also . If they were concerned at all , why didn 't
they come to the City for approval the first time around when there was no
' assured or guarantee that what they were doing was not in violation of any
existing ordinances . So we again seem to be drafting and modeling this
proposal to suit Moon Valley . I 'm getting the impression from the
attorney 's comments that they're opposing this ordinance and as my
neighbor brought up , and the point he was trying to make is how long are
they going to be able to operate Moon Valley unrestricted . If no
ordinance is passed , they 're going to be going full guns down there with
no restrictions . No supervision from the City . Nothing . They'll be able
to do whatever they damn well please just as they have been doing . So
this ordinance does not need to be delayed any longer . As we're all
' aware , any ordinance can be modified later on if need be . Right now we
need to get something in place and we need to have it done before the
spring thaw and those big trucks are allowed back on the road because you
know the day that they 're allowed, they 're going to be operating . They 're
going to be operating out of the main Moon Valley pit and they could very
well be operating out of the hole in the north . The hole in the north and
I don't know , this is what I 've heard from certain people around City
Hall , the clay operation was predicated upon the Eden Prairie landfill and
that is still up in the air but it could still go from my understanding if
the EPA were to give their approval . If these people have a contract with
' that Eden Prairie landfill operation up there for the clay, that hole in
the north is going to go back into operation this year no matter what they
say . So we need an ordinance and we need it now before the spring thaw
comes . And we need it with a bond. Thank you.
' Conrad: Other comments? Anything .
' Richard Vogel : Yeah , a little earlier I believe Mr . Wildermuth said it
was his understanding that no more clay was going to be taken off of the,
let 's say the north or the up field . I think the attorney said they were
1
•
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 39
going to take 3 knolls off to grade . Is that right? That 's what I
understood?
Bob Zweirs: That 's our intention . '
Richard Vogel : What does that mean? No clay off or taking it off the
grade and how much is that? I guess I 'd like a little idea of that . If
we're supposed to decide that at this thing tonight . If we're going out
of here saying there 's no more clay being taken off of the , whatever you
want to call it , the upland or it's going to be level to grade . What doell
that mean? That 's my question. And also, is there an ordinance? I
thought there was an ordinance put in 1972 . Is that right or not?
Conrad: No . 1
Richard Vogel : That 's what you were telling me Jo Ann . That before
the . . . 1
Olsen: There is a mineral extraction ordinance but nothing of this
detail . I
Krauss: And it doesn't have a mechanism for getting at uses that started
before 1972 . ,
Richard Vogel : Okay , fine .
Conrad: Other comments? I
Richard Vogel : Could I just add, is their attorney willing to add to that
and what is it going to be the way Mr . Wildermuth said no clay is taken II
off of the north or the upland part or is it going to be . . .
Conrad: Why don 't we wait for a second on that and we 'll close the publiii
hearing . We 'll still see if they want to answer that . I don't think
that 's relevant to what we 're talking about tonight but they may want to II
respond.
Emmings: All he can do is repeat himself .
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted ill
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Conrad: Is there any response?
Mike Dwyer : I think I already tried to clear it . Sir , that is the
intention of Moon Valley to take the 3 knolls of clay and bring them down
to the surrounding grade . . .
Conrad: Okay, which end did I start at last time?
Ellson: You started at my end so you can start at the other end this
time .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
• April 4 , 1990 - Page 40
11
' Ahrens: Well I was going to address the ordinance . . .before us . I think
that it seems that the new ordinance seems to incorporate all the issues
that we raised in our last meeting when we reviewed this . I don 't have my
marked up version of the old ordinance that we were looking at , the first
' ordinance we were looking at so I can't tell if the revisions that you
note on page 2 Paul are inclusive or are they just some of the revisions
that were made?
' Krauss: They're the more significant ones . As I stated, we made a number
of detailed revisions and I had a marked up copy and I believe I had
Commissioner Emmings ' and Commissioner Batzli 's as well and tried to bring
all those considerations into account .
Ahrens: I have just a couple of comments . Number 5 on page 2 . It says
tree planting and screening is now required only in areas where the City
determines it is necessary to screen off-site views .
Emmings : I don 't have a 5 on page 2 . Are my numbers different than other
people 's?
Batzli : I don 't have that either .
Krauss: It 's not in the ordinance . It 's in the staff report .
Ahrens: No , no . It 's in the staff report .
Emmings : Oh , okay . Page 2 of the staff report . Okay . Sorry .
' Ahrens: My point is that . . .determine that planting and screening is
necessary?
Krauss: You would make that determination along with the City Council
when you review the plan .
Batzli : We wouldn't see that would we? Doesn't that go right to City
Council?
Krauss: It 's a conditional use permit. It would come through you .
Batzli : Okay.
' Ahrens: And that 's screen the views of the mining or excavation? Is that
the purpose?
' Krauss: Where there are some critical off-site views, for example from
the homes to the west of the mine, you'd certainly want to provide them
with buffering . You may also want to provide buffering from the State
highway .
Ahrens: But if it 's provide buffering for the actual work at the mine . . .
more planting and screening be required as the work is progressing on the
site? Is there any kind of . . .
