9. Interim use permit for TH 5 II
� PC DATE: 9/19/90
CITY OF . 3
` CllAHASEN CC DATE: 10/8/90
CASE #: 90-4 IUP
II By: Olsen/v
1
1
STAFF REPORT
I PROPOSAL: Interim Use Permit for Shafer Contracting to Excavate
60,000 Cubic Yards of Clay Material for Construction of
New State T.H. 5 in Chanhassen
1 LOCATION: Outlot A and B, McGlynn Park in the southwest corner of
I v
Q Hwy. 5 and Audubon Road
It li! APPLICANT: Shafer Contracting Co. OWNER: Shamrock Property Ptrn.
Box 128 One McGlynn Drive
I4 •
Shafer, MN 55074 Chanhassen, MN 55317
-
1 PRESENT ZONING: IOP, Industrial Office Park
Action by City Aarr,,ristatir
IACREAGE: N/A
DENSITY: N/A MoCrhed
IADJACENT ZONING AND I' _t —"J
LAND USE: N - IOP; vacant
1 �`� ' t� �`,:- w;'r
4% ' S - IOP; McGlynn Bakery
E - IOP; vacant Detc `-L.`'"`? :t :c.J! ;
W - IOP; vacant r) - P2...-c4 :,
IIWATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
Ili
II PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : The site contains slight topography with
sparse vegetation.
I2000 LAND USE PLAN: Industrial
1
•
l
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0 e'. 1 , I.- L A AE A NN
r RD
inc4. ,, ' \ . ___, __ :._
MN
I NW.," RR
- 11111Akilliikk-Nlir ,..-___
111 1 LOCH krollulLcF
wi,/y L v�1 IQ�, , BUTTERCUP AA,,,, _
' s W
,e
CU RT i
ROAD j
T MB R WpCC �\
4 —#1 .
�' �� O I E 0pO \L N'� R
o •e_ PP
i
I
FtPGF- I! -
�/
,\�l 04� P , �---r.... )c. 0
R,D S
-________ V I ---7---...--
illIllk
RN -SA�aCE // 4'
r
I E couRT PJ*c.1 } .
ik
IIIIII
I -I
,e�! e Oft II
I 1.....)4.44\
pG oj ` m
ex Te
1010 CC 1
ta
— g it
\ �
/4111/1111t, d
I
Shafer Contractin g IUP ,•
September 19, 1990
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY I
The applicant is requesting an interim use permit to excavate
60,000 cubic yards of clay material for construction of new State
T. H. 5 Improvements in Chanhassen. The site is located at the
It
intersection of Hwy. 5 and Audubon Road. The land is owned by the
McGlynn Company and is adjacent to their existing plant. The
purpose of the operation is to make Outlot B compatible with it's
intended industrial use and to provide clay material to build a new
embankment for State T. H. 5 east of Powers Boulevard in Chanhassen
(see site plan) . The operation is proposed to take 45 to 50
working days with construction starting immediately upon receipt of
a permit and completing in the fall of 1990, weather permitting.
The applicant is proposing hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to
5:30 p.m. , Monday through Saturday. The proposed area for removing
the clay material has no vegetation over 6 inches in caliper. The
area containing some trees on this site is located outside of the
proposed area for grading and will not be disturbed. ,
The applicant is proposing to haul the clay material with tandem
dump trucks and semi-trailer belly dumps. There will be
approximately 8 to 10 trucks hauling from the site at any given
time. The haul route will exit the site at the northeast corner
onto Audubon Road and the trucks would then haul east on Hwy. 5 to
the embankment construction east of Powers Boulevard and return via
the same route.
The drainage and erosion will be controlled with silt fences shown
on the plan and temporary settling basins as ,required by the
Engineering Department. Dust will be controlled with water trucks
and street sweepers daily or as needed. The disturbed area will
have a minimum of 3 inches of on-site topsoil respread and seeded
once the clay has been removed from the site. The site is
surrounded by paved streets with catch basins and storm sewers on
the south and east side and a gravel road on the west and north
side. There are no wetland areas being disturbed. There is a well
on the site which must be properly capped and abandoned prior to
initiating excavation.
The request is consistent with the City's goal of completing Hwy.
5 improvements. The site will be left in a condition that will
facilitate it's future development for office/industrial uses
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and existing zoning.
The proposed interim use permit application is fairly straight
foward and is in compliance with the Excavating, Mining, Filling
and Grading Ordinance. With the conditions added by staff to
ensure proper restoration and minimize any traffic conflicts, staff
is recommending approval of the interim use permit.
I
Shafer Contracting IUP
September 19, 1990
Page 3
COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXCAVATING, MINING, FILLING AND GRADING
ORDINANCE
Section 7 of the ordinance provides a series of standards which an
interium use permit must be in compliance with.
11 Section 7-40 - Pees
The ordinance allows the City to determine the fee schedule for
each permit and that each permit must be annually reviewed by the
City Engineer. Section 7-41 provides for an irrevocable letter of
credit that will be required to ensure compliance with conditions
of approval.
Finding
11 Staff is proposing that a $38, 150.00 letter of credit be
required to ensure compliance with conditions outlined below
(see Asst. City Engineer memo) . The letter of credit will
cover site restoration, preparing an as-built grading plan
upon completion to verify work in compliance with plans,
maintenance of adjoining roads including repair of damage
directly as a result of the hauling and for maintenance of
erosion control and dust control measures. In addition, a fee
schedule from the Uniform Building Code will be applied
requiring a permit fee of $401 to be paid and that all city
and county staff time used to monitor and inspect the
operation shall be paid at a rate of $30.00 per hour. Staff
will document the time on a monthly basis and bill the
applicant.
Section 7-42 - Setbacks
The ordinance requires that a setback of 100 feet from existing
street rights-of-way and 300 feet from adjoining property lines be
required for mining activities.
Finding
' The current proposal is within 100 feet of existing street
right-of-ways and is also within 300 feet of adjoining
property lines. The proposed site for the excavation is
surrounded on all sides by paved or gravel public streets that
were constructed as part of the McGlynn site. The McGlynn
site and remaining outlots for future development of the
' industrial office park are within 300 feet of the site for
excavation. The site is proposing erosion control completely
around the area of excavation and extensive street cleaning
and dust control which shall minimize any impact of the
' excavation to the adjacent streets and properties. The 100
11
I
Shafer Contracting IUP
September 19, 1990
Page 4 1
and 300 foot setbacks were created for mining activities
occurring adjacent to residential properties and using local 11 streets. The adjacent properties are either vacant industrial
land or contain the McGlynn facility which owns the land that
is being excavated. The streets within 100 feet that will be
affected by the excavation is the internal road within the
industrial office park which is only used at this time by the
McGlynn facility and Audubon Road which services primarily
industrial traffic. Therefore, staff is comfortable that the
excavation will not negatively impact existing uses of the
surrounding properties and streets. We further find that no
variances for setbacks are required since this is a site
excavation request and not a lot-term mining site.
Section 7-43 - Fencing
The ordinance requires fencing for areas which will be converted to I
steep grades or where on site ponding exists if the Council
determines that a safety hazard exists. I
Finding
The excavation will actually be reducing the slope on the site
and leveling it out and therefore, safety hazards will not
exist and fencing should not be required.
Section 7-44 - Appearance and Screening I
The ordinance requires that the visual impact of grading and mining
operations be minimized and that 'there necessary, screening be
provided.
Finding I
This is a temporary excavation process which will be leveling
the area for future industrial sites and will immediately be
restored with seeding. Therefore, the visual impact of the
grading and mining will be minimal and screening will not be
necessary.
Section 7-45 - Operations, Noise, Hours, Explosives, Dust, Water,
Pollution, Top Soil Preservation
A. Maximum Noise Levels as measured at the perimeter of the site I
shall be within limits set by the MPCA and by the Federal EPA. .
Finding ,
Staff does not feel that the excavation on the site will be
excessive beyond the activities being experienced in the area
I
1
JIShafer Contracting IUP
September 19, 1990
Page 5
with improvements to Audubon Road and development of
11 industrial sites in the area. To ensure that the noise levels
do not become excessive, a condition is being provided that
noise levels not exceed MPCA and EPA limits. If noise testing
is required by the city, the cost shall be paid by the
applicant.
B. Earth work is permitted only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to
1 6:00 p.m. , Monday through Saturday and prohibited on national
holidays.
Finding
The applicants have stated that they would be hauling from the
site between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. , Monday
11 through Saturday. This is in compliance with the hours as
stated in the ordinance. Since the applicant will be hauling
on a section of Hwy. 5 during periods of rush hour traffic,
staff feels that there may be traffic conflicts. Shafer
Contracting is under contract with MnDOT for the improvements
to Hwy. 5. As part of the Environmental Assessment, Shafer
Contracting is required to conduct operations so as to
minimize obstructions of traffic and provide for the safety of
the general public in accordance with Section 1707 of the
Minnesota Standard Specifications for Highway Construction
(Attachment #2) . The Minnesota Standard Specifications are
general guidelines. To further ensure traffic safety, staff
is recommending the applicant submit a Traffic Control Plan
for City approval. The Traffic Control Plan can include
conditions such as proper signage and if necessary, traffic
controllers directing traffic during rush hour periods. If
the Planning Commission and Council wish to further restrict
hauling during peak hours, they may condition approval upon no
hauling during rush hour periods. Staff contacted MnDOT to
determine rush hour periods at the subject location on Hwy. 5
' and found that rush hour periods were from 7:00-8:00 a.m. and
3:45-5:30 p.m. , Monday through Friday. The Planning
Commission and City Council could allow the applicant to haul
' on Sundays to make up for the hours lost during the weekdays
since the site is within an industrial office park and is
separated from any residential areas. Staff would support the
required variance believing it could be warranted in light of
the public nature of the improvement and the hardship created
by the necessity of working around rush hour periods to
maintain traffic safety.
' C. Operators are required to use all practical means to eliminate
vibration on adjacent property from equipment operation.
Finding
1
I
Shafer Contracting IUP
September 19, 1990
Page 6 ,
Staff does not feel there will be a problem with vibration on
adjacent property since it is in the middle of an industrial
site with other construction activity taking place.
D. Operators shall comply with all applicable regulations for the
protection of water quality. I
•
Finding
The applicant is providing erosion control 'surrounding the I
site to retain any runoff and is providing settling basins, as
needed, to further reduce any runoff from the site. There are
no wetlands in the near vicinity of the area and therefore,
staff feels that there will be no water quality problems as a
result of this activity.
E. Operators shall comply with all regulations for the •
protection of wetlands.
Finding I
There are no wetlands in the near vicinity of the activity
which will be impacted by the excavation. I
F. Operators shall comply with all requirements of the Watershed
District where the property is located. I
Finding
The site is providing proper erosion control and settling 11
basins to meet requirements of the Watershed District.
Watershed District approval is required.
G. All top soil shall be retained at the site until complete
restoration of the site has taken place according to the
restoration plan. i
Finding
One stockpile is being provided for the topsoil which will be
respread on the site as soon as the excavation is completed.
The temporary topsoil stockpile area is protected from erosion
by the silt fence being provided around the site. 1
H. Operators shall use all practical means to reduce the amount ,
of dust, smoke and fumes caused by the operations. When
atmospheric or other conditions make it impossible to prevent
dust from migrating off site, mining operations shall cease. I
I
1
JIShafer Contracting IUP
September 19, 1990
' Page 7
Finding
11 Staff does not anticipate a problem with these impacts with
the site's location and precautions that the applicant is
providing for the excavation. The applicant will be providing
water trucks for dust control and street sweepers.
. I. To control dust and minimize tracking of sand, gravel and dirt
' onto public streets, internal private roads to any public
roadway shall be paved with asphalt or concrete for a distance
of 300 feet to the intersection of the public roadway.
Alternate means of controlling this problem may be accepted by
1 the city.
Finding
The streets that will be used for the hauling are either paved
with curb and gutter or gravel. The applicant is providing
street clean-up on a daily basis. The proposed trucks are
leaving the site from the gravel road located north of the
site with a distance of over 400 feet prior to the trucks
entering Audubon Road. Staff feels there is an adequate
distance where any debris will fall from the truck prior to
the truck entering Audubon Road. Therefore, an improvement
such as a sediment trap is not necessary.
fJ. All haul routes to and from the mine shall be approved by the
City and shall only use streets that can safely accommodate
the traffic.
Finding
/I The trucks will be leaving the site from the gravel road onto
Audubon Road and then going east on Hwy. 5 to just past Powers
Boulevard to the fill site north of Hwy. 5 (see smaller map
illustrating route on plan) . The trucks will then be going in
the opposite direction, back west on Hwy. 5, turning south on
Audubon Road and returning to the site. As previously stated,
staff is concerned with the truck traffic during rush hour and
1 feels that conditions should be imposed that would minimize
the impact. The haul route is on Hwy. 5 and is in fact part
of the Hwy. 5 improvement project, staff is requesting that a
Traffic Control Plan be provided by the applicant for City
approval. Since this project is part of the improvement to
Hwy. 5, the Environmental Assessment requires the contractor
' to conform to Section 1707 of the Minnesota Standard
Specifications for Highway Improvements. Section 1707
provides general guidelines for the contractor to follow.
Requiring a traffic control plan will allow specific
guidelines to be provided to ensure traffic safety.
I
I
Shafer Contracting IUP
September 19, 1990
Page 8 ,
Section 7-46 - Restoration Standards
The ordinance provides a series of standards outlining site
restoration. These are reviewed below.
A. The plan must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning Ordinance.
Finding I
The Comprehensive Plan illustrates this area as industrial and
the applicant's proposal to level the site is in comformance
with the intended use of it being an industrial site.
Therefore, staff believes that the proposal is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
B. Restoration shall be a continuing operation occurring as
quickly as possible after extraction operation has moved.
Finding I
Restoration will be completed immediately after the excavated
material has been removed. Staff will be maintaining a letter
of credit to cover the restoration costs in the case that the
applicant does not or is unable to restore the site in a
timely manner. I
C. All banks and slopes shall be left in accordance with the
restoration plans submitted with the permit application. I
Finding
Staff is recommending that an as-built grading plan be
provided at the completion of the project so that staff can
confirm the volume of material that has been removed and that
the site is restored as proposed. I
D. Slopes, graded areas and backfill areas shall be surfaced with
adequate top soil to secure and hold ground • cover. Such
ground cover shall be tended as necessary until it is self
sustaining.
Finding 1
The topsoil is being preserved on the site and will be
respread after excavation of the clay material. The topsoil
will then be seeded to ensure ground cover for stabilization
of the area.
E. All water areas resulting from excavation shall be eliminated I
I
I
` 1
Shafer Contracting IUP
September 19, 1990
Page 9
upon restoration of the site.
Finding
There will be no water areas resulting from the excavation of
the site, therefore, this condition is not applicable.