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 41 1
Krauss: Well I would assume that yes , you 'd make that determination when"
you see how that plan 's being staged certainly . When this operator or any
other operator comes before you , we are going to ask for a grading plan
that indicates the completed state . You 'll be able to determine where thil
activity is going to occur .
Ahrens: 7-33( E ). Page 2 of the ordinance. Is that excavation or fillinil
of more than 100 or less than 100?
Batzli : It should be less than .
Krauss: It should be less than .
Ahrens: I don 't know if that appears anywhere else in the ordinance . Yoll
might want to check that . I don 't have any more questions .
Wildermuth: I think the redraft of the ordinance is very appropriate . III
think Roger did a very good job redrafting . I think the new language in
many areas makes the ordinance more workable. I continue to favor of the
letter of credit . I think that 's essential to insure the public interest
is protected . I support the ordinance . I
Conrad: Tim . Go ahead.
Erhart: You woke me up. Just one thing to start out with . Did anybody II
in this room get a notice? You did get a notice in the mail?
Resident: Of the meeting? We got an agenda . ,
Erhart: Yeah . Okay . Help me understand Jo Ann or Paul . You 're saying
that the existing ordinance passed in 1972, would it or would it not alto"
them to remove the clay in the upper area?
Krauss: The current reading , I discussed this with Roger yesterday. The '
current reading we have , and it 's based on information that we've been
able to procure to date so this could be revised in the future , but based
on the information we have , it 's our opinion that that operation up on toil
is probably grandfathered in as well .
Erhart: That 's not the question . That 's the second question . The first
question is, assuming it isn't, do they comply with the 1972 ordinance? II
In other words , the current ordinance.
Krauss: They don't comply because they never had a permit. There's no I
plan that we're regulating under .
Erhart: So they don't comply by the fact that they don't have a permit.
Krauss: Right .
Erhart: Then just for comment is that I cannot understand first place ,
when Wally Griepentrog and his wife bought this property from Zimmerman i
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 42
Krauss: Now the information that we have . . .
Erhart: You just stated that or somebody stated that earlier .
' Olsen: He 's been acclaimed .
Erhart: Whether or not anybody, it really doesn't make any difference .
' What I thought I heard you say is the fact when that was purchased as a
separate parcel , it was automatically made a part of the grandfathered
parcel .
Krauss: Because that occurred as near as we can tell before the operative
date of the ordinance , that 's correct .
' Erhart : You 're saying that purchase was made before the 1972 ordinance
was made?
Krauss: Yes . That 's the information we 've got .
Ellson : One person is saying 1986 and they 're saying earlier .
Erhart : Griepentrog purchased this property before 1972?
Krauss: Right . Now Mr . Vogel 's contacted us and said that he also went
' to Carver County and has different information which we 'd like to see
because we haven 't been able to confirm that .
' Erhart: Well I 've got a copy of this from Dick that says that Wally
Griepentrog purchased this property from Fred Zimmerman January 8, 1986 .
' Emmings: That 's a warranty deed . There may have been an underlying
contract . I don 't know .
Krauss: Tim , I don 't know the answer to that . We 've researched it twice
' and we 've got the best information we have . We 've asked Dick to give us
the information that he has .
' Erhart: Well I 'm sure he will but it just seemed to me that if it was
purchased after that , then it should comply with our current ordinance .
' Krauss: If it was purchased after the operative date of the ordinance , we
don 't believe the grandfathering applies.
Erhart: So we all agree with that then. Okay. Great . So then it 's just
' a question of finding out when this thing was really purchased or not .
Okay , so we 're going to do that .
' Krauss: Well we've already done it twice. We want to take Dick 's
information .
Emmings: Did you go down to the County Recorder 's office and get copies
of any deeds or contract for deeds in the relevant time periods? That 's
what you have to do . If you didn't do that , you didn't do it . The deed
, I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 43 1
3
that Tim has , there's a warranty deed here and it 's dated 1986 and it I
clearly the fee was transferred from Zimmerman to Griepentrog on January
8 , 1986 . It doesn 't say anything about an underlying contract or that t
deed was given to fulfill the terms of a contract but they don 't have to .
Elison: But for their specific situation, they're going to be looking
into that so .
I
Erhart: Okay. I think we all agree on that then . I guess one comment
directed at Moon Valley 's attorney regarding all these costs . I guess mil
feeling regarding that and the bonding and everything like that is that
don 't have a lot of empathy for whatever costs in that it 's a cost of
doing business and quite frankly, there's no question in my mind that
you 're adversely , your operation adversely affects surrounding property
values and that the City, if they aren 't compensated , certainly the City
should take every means to protect itself from the continued operation .
Conrad: Tim , just a point of clarification. I asked them to bring in I
some costs the last time through . I was real interested in what we
impose .