1 F. No part of the restoration area which is planned for uses
other than open space or agricultural shall be at an elevation
lower than the minimum required for connection sanitary or
storm sewer.
11 Finding
The finished grade of the site is at an elevation that will
allow for the connection of sanitary storm sewer and water.
G. Provide a landscaping plan illustrating reforestation, ground
' cover, wetland restoration or other features.
Finding
The letter from the applicant states that the excavated areas
will be spread with the topsoil and seeded immediately after
excavation. No trees or other forms of vegetation need to be
replaced on the site.
INTERIM USE PERMIT STANDARDS
Mining operations are allowed in the IOP District as an interim use
permit. The ordinance provides that interim use permits are
reviewed under the general issuance standards established for
conditional use permits, Section 20-232, of the ordinance. The
following constitutes a compilation of the general issuance
IIstandards and staff's findings for each.
1. Will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health,
safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the
neighborhood or the city.
* The proposed excavation is a temporary operation which
will be completed in the fall 'of 1990. The removal of
60,000 cubic yards will provide topography on the site
which will be compatible with proposed industrial uses
' and therefore it will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, comfort, or general welfare of the city.
2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's
comprehensive plan and this chapter.
I
Shafer Contracting IUP I
September 19, 1990
Page 10
* The. excavation will be maintaining the site in a form
suitable for industrial use which is compatible with the
Comprehensive Plan and this chapter. 1
3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to
be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended
character of the general vicinity and will not change the
essential character of that area.
* The proposed excavation will be maintaining the site,
compatible appearance with existing or intended character
of the general vicinity. The slope will be leveled but
will not be changing the essential character of the area.
The land will be restored to a natural state once
excavation is completed and will remain as such until
development of the site.
4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned
•
neighboring uses.
* With the precautions being taken by the applicant and I
with the conditions of approval, the activity will not be
hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned
neighboring uses.
5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services, including streets, police and fire protection, I
drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems
and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities
and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible
for the establishment of the proposed use.
* The use is temporary which does not need to be served by
public facilities and services. The finished elevation
will allow the site to be served by sanitary sewer and
water once it is developed in the future.
6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities
and services and will not be detrimental to the economic
welfare of the community. I
* The activity will not create excessive requirements for
public facilities and and will not be detrimental to the
economic welfare of the community.
7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, '
equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental
to any persons, property or the general welfare because of
excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare,
odors, rodents, or trash.
•
1
II
11 Shafer Contracting IUP
September 19, 1990
IPage 11
* The proposed excavation could result in excessive
I traffic, noise and fumes. The conditions of the approval
will provide standards by which the activities should be •
minimized.
II 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not
create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or
surrounding public thoroughfares.
I * The excavation operation does have the potential to
conflict with traffic on Hwy. 5 especially during the
I rush hour periods. The contractor, as part of the
contract with the State Highway Department, must meet
standard specifications to minimize traffic impact. In
addition, staff is recommending that a Traffic Control
II Plan be provided for the City's approval and if it is
felt that even with these, that the traffic during the
rush hour will still be potentially a hazardous
I situation, the city could limit the hours of hauling on
weekdays to non-rush hour periods. With the traffic
control plan, staff feels the potential traffic conflicts
will be minimized and will not be a potential hazard.
I/ 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar
access, natural, scenic or historic features of major
II significance.
•
* The proposal will not result in any significant impact to
Inatural or historic features.
10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
I * The area proposed for excavation, once completed, will
still be aesthetically compatible with the surrounding
industrial sites.
II11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values.
* The proposed use will not have a long term impact on
I surrounding property values.
12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in
Ithis article.
* The proposed excavation application is meeting the
Istandards prescribed for the IOP District. .
Staff feels that the application is complete and will minimize
I potential impacts. With the conditions proposed, staff is
recommending that the Planning Commission and City Council approve
I
I
Shafer Contracting IUP I
September 19, 1990
Page 12
the project.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE 1
The Planning Commission reviewed the item at their September 19,
1990, meeting. Staff indicated that the action on the proposal
would be expedited by placing it on the September 24, 1990, City
Council meeting. Staff took this action in the interest of
facilitating MnDOT's Hwy. 5 improvement project.
The Planning Commission discussed the request and agreed with I
staff's recommendations. No area residents spoke either for or
against the proposal. The Planning Commission recommended it's
approval subject to conditions contained in the staff report.
RECOMMENDATION I
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves Interim Use Permit #90-4 with the t
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide the City with a letter of credit I
in the amount of $38,150.00 to cover any road damage,
maintenance of erosion control measures and site restoration.
2. The applicant shall submit $401.00 grading permit fee as I
required by the Uniform Building Code and all city and county
staff time used to monitor and inspect the operation shall be
paid at a rate of $30 per hour.
3. The applicant shall provide a Traffic Control Plan for staff
approval providing specifications on how truck hauling traffic I
will be controlled, specifically during rush hour periods.
4. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permit
requirements of the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed
District.
5. The applicant shall make arrangements to cap the existing well
in accordance with all state, county and local requirements
prior to initiating grading operations.
6. The applicant shall supply the City with a mylar as-built
survey prepared by a professional engineer upon completion of
excavation to verify the grading plan has been performed in
compliance with the proposed plan.
1
I
Shafer Contracting IUP
September 19, 1990
Page 13
7. Temporary settling basins shall be constructed during the
grading operations on an as needed basis or as requested by
the City.
8. Topsoiling and disk mulch seeding shall be implemented
immediately following the completion of excavated areas.
9. Noise levels stemming from the operation are not to exceed
' MnPCA and EPA regulations. If the city determines that there
is a problem warranting such tests shall be paid for by the
applicant.
10. Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. ,
Monday through Saturday and prohibited on national holidays.
If the City Engineer determines that traffic conflicts result
due to rush hour traffic flows, the hours of operation will be
appropriately restricted.
11 11. The city will work with the County Sheriff to coordinate speed
and weight checks. If trucks are violating traffic laws,
staff will require that the operation be shut down and will
ask the City Council to revoke the permit. "
ATTACHMENTS
' 1. Memo from Charles Folch dated September 12, 1990.
2. Section from the Environmental Assessment for Hwy. 5
1 Improvements and Section 1707 of the Minnesota Standard
Specifications for Highway Construction.
3. Letter from the applicant dated September 4, 1990.
4. Section from the Uniform Building Code on Grading Permit Fees.
5. Site plan for excavation dated September 7, 1990.
I
I
1
I
0111 CITY OF
CHANI1ASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: JoAnn Olsen, Sr. Planner I
FROM: Charles Folch, Assistant City Engineer 4
DATE: September 12, 1990 I
SUBJ: Interim Use Grading Permit for Outlot A and B, McGlynn Park
Grading Permit File 90-11
II
I have reviewed the proposed grading plans prepared and submitted
II
by Shafer Contracting Company, Inc, dated September 6, 1990 and
offer the following comments and recommendations.
Site Conditions I
The subject property is located west of Audubon Road immediately 1
north of the existing McGlynn Bakery facility. The majority of
the site is flat, vegetated with field grasses and elevated
somewhat above the surrounding areas. There are no known
wetlands or water courses on the site. The only other natural II
feature to the site would be a small stand of trees located in
the northeast corner of the site.
A well standpipe is located in the southeast portion of the site.
It is believed that this was a functioning well for a previous
farmstead. This well must be properly capped prior to initiating
II
grading work.
Proposed Grading ' I
The submitted grading plan proposes to excavate and remove
approximately 60,000 cu. yds. of material off the site. It is
apparent that the purpose for the grading operation is two-fold.
One reason being to make the site more topographically conducive
to any future industrial use, and the other is to supply this . II
clay material to build a new embankment for the T.H. 5
improvement east of Powers Boulevard in Chanhassen.
Topsoil will be stripped and stockpiled prior to initiating I
grading operations and will be respread over the site upon
I
JoAnn Olsen
September 12, 1990
Page 2
I
completion of the excavation. The proposed grading plan shows
•
that the maximum cut in elevation appears to be approximately
eight feet. The resulting terrain for the site will be fairly
uniform with a uniform grade of approximately 3%. It appears
that the existing tree stand in the northeast corner of the site
is proposed to be preserved. Thus, tree removal is not
anticipated. An existing stockpile of excess material from a
previous grading phase in the area, located northwest of the
' primary grading site, is also proposed to be removed.
Erosion Control
The entire site is proposed to be surrounded with silt fence and
the existing silt fence line located west of the stockpile is to
be repaired and/or replaced as necessary. The grading plan
reveals that the remaining grades for the site will be generally
less than the present condition. Thus, it is anticipated that,
with proper vegetation, the erosion potential of the site will
correspondingly be reduced. Temporary settling basins have been
proposed to be constructed on an as needed basis during the
construction process, and topsoiling and seeding will follow
immediately behind finished grading areas. It is staffs '
recommendation that disk anchored mulch also be employed with the
seeding operation. The applicant has also indicated that dust
will be controlled via use of water trucks and that the streets
will be, at a minimum, swept daily or as needed.
Traffic
It is apparent from the number of trucks to be hauling and the
' hours of operation that this operation will have a substantial
impact on the T.H. 5 traffic, especially during the commuter
hours. Staff is recommending that a traffic control plan
depicting special provisions or measures to be implemented to
allow for safe ingressing and egressing of trucks on to T.H. 5.
Recommended Conditions
1. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permit
1 requirements of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed
District.
ti
2 . The applicant shall provide the City with security in the
form of a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of
$38,150.00 to cover any road damage, maintenance of erosion
control measures and site restoration.
3 . Applicant shall make arrangements to cap the existing well in
accordance with all state, county and local requirements
' prior to initiating grading operations.
I
JoAnn Olsen
September 12, 1990
Page 3
mylar as
-built
The applicant shall supply the City with a yla a -bui 1 t
survey prepared by a professional engineering upon completion
to verify the grading has been performed in compliance with
the proposed plan.
5 . Temporary settling basins shall be constructed during the
grading operations on an as needed basis or as requested by
the City.
6 . Topsoiling and disk mulch seeding shall be implemented 1
immediately following the completion of excavated areas.
7 . Applicant shall submit a traffic control plan outlining
measures to be implemented to allow for safe ingressing and
egressing of trucks on to T.H. 5 in accordance with Section
1707 of the Minnesota Standard Specifications for Highway
Construction.
jms
Attachment: Itemized security
c: Gary Warren, City Engineer
Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
Breakdown of Security for Outlots A and B, McGlynn Park
Y ► Y
(Grading Permit File 90-11)
1 ( Interim Use Permit File 4)
I . Site Restoration
1. Silt Fence Erosion Control
3 , 000 L.F. at $3. 00/L.F. = $9,000.00
2 . Reseed and Mulch
10 acres at $1,500/acre = $15,000. 00
' Estimated Total Restoration Cost = $24 ,000. 00
II .
Inspection/Administration Time
1 1. Project Inspection
Approximately 8 weeks, 6 days/week, 3 hours/day = 144 hours
144 hours x $30. 00/hour = $4, 320.00
2 . County Sheriff/State Patrol (Extra Patrol)
Approximately 8 weeks , 6 days/week, 2 hours/day = 96 hours
1 96 hours x $30.00 = $2,880.00
3 . Engineering/Planning Staff
16 hours x $30. 00 = $480.00
Estimated Cost For Inspection/Administration = $7,680.00
III. Road Maintenance and Traffic Control
1 1. Street Sweeping = $500.00
2 . Sealcoat/Patch/Overlay, Repair Pioneer Trail
' 500 'x40 ' = 20,000 sq. ft. at . 05'/sq. ft = $1,000.00
Estimated Total Cost For Road Maintenance/Traffic Control =
$1,500. 00
IV. Engineering Fees For Preparation of As-Built Plans
1. Engineering Fee for -Surveying and Drafting = $2,000.00
I
1
I
I
Summary Sheet
I Site Restoration (Phase II) $24,000.00
II Inspection/Administration Fees $ 7,680. 00
III Road Maintenance and Traffic Control •$ 1,000.00
IV Engineering Fees $ 2,000.00
Sub-Total $34,680.00 ,
Plus 10% (Contingencies) $ 3,468.00
$38,148.00 ,
Grand Total For Security $38,150.00 ,
I
c: Gary Warren, City Engineer
Paul Krauss, City Planner i
I
1
1
1
1
i
1
•
ra,f.
to •
firU, S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
'.FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1111 ATI T ON "MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR •
IIIDISTRICT 5
S.P. 2701-28 G
III
S.P. 1002-44 T.1�. 5
Minn, Project F 014-3 (36) ;
•
,
Regrading, Surfacing
Second Roadway & Bridge (Over Soo Line R/R) ,.
From T.H.41 in Chanhassen, Carver County',
to CSAH 4 in Eden Prairie, Hennepin County.
•
i '
•
If —► i .`"� --. �" ` us •
, .)4-41.7:7--.!....-
-'1 - , /,:•'.;t'.: .1.... •
I/ y _ r '�, `��y" `Y v li,6i`� , /.J :/ :..:� fi?, 1 •mat
a_-4- 7 • 4� '1..Ii '� :t•
, .... - F.,,..-y4,,,,,... -,.-.0.- .,,,,,,,•./ >4 . ;
,i: J4--- '
•
141)1t:
:j itt1s1:1;1i!!at d.e..I1
s
1
The Golden galley District Office has a well trained and
experienced relocation staff to provide these services.
The district office is relatively accessible to the proj-
ect so all relocation contacts will originate from there.
•
Residents and the business will be informed of their
eligibility to receive payments such as moving expenses,
appraisal fees, housing supplements, closing costs,
interest differentials. etc. These payments and the
eligibility requirements to receive them are explained
in the booklet entitled "Relocation Assistance" which
will be available to all interested parties.
As the time nears for .negotiations with landowners, the
relocation staff will personally contact and counsel all
occupants of the affected residences and business con-
cerning their potential relocation benefits. 1
No disadvantaged or especially sensitive groups or indi-
viduals have been identified. Furthermore. no significant
problems in obtaining reasonable replacement property.
• within the community, for residential or business dis-
placements are anticipated.
Social As the proposed project is an upgrading of an inplace
facility, with only minor access changes. no significant
effect on community cohesion is anticipated. No particu-
larly sensitive group(s) will he unduly impacted.
Controversy Nothing significant has been noted against the improve-
ments
so far. The comment that arises frequently is.
"can it be done sooner." The negative comment, "I hate
to drive Highway 5" is a campaign to accelerate the up-
grade of T.H. 5.
Traffic The major traffic effects of proposed improvements on
the communities referred to in this report relate to
changes in traffic speeds and congestion during con-
struction. Due to lack of adequate parallel routes. it
is anticipated that the majority of current T.H. 5
vehicular traffic will continue to use T.H. 5 during the
construction period. The reduction in traffic speeds. and
probable resulting increased congestion. are unavoidable
consequences of driving through major construction :.ones.