Erhart: Yeah , I think it 's important though what costs are when we imposI
ordinances and ordinance changes . What it costs our citizens and so I
think that 's great . It 's just that in reviewing that , then my position
I guess that 's just part of the program here . Let me go to the ordinance"
here . I 've got a couple questions here . One of the big ones in my mind
Paul is , right now we 're stating that anything from 100 to 1 ,000 cubic
yards can be worked on or can be dealt with by staff but you have all
these requirements in paragraph 7-35(B) . There 's a list of 13 and then i
jumps back to 12 . On page 4 there . What is that? Is that a mistype? I
that next one 14 or what?
Krauss: Oh yeah.
Erhart: Okay . The question that I have , it 's not clear to me that the I
guy under 1 ,000 yards , is he required to do all this too?
Krauss: He 's required to fill out a permit . In fact we had a proposed
permit application attached to this. You're right , it's not particularl
clear as to which information we would request of a smaller operation.
Clearly we don't need some of these things for the smaller operator . We I
could clarify that point .
Erhart: Well my concern is that a 1 ,000 cubic yards is a very small
amount and that could be somebody's landscaping. If somebody built on a I
acre lot , he could easily landscape 1 ,000 yards. If he was trying to move
a hill or something and I 'm not saying that the permit process is bad .
It 's just that to come in here and require all this for a guy doing t
landscaping .
Batzli : Wouldn't that come under grading under a building permit which i'
excluded?
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 44
' Erhart: Well that 's what I 'm asking .
Krauss: Not necessarily .
Batzli : No , it wouldn't?
Krauss: 1 ,000 cubic yards is a 100 large size dump trucks . There 's a
' significant impact attached to that . Particularly , if that 's taking place
out in your neighborhood Tim , you know where you have 20 acre homesites ,
that 's going to be a drop in the bucket for earth moving on those sites
but when we 've got somebody on a 15,000 square foot lot telling us that
' they want . . .
Erhart: I understand. I understand. If you 're bulldozing, I mean you
can move 1 ,000 yards .
Krauss: That 's why it 's done adminstratively . We can make those
' determinations as to what 's important and what 's not and just pass it on
through. And it 's further provided that if the applicant takes exception
to the standards that we 've applied , they can appeal to the City Council .
' Erhart: Well I 'm just trying to make it easier for everybody . I 'm asking
that you look at this and make it , the way I read it , it appeared to me
that the guy who wanted to move 101 cubic yards had to go in and provide a
' tree survey indicating locations and types of all 6 inch caliper trees .
Estimated time , well that 's you know . Processing nature . Processing and
equipment and travel route to and from the site . I guess in my mind I
' think we 're in danger here of trying to mix two things up on this
ordinance . We 're combining mining , landscaping or whatever with grading
with mining and I just wonder if we really ought to be doing that . I 'm
afraid what it 's going to do is going to put a real burden on somebody
' that 's doing grading in that we've just made it complicated by combining
it in the same ordinance .
' Krauss: We can clarify that section of the ordinance . I 've drafted these
things before and I 've worked with them a number of times and you make it
fairly easy for most homeowners or small property owners to do what they
need to do . Typically you go through a check list like that and say this
is not necessary. That 's not necessary. It's just not warranted for what
you 're proposing . We can clarify that a little further . We've done that
elsewhere in this ordinance with this 2 track approach.
' Erhart: That might be you but the next guy that comes along, I mean he
might say well this is, so no one ever questions. If my boss ever
' questions that I 'm not doing my job, I 'm going to have you do every one of
these. At a minimum yes. I like to see it spelled out that either
another list for people under 1 ,000 yards or whatever .
' Batzli : You could include that an administrative review. Well , be
selective basically .
Erhart: It sounds like you have some ideas.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 45 1
Krauss: Yeah , we can do something . ,
Erhart: I know you and Jo Ann are very reasonable but you never know wh
or what situation might be where that differs so . On page 5 there I thi
on paragraph C , line 6 , I think where it says subdivision 7-34B . I
think that was suppose to be 7-358 . I think where it says City staff may
also require the submission of any of the items specified in Subdivision ,'
I think that 's suppose to be 35B . Again , I think you 're eluding to what
we 're talking about here but it 's not clear .
Krauss: Well actually that does give us the authority to say we don 't II
need items in that checklist .
Erhart: Yeah, I think it gives you the authority to request them but for
someplace previously it should have said that we may not need them or
something . Anyway , look at that again Paul . I have a question here
and I think I 've probably asked this the last time but what happens if
Moon Valley , when we go through all this work . What happens if they just'
say we 're not going to come in and submit a permit application?
Krauss: They would be in violation of the ordinance and the City Council'
would probably direct the City Attorney to file legal action .
Erhart: Okay . That 's all my questions .
Conrad: Steve .
Emmings: My reaction was that the neighbors didn't seem to like this
ordinance , at least in their early comments and Moon Valley didn 't seem to
like it so it must be pretty good. So I think I 'm for it . The neighbors
I think, I didn 't like the comments of the neighbors that this seemed to I
be drafted to suit Moon Valley. It sure as hell wasn't . It was drafted
by the City Attorney . Moon Valley has, I am certain in my own mind , no
interest in seeing any kind of ordinance passed and I think this is a
giant step in the right direction of getting a handle on Moon Valley and I
operations like Moon Valley. I think it 's a good, we're finally taking a
step to try and do something . I think that the changes that were made to
the ordinance between the last draft and this one improved it
tremendously . I think it 's a much better ordinance now then it was
before . I want to say that I don't think, I think as a separate issue we
should take up , there 's no question in my mind that those bluffs should
not be mined period and we should have, it 's too late. It's too late in
the case of Moon Valley and we all recognize that and just to take back
that clapping, I think he's got every right to keep going where he is .