The contractor(s) will be required to conduct operations
so as to minimize obstructions of traffic and provide for
the safety of the general public in accordance with see-
tion 1707 of the Minnesota Standard Specifications for
Highway Construction. Provisions for possible alternate
routing of emergency vehicles during various construction
operations would be coordinated with the local authorities
It is anticipated that one lane of traffic in each
direction will be maintained.
16
-- !
... - :i�Y✓w4F-die t t
x
vim' ..1Xs a ...i Y
Af aA
. -sue. �a- va+
? -
•
1706
hazardous materials. Workers shall be required to employ good
dustrial hygienic practices,as would preclude or counteract the, otinsnuired, maintenance
fats of prolonged skin exposure to toxic pigments, and to !be required,including cros
such protective devices as respirators approved by the U the Railroad's fences and c
Bureau of Mines, when the above described operations are ba in addition to the Contract
performed. the Department because of
The Contractor shall be responsible ing with the provisions her
training of his employees according to bMNO.S.H.A. tandardsp Before any
and before an materials a
at a private crossing,the
1707 of 1708.2, 1708.3,and 17
w Public Convenience and Safety 10 days notice3 in advance
The Contractor shall at all times conduct his operations a 1708.1 GENERAL 1
Al
perform the work in a manner that will assure the least possitt All work performed c
obstruction to traffic, and he shall provide for the safety of d tracks and on its right of v
` general public as well as the residents
living beside the highway, factory to the Railroad an
Temporary facilities shall be provided by the Contracto or endanger operations of
y where and when necessary to convenient) serve Dish the Railroad with des
over or through obstructions at public walkways and at t other loci
�d cofferdams to be mac
`yam'°`• ° lions designated by the Engineer. to the Railroad's tracks a
y Open excavations which contaz hems until the plans have
water, or are hazardous for other reasons, shall be adequate],
- '= '- fenced off and posted with conspicuous warning signs. Construction operati
-„, _.7.._-
g gns.
� ", Whenever work is performed in a municipality,the Contracts
±._ as to ensure safety to Rail
-T as not to delay the operati
^ ;.. _ shall give the chiefs of the local fire and police departments sutfr u track changes changes arrange g
_4 - becomes necessary g structures.
,-°.A-, ary to blockade a street,and he shall keep them 10-
-,�w` formed as to the status and removal of street blockades affecting
"'
emergency The same clearance
ir,-: gene travel. Access to fire hydrants shall not be obstructel dose customarily follows
F. without the approval of the local fire chief. work shall be observed,
"'`' ment shall be left in loci
1708 fere with train movement
�. "` ' Railroad-Highway Provisions If the Contractor des tal clearances The provisions hereof shall apply only when the Contractor statute, e shall from
=M _,
quires PPY y
-- _ uires that work be performed on the right of way of a railroad a falsework and form pla
that materials be hauled across the tracks of a railroad over a pri• detail. No work shall be
.= N"'- - vate crossing shown in the Plans as a designated haul mad. If, clearances until the Plans under any other conditions,the Contractor desires to haul material Railroad, and the Depart
rr-,:,<--' r_;_- -
„�-_ ..._. X across a railroad track over a private crossing or to encroach oa lion. No clearances less
•. ,' = railroad property for other reasons,he shall make his own arrange- will be permitted at any t
ht p • - ments with the railroad company involved.
F �.-• —: .- The Department will secure all recess In the event that a
the hauling of materials across the tracks of a easements o e epn right to do any awo kit d
vate crossing when
r � 8 required by the Contract, but the Contractor emergency is caused by
. `" -- --' shall make his own the Railroad for reimburse the Railroad fc
�,__ arrangements with
6.fi-r-- ,..7 --.,;__- -,..-._,, ..---.73kifi-,- 4--...,-.....
+.y}..,'.3 - Y _:,r T' ':� ",;t%°3'�°° -asa.:=.�;�ry:e;} X.:5H4•� � '�' =,.` �ca %f 3-i'.•r� ; y„
w,-f-xg...1M F:,'-YE. ;' .,�•^,- 1. 4^17 .f 1- -cr S.tr�..y�ueA ` �t'zr`;r�"'{.,
�v5°
>-
-i �C_-. y -- '` +- - - "" �� , � 1 �� ,- ` i a ^- - � +� .+� F : _�� ;�.'y'" sa� •4 .'401•, - � ` � _
i*s ' u ' t- - '' '` tfi � 3e S-::,.. ^ ,' ', la A5:„-,, ..
- Ea-� _� r- y '-5 _- T ;
_i F �. ' 3-1 ,3 ' r 'i s c• 4`.e . 5 =%-- - � .+a ': `�2 - K �l ` F - ,,g w „ - { 1 ;` T < "� -'..7,7-..- Sgt � j E-ti 4 j � y - " ` ms. � { z � ' _Ia < Y` _° > r ' .. - - ,Fd i • .5y.,.---. .t., --�t -- _, wX�`,�-- Fr s-.::--.# r3- a. :.. ,t ---' wsi.• . ,,,, = ~ , a , x` � ,;:...,...2,_:-....i.4.-,:-/-„., � t „�� : yz,. ? c * `^ c��1' -mo t '" Y :, .,fi " a t. • a v ___-,,„..1:402.:=1,-"1?-.. ...-.„- "�"T- -,K z - S?.;e`.x.:ue•t•-Y =, + . L 3„• ” . •+0 4°, w, . " ' ' �•'� _ _ Fn- � 'f— .0 a= "'� � +,. s a v =. - ,_ ' �_. ._YJff ' F x 1'S `t' E. ,'-- .
:°,< ,fv �Y- ^_`,' - •=.C+ lxawt-. x /.0. o ., � 3 '',' -,-. �i ` ,$'' '• ±, gy -' �- , ` ab s r.•'i. r * �' " ,.�-.,.-_,.4V-. -7:.- 5} p c a J. .A
It
S4je' ae4 ,
SHAFER, MINNESOTA 55074 II
September 4, 1990
Submittal For: Application for Interim Use Permit for grading work under City of
Chanhassen Ordinance No. 128. ,
1. Applicant: Shafer Contracting Co. , Inc.
Box 128
Shafer, MN 55074
Owner: Shamrock Property Partners 1
One McGlynn Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
2. Legal Description: Outlot "A" and Outlot "B" of McGlynn Park in the northeast
quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County,
Minnesota
3. Certified abstract listing all landowners within 500 feet. See attached
Exhibit B.
4. See attached Exhibit A showing proposed grading plan with existing and proposed
finish grade contours and inset map with surrounding Chanhassen area.
There are no existing watercourses or water bodies on the parcel. The parcel
is surrounded by paved streets with catch basins and storm sewers on the east
and south sides.
Shafer Contracting intends to excavate to the proposed grades shown, removing
about 60,000 cubic yards of clay material for construction of new State T.H. 5
in Chanhassen. ,
The depth of the water table is unknown, but City sewer construction on
Audubon Road did not encounter ground water.
There are no known wells, buried garbage or fill areas on•the site.
5. The purpose of the operation is to make the Outlot "B" parcel more topographi- ,
cally compatible with its intended industrial use and at the same time generate
excess clay material to haul offsite to build a new embankment for State T.H. 5
east of Powers Boulevard in Chanhassen. I
I
I
si € earithaeteretf ,ect., 9
SHAFER, MINNESOTA 55074
' 6. The operation is expected to take 45 to 50 working days. Construction would
start immediately upon permit approval and be completed in the fall of 1990,
weather permitting.
7. Normal hours of operation would be 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through
Saturday. These hours are in compliance with the City's ordinance.
8. There are no trees over six (6) inches in caliper on the site.
9. The disturbed area will have a minimum of 3 inches of onsite topsoil respread
' and be seeded.
10. The operation would involve loading trucks with a wheel loader or hydraulic
excavator. There will be no processing of the onsite material (no crushing,
washing, etc.) .
11. The planned haul route would exit the site at the northeast corner (from the
' future street grade) north onto Audubon Road. The trucks would then haul
east on State T.H. 5 to the embankment construction east of Powers Boulevard
and return via the same route.
' Trucks used in the operation will be standard tandem dump trucks and semi-
trailer belly dumps. There will be approximately 8 to 10 total trucks
hauling from the site at any given time.
12. Drainage and erosion will be controlled with silt fences shown on the plan
(Exhibit A) and temporary settling basins as needed. Dust will be con-
trolled with water trucks and street sweepers daily or as needed.
13. The plan (Exhibit A) shows the proposed finish grade contours. Excavated areas
will be put to grade as areas are completed and topsoiling and seeding will
follow immediately behind.
14. The Applicant, Shafer Contracting Co., Inc., can be reached at any time week-
days by calling (612) 462-7462. Should there, at any time, be any questions,
comments or complaints, Scott Spisak should be contacted at the above number.
After hours, Scott Spisak can be contacted at (715) 425-7441. All inquiries
' will be responded to promptly.
15. No environmental assessment worksheet is required by the City.
16. No wetland areas are being disturbed.
17. Any further information requested by the City will be furnished upon request. '
1
•
1988 EDITION APPENDIX
TABLE NO.70-A—GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEES'
50 cubic yards or less .. ............. .. .... . . .. . .... .. . No fee
51 to 100 cubic yards ,,,, . . ...... $1500
101 to 1000 cubic yards 22 50
1001 to 10,000 cubic yards .. .. . . . 30 00
10.001 to 100.000 cubic yards—$30 00 for the first 10.000 cubic yards.plus$15 00 for
each additional 10.000 yards or fraction thereof.
100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards—$165 00 for the first 100.000 cubic yards.plus$9 00 for
each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof
200,001 cubic yards or more—$255.00 for the first 200,000 cubic yards,plus$4.50 for each
additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
Other Fees:
Additional plan review required by changes,additions
or revisions to approved plans ... $30 00 per hour*
(minimum charge—one-half hour)
*Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction.whichever is the greatest.This cost shall include
supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees
involved.
l
TABLE NO.70-B—GRADING PERMIT FEES+
50 cubic yards or less •, $15.00
51 to 100 cubic yards 22.50
101 to 1000cubic yards—$22.50 for the first 100 cubic yards plus$10.50 for each additional
100 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
•
1001 to 10,000 cubic yards—$117.00 for the first 1,000 cubic yards,plus$9.00 for each
additional 1,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards—$198.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards,plus$40.50 for
each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof
100,001 cubic yards or more—$562.50 for the first 100,000 cubic yards,plus$22.50 for
each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
' Other Inspections and Fees:
1. Inspections outside of normal business hours $30.00 per hour2
(minimum charge—two hours)
2. Reinspection fees assessed under provisions of
Section 305(g) $30.00 per hour2
3. Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated $30.00 per hour2
(minimum charge--one-half hour)
!The fee for a grading permit authorizing additional work to that under a valid permit shall be the
difference between the fee paid for the original permit and the fee shown for the entire project.
20r the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction,whichever is the greatest.This cost shall include supervision,
overhead,equipment,hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved.
875
11111 - - - 1111111 N — 1111111 - ENV, MS MI NM r MI 111111 E AN OM
11
s eo.r.re„.9 e.., T .
SHAFER, MINNESOTA 55074
September 4, 1990
i
Mr. Paul Krauss, City Planner
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Re: Interim Use Application
McGlynn Park - Outlot "B"
' Dear Paul:
I have attached the necessary submittals for the Interim Use Permit to allow
grading and removing the hill on McGlynn's Outlot "B". The material will be
' placed in the embankment for the future T.H. 5 east of Powers Boulevard.
Should you have any questions, please call me at 462-7462.
' Thank you.
' Yours very truly,
SHAFER CONTRACTING CO. , INC.
By: Obo) ,
Scott A. Spisak
' SAS:so
y Encl.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN 11
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: Shafer Contracting Co. , Inc. OWNER: Shamrock Property Partners
ADDRESS: Box 128 ADDRESS: One McGlynn Drive
Shafer, MN 55074 Chanhassen, MN 55317
TELEPHONE (Day time) (612) 462-7462 TELEPHONE: (612) 474-7444 1
REQUEST
♦ Conditional Use Permit - $150 ♦ Subdivision:
Aim ♦ Interim Use Permit - $150 $150.00 Preliminary Plat:
♦ Land Use Plan Amendment - $100 - Sketch Plan - $200
♦ Planned Unit Development: - Create less than 3 lots - $10011
- Sketch Plan - $200 - Create more than 3 lots -
$100 +
- Preliminary Development Plan lot created
+ $5 per lot ,
$300 + $15 acre
Final Plat - $100
- Final Development Plan - $200
Metes and Bounds - $100
- Amendment to Final Development
Plan - $300 + $15 acre - Consolidate Lots - $100
TOTAL PUD TOTAL SUBDIVISION
♦ Site Plan Review - $150 ♦ Wetland Alteration Permit: '
- Individual Single Family
♦ Vacation of Utility or Lots - $25
Street Easement $100
- All Others - $150
♦ Variance - $75 I
♦ Rezoning - $250
♦ Zoning Appeal - $75 ♦ Zoning Ordinance Amendment - I
No Charge
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the II
property must be included with the application.
Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. I
* NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall II
be charged for each application.
IIPROJECT NAME McGlynn Park - Outlot "B" Grading
LOCATION Northeast Corner of McGlynn Drive, 8 Audubon Road
IILEGAL DESCRIPTION
I
' PRESENT ZONING I.O.P.
REQUESTED ZONING No Change
IPRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION N/A
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION N/A
IIREASON FOR THIS REQUEST Request Interim Use Permit to allow grading to remove
hill and make Outlot "B" more topographically compatible with the future intended
use.
I This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly
printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by
applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you
should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific
ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by
IIthe City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements
with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name
and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter
I pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership
(either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or
purchase agreement) , or I am the authorized person to make this application
' and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and
the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees
I may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an
estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents
and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my
Iknowledge.
I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such
permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the
property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the
Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City
Hall Records.
k 4,‘ eeilh 5QVICA&Ie&c 1‘10
Aw
' Signature of App 'cant Date
Ci
Signature of Fee Owne Date
I
•
Application Received on
Fee Paid Receipt-No.
This application will be considered by the Planning Commission/Board of
Adjustments and Appeals on 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 19, 1990
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:45 p .m. .
' MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings , Ladd Conrad and Brian Batzli
MEMBERS ABSENT: Annette Ellson, Jim Wildermuth and Joan Ahrens
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director and Jo Ann Olsen, Senior
Planner
PUBLIC HEARING:
INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR A GRADING PROJECT TO EXCAVATE 60,000 CUBIC YARDS OF
MATERIAL LOCATED NORTH OF MCGLYNN DRIVE, JUST SOUTH OF HWY 5, SHAFER
CONTRACTING.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad
called the public hearing to order .