You didn 't like to hear that. But I don't think we should ever have
another mine in those bluffs and we have got to have, we've got to look at
putting something in place that will protect the rest of the bluffs so
that no operation of this kind ever comes in here again and that should b
a high priority item on our worklist . Some kind of , Tim suggested before
that Eden Prairie has an overlay district along the bluffs that protects
them or imposes extra things . While we've got an ordinance to control noll
assuming this passes, we 've got an ordinance to control mining operations
it should never come up that somebody would want to mine in those bluffs .
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 46
11
As far as the costs to Moon Valley go or anything else with Moon Valley ,
' I 'm assuming that is all totally irrelevant to what we 're doing here
tonight so I 'm not interested in those numbers tonight . The neighbors
should also know that this , any application of Moon Valley or anybody
' else , because it 's a conditional use permit , there would always be a
public hearing associated with that so then when we 're specifically
looking at an application by Moon Valley or anybody else , there 'd be
' notice given to all surrounding property owners and then you 'd have a
chance to come in and then all we 'd be talking about is Moon Valley or
whoever applied so you really get your shot at that point in the process .
I 'm going to vote for this ordinance. I think it 's good and I 'm voting
' for it on the premise that this is a general ordinance meant directed to
getting a handle on any mining operations in the City of Chanhassen ,
present or future . That is not directed at Moon Valley and upon the
' intent that I 've heard of the City , the City expressed that they intend to
work with Moon Valley and come up with some kind of reasonable solution to
the problems that are going to exist for Moon Valley once this thing is
passed .
Conrad: Annette?
Eilson: I like the ordinance . I think the biggest problem with the whole
thing is it 's like our contractor yards . We hated them all along so we
decided to finally write something to prevent them and control them and
' then made everybody come in after the fact when it really should have been
something that has been followed all along but hind sight is 20/20 so I 'm
glad we 're doing something . Better late than never but I guess I 'm just
disappointed that it should have been done long ago but I like it . I
think it addresses all the concerns that a lot of the neighbors would like
to see enforced . I 'm not sure it 's going to be able to be enforced as
well as we 'd like the ordinance to on people that are already existing but
' I feel much better about prevention in the future. I just don 't know how
many there will be but I plan to vote for it .
Conrad: Thanks . Brian?
' Batzli : I guess I thought there were going to be more changes to the
ordinance than there were and I went through it . I took a good period of
' time to do so and I have a lot of comments. A lot of them are cleaning
things up and some of them are substantive . I 'll just give Paul the ones
that I think are just cleaning things up and comment on the substantive
' ones . The first one is in the definition section 7-31 , paragraph (b ) .
The phrase , yet the area has remained idle since the topsoil removal .
What does this add to this particular definition? I don 't understand this
one .
1 Krauss: I 'm sorry commissioner . Where are you?
' Batzli : In the definition section , 7-31 . Under Excavating or mining .
Paragraph ( b ). Why is there a requirement that the area has remained
idle?
' Krauss: I don 't know .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 47
Wildermuth: Where are you reading?
Batzli: ( b ). Any area where the topsoil or overburden has been removed '
for the purpose of removing earthly deposits or minerals, yet the area ha
remained idle since the topsoil removal .
Emmings: They 've stripped off the topsoil but haven 't yet gotten to the I
business of . . .
Wildermuth: Haven't mined anything. Just taken the overburden. ,
Ellson: So they 're calling that part of the definition also . Just in
case it doesn 't look like it 's gone that far yet . It looks like it began,
Wildermuth: It 's a legitimate part of the definition .
Batzli : The area has remained idle . What 's the area? The minerals that'
you 're going to remove?
Wildermuth: That means that the overburden has been taken off but no
mining has ensued .
Batzli : Why don 't we just say , what does the yet the area has remained
idle since the topsoil removal add to that that isn't already stated?
Emmings: I supposed somebody could say, oh probably nothing but I suppose
maybe it 's there so the person just doesn 't say we 're not mining yet .
Batzli : But in the definition it would say any area where the topsoil or
overburden has been removed . '
Krauss: I don't know. I 'll have to ask Roger for clarification .
Batzli : I think it 's confusing . Unless you 're a mining or excavating
expert and this has definite meaning that adds something, I read it and i
sounded like they had stripped off the overburden and then they go away
and they let weeds grow and we 're going to call that mining. I don't
know . Jim?
Wildermuth: Mining or excavating. '
Batzli : Well I agree . I just didn't think that added anything and I was
confused .
Wildermuth: Probably excavating.
Batzli: I think in the permit required section , 7-32 on the next page , 1
should include a statement that the permit shall be referred to as an
earth work permit and then refer to it as such throughout this article .
Clarify and develop a name for this type of an application similar to
calling a wetland alteration permit a wetland alteration permit . Give it'
a name . Then at the end of this section it reads, current permit holders
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 48
' shall come into compliance with the terms of this chapter no later than
the time their annual permit is renewed . Currently under the terms of the
old chapter , I haven 't studied that one that closely . Is it an annual
renewal process in there?
Wildermuth: Every year .
Batzli : Every year? So there's a renewal date . I guess then I would
merely change it to read that no later than the renewal date of such
permit holder 's permit unless we specifically call it an annual permit .
' The next section , 7-33 , paragraph E, you 've already caught the less than
100 cubic yards . I would recommend that we say that that is cumlatively
in a 12 month period rather than in a calendar year . Not that you 're
going to catch too many people on that but it does at least catch those
' people who would claim a calendar year started and stopped on the first of
the year and dumped a 100 yards in November and 100 yards in February .
Whatever .
' Emmings: They could do the same thing. . .
Batzli : Well yeah but the cumlatively in a 12 month period I think you 're
going to catch those kind of things . The interim use permit under 7-35 ,
should that be conditional use permits?
' Krauss: No .
Batzli : Do we call it interim use permits?
' Krauss : Yes . Right .
Batzli : Where is that?
Krauss: It 's the new ordinance that you approved about 2 months ago .
' Batzli : Interim use . It 's not a temporary use . It 's interim use .
Krauss: Well effectively that 's what it is .
Emmings: Was I right when I said that that would require a public hearing
then?
Krauss: Yes . It 's the same . It 's handled the same as a CUP.
Emmings: I wanted to make sure I didn't mistake that .
' Batzli : Okay. I would add, at least suggest adding the last sentence of
7-35 , paragraph A . Again , the less than 1 ,000 cubic yards of material
cumlatively in a 12 month period. And under paragraph B( 4 )(d) on page 4 .
' The small ( d ) there . Something just struck me as I was reading this that
something at least that we required for the Eckankar property was a
determination of existing wells , abandoned , active, all that kind of
' stuff . Would that be something that should be required or would otherwise
be required under this ordinance since they 're going to be disturbing the
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4, 1990 - Page 49
topsoil and doing all that kind of thing? ,
Krauss: It 's a good idea as you mention it . It strikes me to include it
specifically . '
Batzli: Okay. I had written at least , and I don't think I said this very
artfully. A description and location of wells , abandoned or active , and
any deposits of man made chemicals and/or wastes . I don't know, I 'm sure
that can be said better . My next question concerned landscape plan .
Would this deal with , when would this be required as far as before ,
during, after the excavation? At what time period does the landscape plat
implemented? During the restoration or during. . .
Krauss: Both . You would require a landscape element for screening at '
such point as the operation was begun . The restoration plan also would
probably have a landscaping component . Certainly it would .
Batzli: So there would be several plans? Okay . Maybe we should clarify'
that . I was assuming that was a landscape plan just during the operation
and that the restoration plan would cover the subsequent and maybe we 're
already covered under that type of a situation .
Emmings: There is a landscaping plan required under the rehab section
so I would assume that this one must be just for during the mining .
Batzli : I don't know . I don't know if you want to clarify that or not .
Under 7-35 I also would suggest adding a paragraph C which states that the
applicant and the owner of the land on which the earthwork will occur II shall be considered joint applicants on all earthwork applications . I
think we discussed doing something like that and I think we required the
names and the question is whether we 're going to try and tie them both
together . We kind of discussed this and I really didn 't see it handled a
fully as I would have liked to have seen it from our last discussion . Is
it possible to make them joint applicants on the applications?
Krauss: We do that effectively now for every application anyway so
putting it in there doesn't hurt .
Emmings: I suggested that last time and Roger didn't put it in there . I
Now he did add, he did say that the landowner has to sign the application .
That did get changed . ,
Batzli: I would specifically state that they are joint applicants.
Emmings: I assumed he threw that out because he didn't like it . I didn'il
bring up anything I brought up last time .
Batzli: I guess since we weren 't privy to why some things were in and II
were out , some of this is kind of rehashing things.
Emmings: I think it's a good thing to do .
II
Plannin g Commission Meeting
,
April 4 , 1990 - Page 50
II
I Batzli : Termination of the permit , the next section 7-37 . I guess I
skipped one . I 'm sorry , it 's in 7-38 . The annual permit renewal
conditions section . I read in paragraph A and I don 't know if anybody had
I a problem with the way it read but my problem with it was an initial
question was , we may limit some of these things to a specific time
duration and it wasn 't clear to me whether the City Engineer could extend
it . So I added a paragraph C and I don 't really know if we need this but
I the paragraph C would read , an earthwork permit which is limited in time
duration, may not be extended under this paragraph 7-38 beyond the time
duration limitation except in accordance with paragraph 7-36(c ) which is I
I believe the , let me see why I did that . That 's less than 1 ,000 cubic
yards , or by the City Council upon consideration of a new application in
accordance with this article . Now I don't know if we need that and I
I don 't know if that was ever comtemplated in the event that you were going
to limit someone to excavate for a certain period of time .