Krauss: If I could just point out . We did notify the Timberwood , we did
notify them as a matter of courtesy since they may be able to view this
from a distance and we haven't heard back from them.
Conrad: Anything that you 'd like to?
Scott Spesiak: Well I 'm Scott Spesiak with Shafer Contracting representing
the applicant . I don 't have anything to add unless you have questions
' about it .
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
' favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart: I 've got one thing here . On the last temporary excavation we came
' up with this $30 .00 per hour for staff time to do the inspections . I 'm
concerned . I 'm concerned we set a precedent with the Jeurissen thing and I
have a concern with that . Let me ask a question . When we issue building
permits , and see this applicant is required to pay I think a $401 .00
building permit . When someone builds a house and we charge a building
permit , do we then additional charge them for the inspection time to go out
and inspect that construction at some hourly rate?
Krauss: No we don't . However , when you look at the building permit fees
for anything other than a single family home , a commercial development for
example that 's fairly substantial , the building permit fees are quite large
and cover substantial amount of time .
Erhart: For commercial?
Krauss: For commercial , industrial type of thing . •
Erhart: Why? Because you can get away with it or what? Are you providing
a service relative to the price?
I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 19 , 1990 - Page 2
I/
Krauss: Sure . I mean we have to staff up to have our experts on staff toil
go out there and we need to coordinate with heating contractors . I mean
it 's the whole works . We did not come up with that $30 .00 an hour charge .
That 's taken out of the Uniform Building Code for grading operations .
Erhart: Oh, you mean they actually recommend an hourly charge but not for "
inspections for buildings?
Krauss: Well because the difference is we don't have a building to figure 1
in costs for the inspection . If there was a construction going on, we
would have that base and would have generated the cash to cover the 11 expenses.
Erhart: My concern with the thing is that it puts the City in a position
of arbitrarily deciding how much staff time gets charged to an applicant . 1
Then it sets you up for a situation where as the thing progresses, let 's
say that our City doesn't get along with this particular applicant and one
thing leads to the other and then all of a sudden, well because this guy
not maybe cooperating we send more people out and then he starts pointing
fingers at us . You 're trying to burden me with all these additional costs
just to get back at me and we're setting ourself up for a real conflict . 1'
have a concern and I just wanted to express it and see what some of the
other commissioners .
Conrad: Do you have a solution? - '
Erhart: Just make the initial , well one of the solutions is to be
consistent with the building permit . The other one of course is to figure !'
in the permit which you estimate it will cost to manage the thing .
Krauss: You could do that . I mean you can come up with an estimated cost
up front . I should tell you though that one of the things we 're looking at 1
at a department head level in response to the budget shortfall the City 's
in right now, is the whole prospect of rather than looking at taxes as a
solution , is user fees . Now that surface water management fund sort of II perphiferally comes under that heading but more directly we found , we 're
surveying a number of communities and we found that a large number of
communities charge permit application fees for development applications .
But then they also bill staff time. They require an escrow and bill staff
time for Jo Ann's time on a project or something like that. Right now we
don't do that . That's all on the cuff.
Erhart: Yeah , I understand.
Krauss: This is a rather unique situation where the Uniform Building Code '
gave us the right to do that $30.00 an hour charge and we're using it now.
The Jeurissen application I think it's fair to say presented us with
potentially significantly more inspection related problems or concerns or
issues than this application does . We frankly see only minimal need to
inspect this site . There are several reasons for that . The location is
different . We don't have the impact to residents. It is a MnDot
coordinated project and comes under their regulations and they will be over"
seeing it and they have inspectors out as well so we think it's a little
bit different.
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
JSeptember 19, 1990 - Page 3
' Conrad: You bring up a good point . You know if you 're a small contractor ,
you kind of have to know what you 're going to be assessed for . I hear your
point Tim. Paul 's point, or counter point is there 's nothing there to
assess . There 's not a building going up with a value so the permit is ,
there's nothing to establish a fee based on . I guess we should forecast or
project an anticipated cost to somebody . I think these are different
situations . I 'm not uncomfortable at all doing what we 're doing. I guess
' the only thing I feel sensitive to is like, what are we telling the
applicant that they 're going to be assessed? We really haven't . We sort
of said $30 .00 an hour . You know , 30 times what?
Erhart: Well Paul 's got a good argument . One guy , to set a uniform rate
based on cubic yards or something like that is, maybe it 's unfair on one
guy because he isn 't a user and requires a lot of monitoring, will incur a
' lot of city costs while the other guy who follows the rules like we know
you will , he deserves to not have to be charged as much so that's the other
side of the argument . I just wanted to bring it up as an issue . I 'm not
' uncomfortable with the way it is.
Conrad: It 's a valid issue .
Krauss: I don 't know if it enhances your comfort level at all Tim but we
feel , if we 're going to get into this , the inspections on this right now
and possibly other ways of charging in the future , we believe it would be
' encumbant upon us to provide accurate bills indicating what we did and when
and keep consistent time sheets much as the consultants do who bill us for
their time .
rErhart: Yeah, that wasn 't what I was concerned about . What I 'm concerned
about is this , for some reason you have an employee who just doesn 't have a
lot to do this month and it 's so easy to say, well maybe take another trip
' out to Jeurissen . It adds up and the temptation is there when you do it
this way and it 's going to happen. I 'm not saying there's a better way .
' Conrad: But how can we pin it down? I guess I 'll follow up . How can we ,
it's like we know the $30 .00 an hour and we said we want , I said for
Jeurissen, I wanted somebody out there , I don 't care if it's daily to see
what 's happening in that particular case until I was convinced that they
were doing the right thing . They should pay for that and convince the
inspector that they're doing the right thing and the sooner they do that,
the faster their fees stop . But again, projecting to an applicant what the
potential cost would be rather than saying $30.00 an hour , can we go beyond
that? Can we forecast what we expect over a period of time? Can we be
saying that this will be $30.00 an hour . We estimate 10 hours per week and
' something like that . Is that appropriate Paul?
Krauss: ' Well , I wouldn't be surprised Mr . Chairman if we could,
' particularly with a little more experience in this , develop estimates that
when, like a consultant when they 're working with us. When they approach
that estimate and they haven't finished the job it 's encumbant upon them to
explain why and get permission to proceed on further . We tried in the
' Jeurissen and in this application to undertake an analysis of what site
restoration costs were. Ballpark figures of what inspection costs were and
that 's reflected in the letter of credit . So certainly we 're talking about
a fraction of what that letter of credit is or inspections and we have
Planning Commission Meeting
September 19 , 1990 - Page 4
I!
worked up a number . A ballpark number . Right now, given the fact that we II
haven 't done any of these yet, I 'm a little bit relunctant to second guess
what the ceiling might be. But certainly with a little bit more experience
we could do that . I
Scott Spesiak: Just as an applicant I guess I need to express our feelings
also in that we don 't like to see something open ended. However , I think '
it does behoove the applicant to perform according to the application
submitted and also the recommendation of staff before. . .guidelines that are
put on the approval . If the application does those , then the
inspections . . .shouldn't be a real problem . On the other hand, if you don 't"
operate according to the things you're going to perform that you said you
would, then you 're open to . . . I think it would be hard to predict . . .what
that 's going to amount to . ,
Emmings: In that regard we could, you know to help get a handle on that .
I suppose one thing you can use is the City 's own experience with ,
individuals . . .proven themselves to be worthy of close inspection . And
maybe part of the application ought to be some references in the sense that
we 've done work in these communities so we know who to call and check and
see how they 've done in the past . If there 's somebody we don't have
experience with in that regard.