Emmings: You have to do that if it 's an interim use .
IBatzli : Okay . And so then the question is whether can the City Engineer
then couldn 't extend that anyway under the ordinance or could he?
IKrauss: I would expect that there 's a condition of approval that gives a
specific termination date which can only then be changed by the City
Council .
IBatzli : Well then I don't think that the work renewal is correct in this
section . If I think about it then , if it 's an interim use , it has a
I specific expiration date . Well , it either has to expire upon a given
event or be limited in time duration under that other ordinance we passed .
I Krauss: That 's true but take Moon Valley for example . That given event
may be reaching the point at which the material that they said they were
going to excavate out has been done . That could be the year 2050 .
IIErhart: Then why not define that event up front?
Krauss: Well you 're doing that when you 're approving their plan .
IBatzli : But then you 're giving the City Engineer the power to renew
something under an interim use yearly. It 's really not being renewed is
my point of contention. He 's examining it for compliance . I think we
I
need to change the section then to reflect that that 's what he's doing.
He 's not renewing the permit so they're not renewable .
IOlsen: Annual review.
Batzli : Yes . So then my first sentence would read, which I haven 't
I stated but earthwork permits shall be reviewed at one year intervals from
the date of original issuance subject to the City Engineer 's review and
s approval . Okay . Under 7-41 . We 're stating that the City, letter of
credit acceptable to the City in the amount of costs complying with the
I agreement which is right in the middle of that block , 7-41 . I think we
should clarify who's setting the costs, etc. in this particular paragraph
II .
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 51
and I would recommend that the City Council do that initially . Obviously'
some of my comments , now that we 're talking about rather than a renewal
but a review , might not apply here but it would read, the agreement shall
be accompanied by a letter of credit acceptable to the City in the amount'
of the costs of complying with the agreement as determined by the City
Council . A portion which would be added would read , hs determined by the
City Council . Then the letter of credit shall be reviewed annually by the
City and then I think that should read, you should add engineer as part o,
the review set forth in paragraph 7-38 so it 's clear that the engineer ,
that would be part of his function in the review process . His or her . So
that it 's not going to go back to -the City Council unless that's where it
should be going . Should the City Engineer have the power to increase the
letter of credit at an annual review. I suppose if the applicant feels
that they 're being slighted they can then protest that to the City Counci
in any event . I would also add at the end of that paragraph that the Cit
can only draw against the letter of credit subsequent to a public hearing
conducted by the City Council in accordance with paragraph 7-37 . Under
fencing , 7-43 . I 've added at the end that all determinations under this
paragraph shall originally be made by the City Council and subsequently bill
the City Engineer as changing conditions warrant , but not less than
annually as part of the review set forth in paragraph 7-38. Again, just
talking about who 's making these determinations and mandating that they b
reviewed at least annually during the review . Last but not least , well
it 's probably least . 7-45 , paragraph H , well it 's 8 . Paragraph 8 on pag
9 . When atmospheric or other conditions make it impossible to prevent
dust from mitgrating off site , operations shall cease . This one troubled
me a little bit in that why are choosing to only limit that to dust . Not
that I don 't want to but why are we, you know when atmospheric conditions
like for instance the night that Prince 's party got out of hand and peopl'
8 miles away were complaining about the noise . Or however many miles it
was . Why don't we say noise? Why don't we say mud? I mean we 're talkin
here about dust , smoke and fumes . We 've talked about noise in a differen
section obviously but why not smoke and fumes here? Just out of
curiousity . Or is this just one of those sections that that 's . . .
Krauss: Well I know from personal experience , first of all we 're taking II
care of the mud by the paving or the trap that we 're going to use so
presumably that won't be a problem . Dust is the thing that causes 99% of
the complaints from these types of things because it blows so far . Fumes'
and smoke , well you know if you're 1 ,000 feet away from something and the
• wind 's gusting to 45-50 mph, it's going to be tough . What's a fume?
What 's a smoke? You catch a whiff of deisel . I don't know. It 's kind o'
transient . Noise we regulate elsewhere .
Batzli : Yep . I agree. But I guess here we say operations shall cease I
and in the noise section we're just giving a standard that they have to
comply with so it was just curious that there was kind of a different
standard to which those things were being held. Those are my comments . I
Otherwise I agree with Steve .
Conrad: I have nothing to add. The change in the ordinance I think make
it more flexible . I think the changes this time that have been
incorporated are to my liking.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 52
I Mike Dwyer : Mr . Chairman may I ask a question? I 'm unclear now as to
what the ordinance will look like when it 's presented to the City Council .
Mr . Batzli has made some excellent points and the public hearing has been
I closed . Mr . Krauss . . .some good points too . I think it would be unfair to
put this body here as well as the folks who came this evening.
I Conrad: Yeah , we have a decision to make which is where I was going .
I think Brian brought up some , a lot of technical things in the ordinance
and the question is should , what do we want to do? Do we want to bring it
back? Do we want to forward it on and let staff take a crack at the
II wording changes? I think philosophically Brian you didn 't have too many
problems with the direction that the ordinance is going . You had a lot of
technical problems with it .
IBatzli : That 's right . Most of them are . I mean the major thrust of the
ordinance I don 't have a problem with . I think it 's a good framework and
the question is let 's make it the best ordinance we can and as clean as it
Ican be when it comes out of the chute .
Erhart: Since you 've offered most the changes , are you comfortable voting
Ion this tonight or would you rather see it come back? The reason I ask is
I made one change that I 've had too . If we do vote on it tonight , I 'm
expecting it 's going to reflected in it .
IBatzli : Well that 's right . I mean I guess I would expect that to the
extent practical and to the extent that the other commissioners like those
changes , I 'd like to see them in there . If they can 't go in there , I 'm
I for the most part comfortable with them if there 's something that we
haven 't considered or we 're citing a wrong section or something like that .
I 'm still fairly comfortable passing it along . Like I said , a lot of
I these things are just clarifications and I don't think they change the
tenor of the ordinance other than perhaps making the owner of the land and
the person who 's actually going to work it joint applicants and things
like that but I think those things can be handled fairly cleanly .
IConrad: Let me go through a couple of them that you mentioned Brian that
may be a little bit up in the air . Specifically when you went from a
I calendar year to a 12 month period. Does everybody favor that or does
anybody care? Brian is , the application permits , he really wanted to make
that .
IBatzli : Cumlatively in a 12 month period, yeah.
Wildermuth: I don 't have a problem with that .
IEmmings: If you 're trying to limit it to something that can be done
during one year , that's the only way to do it. If you say the calendar
I year . If you say I can only do 100 in a calendar year , I 'll end my
calendar year today . I 'll dump 100 today and 100 tomorrow and I 'm in two
different calendar years , if I choose to be .
IConrad: So you agree with Brian 's?
II
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4, 1990 - Page 53
Emmings: Oh yeah . '
Conrad: Okay. And Paul , you were going to do something on wells and
chemicals for the permit okay. There was a landscape, this landscape
plan. I am at a loss on number 9. I really don't understand what that i
so that 's either out or we define what the landscape plan is. I still
don't know what the difference is between that and the rehabilitation
plan. Maybe I do a little bit but .
Emmings: Could you just say a landscape plan during the period of active
earthwork? I think that 's what Brian was getting at . I think that would,
Or during the period of the permit . During the period of the permit .
Conrad: Landscape plan . '
Emmings: Because there 's things in here to screen.
Krauss: That 's basically what it is is a screening plan . '
Emmings: But if you say , since the permit has a termination date , we
could just say for the period of the permit . '
Wildermuth: Why don 't we just say that then? Screening plan during the
term of the permit . ,
Conrad: I think we're all in agreement with Brian , your point on 7-38 .
The annual permits and the renewal . Changing it . We 're to review by the
City Engineer . I think that made a lot of sense to me . I don 't think '
anything else seemed controversial or seemed like we may debate it . A
lot of it I didn't understand Brian . You 'll have to explain it to me .
Mike Dwyer : There was a due process consideration brought up in 7-41 witl
respect to the letter of credit .
Conrad: Yeah , right . That made a lot of sense and I didn 't think anybod'
was going to challenge that so I didn't bring it up . Okay . So I don 't
think I see any controversy on the issues that Brian brought up .
Therefore , I 'm guessing that we don't want to see this back here . '
Ellson: That's right .
Mike Dwyer : So what goes to the Council? '
Ellson: The modified.
•
Emmings: We 'll have to wait and hear the motion.
Conrad: Is there a motion? ,
Emmings: I 'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
Ordinance Amending Chapter 7 and Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code II
pertaining to excavating , mining, filling and grading as modified by the
comments that will be reflected in the verbatim Minutes .
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 54
' Batzli : Second .
Conrad: Discussion. There were several changes made . Brian , I know you
' have more on your notes .
Batzli : Well they 're technical things like do you number them or do you
letter them? Do you put earthwork permit rather than just permit? Most
' of them are fairly technical in nature and to the extent that people don 't
feel comfortable with that , then we should probably get it back . I don 't
know that Paul is going to even do anything with all of them.
Conrad: You don 't know that the attorney would do anything .
Batzli : Yeah.
Emmings: I think if the staff thinks that they can improve the ordinance
between here and City Council by changing letters to numbers and changing
' a word here and there , I think that 's fine . Perhaps they should in the
draft that the City Council sees , they should somehow indicate those
changes .
' Conrad: Any other discussion?
Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
' approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment of Article IV, Conditional Use
Permits and Acticle XXVII, Excavating, Mining, Filling and Grading
Activities as modified by the comments reflected in the verbatim Minutes.
' All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Conrad: Goes to City Council Paul when?
Krauss: I thought it was, I guess I 'm not sure . Did you have the date?
Conrad: I never had a date on this one . The other dates that things were
' going was the 23rd. 23rd. I think it 's appropriate , well I 'm sure you 'll
ask for the revisions and take a look at them . Thanks for coming in .
' APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved, Ellson seconded to approve the
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated March 21 , 1990 as
presented . All voted in favor except Conrad and Batzli who abstained and
the motion carried .
' CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
' Krauss: The private driveway ordinance was approved finally. It was
tinkered with a little bit since you saw it last but basically it was
passed largely intact . The tinkering had to do with being able to mandate
maintenance of snowplowing and if that's not done, being able to assess
the cost back to the property owner . The Ersbo Addition came back for the
third or fourth time . Basically what happened is out in the field the
surveyor realized that they had made an error and unlike Pioneer
' Engineering , they fixed it . The new plat looks pretty similar to the
original one except there's no, if you recall there used to be neck along
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 55 1
the wetland going up to Lake Lucy Road. That was eliminated. The
driveway is now in a protective easement and it actually works a little
better . The lots are actually nicer lots than they would have been
otherwise so I think it worked out fine . Final plat for Trapper 's Pass all
Near Mountain was approved. They eliminated 3 of the lots and they took
out some kinks in the road and improved wetland setbacks so we really had
no problem with that . The Comp Plan amendment for Lake Lucy Road. The
emergency amendment was approved with your conditions . We talked a littl�
bit before the meeting about the joint HRA/City Council meeting . I think
you 're aware that one of the concerns the City Council has had is that II
projects are planned and presumably enacted without adequate control of
the City Council or at least there 's a perception of that and these
discussions with them have grown out of that . It 's still not clear
whether or not the Council will become the HRA or what but that 's clearly,
a possibility .
Emmings: Would the HRA then become the Council? That 's the only
question I have .
Krauss: I 'll ask . We finally got a request to use RALF funds , the II right-of-way acquisition loan funds by 55 acres of TH 212 right-of-way
near Pioneer and Bluff Creek . The RALF fund is a revolving loan fund
wherein some state money is channelled through the Metro Council to the
communities to actually buy right-of-way in advance of when MnDot would II
acquire it . So we 'll be working on that in the next few months . Last
thing had to do with the blending ordinance. Not a Council action but ,
Commissioner Emmings drafted up a proposal that would get at that blendini
issue. I forwarded it to Roger for his review. His conclusion is that
it 's probably legal to do it that way . Whether or not it works well or
what the problems that are associated with it are is something that we
need to discuss but I wanted to bring it back to put it on a Council
agenda for discussion purposes . Well I 'll get into some details when we III
do that but I do want to bring it back so we can give it an airing and get
the ball rolling on that . '
Conrad: You 're not drafting an ordinance? You 're bringing it back for
discussion? 1
Krauss: Yes. The last thing too that's not on there is we keep on
talking about eliminating the BF district. I 've begun to have some of th
property owners down there catch wind of the fact that not only is the
Planning Commission but the City Council talking about doing that.
They're asking us what are we going to do. What 's it going to mean to us
and I basically told everybody that we will be scheduling that in an
upcoming meeting also for discussion purposes to see what the alternative"
are . With that I would notify everybody who would be affected by that .
Erhart: The property owners being the hotel and. . . 1
Krauss: Actually the folks who were in my office yesterday were the ones
who had the composting , garbage transfer station approved and then
disapproved a couple years ago .
11
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4 , 1990 - Page 56
I
' Batzli : Admiral Waste?
Emmings: They still have interest in the property huh?
Krauss: They own the property and they 're now trying to sell it . Their
concern is that they bought it as commercial property and we 're going to
make it uncommercial property . Really they have an interest in that . It
doesn't mean you can't do it but .
Ellson: We can really rip them up two times can't we? We took away your
' permit now and you can 't sell it as commercial either .
Krauss: But we 'll try and schedule that . We have some pretty busy
agendas coming up . Redmond Products will be on your next one which is a
' biggee .
Erhart: Wasn 't the building at the last meeting Redmond?
' Krauss: No , that was the screw company .
Erhart: Oh , I thought we looked at Redmond .
Krauss: No , Redmond has about a 350 ,000-400 ,000 square foot facility .
Emmings: Where?
Krauss: Off of an extension of Lake Drive in between Audubon and ,
' Audubon 's on the west . I 'm losing my bearings here . It goes all the way
through to CR 17?
Erhart: South of McGlynn?
Krauss: No . Actually no . It 's southeast of McGlynn .
' Erhart: Oh , on the east side . Well there 's houses there .
Conrad: On the south side of the tracks?
Erhart: North of the houses?
Krauss: This is tough after a 5 hour meeting. I can point to it on the
map .
Emmings: That's Dave Stockdale's property.
' Krauss: It 's behind Dave Stockdale 's property .
Emmings: Which direction? Don't say behind.
Krauss: It 's east and south . Stockdale is still an exception .
Conrad: Okay . Then we 're going to look at goals again soon right? Goals
and policies . Anything else?
11
II
Planning Commission Meeting
April 4, 1990 - Page 57 1
Erhart moved, Wildermuth seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in II
favor and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 11 :00 p .m . .
Submitted by Paul Krauss '
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim I
II
II
I
II
II
1
II
I
•
1
II
II
I
II
II