Batzli : I think that becomes arbitrary though then . If we personally have
had experience with them and had problems , to set a rate based on what
other communities ' experiences have been with that particular contractor ,
it's almost like getting a black list .
Emmings: Well , it 's not a black list .
Batzli : If you 're going to set a rate on it. I
Emmings: We 're not going to say you can't mine here . We 're just going to
say that based on your work and other people's experience with you , we're
suspicious . I wouldn't have any trouble with that . '
Krauss: I hope it came across in the report that we have had, or the City
has had a relationship with Mr . Spesiak's firm in the past and it 's been a II
very good one and we don't anticipate any of the concerns that were raised
during the Jeurissen escapade that surfaced here . And we're much more
comfortable therefore with this proposal . But again, I don't know how that'll
would be a variable where we'd set a ceiling on what we might do .
IM
Erhart: How did you come up with the $401 .00?
Olsen: It 's right out of the Code in here. The UBC .
Krauss: Based on volume . '
Erhart: Based on volume? So that 's the number based on volume . I was
going to suggest that we just base it on volume but you're already doing
that . That 's the one thing , to make the whole thing based on volume and
treat everybody the same .
I
I
11 Planning Commission Meeting
f
September 19 , 1990 - Page 5
Emmings: I don't know if that 's really fair . If I 'm a good clean operator
and I do exactly what I say I 'm going to do , I don't see why I should have
to pay .
' Scott Spesiak: Pay for the person who isn't . Volume isn't solely
necessarily commensurate with problems .
' Emmings: We want to punish the bad guys and reward the good guys don't
we?
Conrad: I thought so.
Erhart: My concern is , it 's the nature of organization . There 's $30 .00 in
an hour , the temptation is that somebody's going to send a guy out there to
gain the revenues .
' Krauss: Well you know, I 've worked as a consultant and I can tell you from
experience that that often happens when you 're a consultant because you
need to be billable . We 're not a for profit enterprise . I mean there 's
not that kind of pressure , at least there isn 't right now .
Erhart: There 's an inherent nature in any organization to expand whether
it 's government organization or private . To justify people . Economic
times as it is , to maintain people and it 's one of those things that 's
going to lend itself to abuse I think . I 'm not saying I 'm dead against it ,
I 'm just saying I think it 's going to lead that way .
Conrad: Let 's watch and see what happens .
Emmings: I concur with the staff report on this.
Erhart: Everything else I agree with .
-' Batzli : I really like the staff report but . My only question Jo Ann, or
did you prepare it? Was I thought we had a fancy title for our earth work
permits .
' Olsen: We had mineral excavation.
Batzli : My only question was , in the earth work permit section of the Code
that we just passed, we have language that they have to apply for an earth
work permit . I don 't really see us saying in here that we 've given it to
them or they have to apply for it. I know you went through the analysis
' but my question is just to the procedure of how and again see , I 'm not
going to talk about this thing. I 'm going to talk about procedures and
things . As to how we improve the earth work permits if there's an interim
use involved or something else, do we not then call an earth work permit?
' Do we call it an interim use? Procedural question really.
Krauss: We 've been calling it an interim use permit for earth work. It's
' not a two track permit procedure . It 's not like a site plan.
-Batzli : But you did go through the conditional use or interim use criteria
as well plus the earth work permit criteria . So it was really kind of like
you were two tracking two permits at once in one application even though
11
Planning Commission Meeting
September 19 , 1990 - Page 6
4
you never really mentioned it . I
Krauss: Well you have two sets of standards .
Batzli : That 's right . My only question, or problem with it is if our
ordinance says they're going to apply for an earth work permit but yet in
the conditions of approval we never say anything that we 've given it to
them, just question as to whether should do that . I don 't know. I think II
we should just take a look at the earth work permit . I have no problem
with this that this is how we should do it but I think we should somehow
get in there that approval of interim use/earth work permit or something
because I think they do , you did a nice job of analyzing the ordinance but '
then we never really said we were giving them that permit .
Olsen: It 's similar to like a conditional use for a fast food restaurant I
where we go through the specific conditions .
Batzli : I guess I view the earth work permit as more of a wetland
alteration kind of process where you give them separate and that 's kind of II
how I expected them to see coming through here. And if we do it in one
shot like this , that 's fine . But I don't know , the other commissioners
didn't seem to .
Krauss: We can also ask the City Attorney if he feels there should be in
the future two motions on that . We didn't interpret it that way but maybe II
if you did , he might as well .
Conrad: Anybody care about what Brian is saying? I
Emmings: Not a bit .
Batzli : That went without saying . '
Erhart: I didn 't understand it .
Emmings: Where is Shafer , Minnesota? That 's the burning question .
Scott Spesiak: It always is. It 's on Hwy 8 east of Lindstrom. Almost to
Taylors Falls . It 's actually just off Hwy 8 . There 's a little sign there II
that says that 180 people live there. I think that 's the 1980 census.
Conrad: Paul , can you check with our attorney just to make sure we 're
handling it properly. I guess, from a procedural standpoint, geez I don 't
know . I really don 't know .
Krauss: We can certainly ask Roger . By the way, I should tell you that well
were trying to cooperate with the contractor and with MnDot on this because
the earth is going to be moved for TH 5 and we were going to expedite or
propose expediting their request by getting it on the City Council meeting
on Monday . We could certainly find out the answer to that question between
now and then .
Conrad: Okay . Any more discussion? Is there a motion? 11
I
Planning Commission Meeting .
September 19 , 1990 - Page 7
Batzli : I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim
Use/Earth Work Permit *90-4 with the conditions outlined in the staff
report .
' Emmings: Second .
Conrad: See , all the power goes to the guy making the motion.
Batzli moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Interim Use/Earth Work Permit #90-4 subject to the following
' conditions:
1 . The applicant shall provide the City with a letter of credit in the
amount of $38 ,150 .00 to cover any road damage , maintenance of erosion
control measures and site restoration .
2 . The applicant shall submit $401 .00 grading permit fee as required by
' the Uniform Building Code and all city and county staff time used to
monitor and inspect the operation shall be paid at a rate of $30 .00 per
hour .
3 . The applicant shall provide a Traffic Control Plan for staff approval
providing specifications on how truck hauling traffic will be
controlled, specifically during rush hour periods .
' 4 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permit requirements of
the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District .
' 5 . The applicant shall make arrangements to cap the existing well in
accordance with all state, county and local requirements prior to
' initiating grading operations .
6 . The applicant shall supply the City with a mylar as-built survey
prepared by a professional engineer upon completion of excavation to
verify the grading plan has been performed in compliance with the
proposed plan .
' 7 . Temporary settling basins shall be constructed during the grading
operations on an as needed basis or as requested by the City .
8. Topsoiling and disk mulch seeding shall be implemented immediately
' following the completion of excavated areas .
9 . Noise levels stemming from the operation are not to exceed MnPCA and
' EPA regulations . If the city determines that there is a problem ,
warranting sucy test shall be paid for by the applicant .
10 . Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a .m. to 6:00 p .m . , Monday -
through Saturday and prohibited on national holidays. The the City
Engineer determines that traffic conflicts result due to rush hour
traffic flows, the hours of operation will be appropriately restricted.
11 . The City will work with the County Sheriff to coordinate speed and
weight checks. If trucks are violating traffic laws, staff will
I
1,
Planning Commission Meeting
It
September 19 , 1990 - Page 8
require that the operation be shut down and will ask the City Council II
to revoke the permit .
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
f
I