The URL can be used to link to this page

1990 04 04CHANHASSEN 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 8N, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT, IN THE RETAIL CENTER LOCATED AT SEVEN FORTY-ONE CROSSING ADDITION, WAYNE SALDEN. ~.~.!.~..~.......~.r..~.~.~.n~..~... 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 heating. 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 foIlowing condition: 1. The applicant shall provide its own trash enclosure at the rear of the restaurant which shall be enclosed with the same materials as the exterior of the shopping center. Ail 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 i AND 2, CHAN HAVEN PLAZA FOR THE EXPANSION OF PARKING AREA. B. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR EXPANSION OF RESTAURANT. Name Gene Borg Ray Schleck Tom Address 6897 Chaparell Lane, Owner/Operator Construction Engineer for McDonald's 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 $chleck: I'm Ray Schteck. I'm a construction engineer. I work for 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. 3ust 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. Planning Commission Heeting ¢~pril 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, 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 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 about... Ray Schleck: Wetland enhancement? Gene Borg: Yeah, what is that? 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... Gene 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? Krauss: If you could avoid filling into the wetland, sure. Gene Borg: And then avoid filling here? 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 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. Hempel: 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 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. Ray 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 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. 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 $chleck: Is there an opportunity though? Right now the plan does show a spillway into that lower area. Is it feasible at all? Is it North 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 have an outlet. Hempel: That's correct. Out into MnDot's right-of-way. So the remaining half of the parking lot would then drain south towards the wetland or you 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 trees, pine trees. Those three on the corner. On the corner of Dakota and TH 5. Those are there and those, Gene and Z 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 same 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 wrong 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 been 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 be Norse and it will be closer so I'm not opposed to the plantings there. I 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't get along. 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 are 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? Planning Commission Heeting April 4, 1990 - Page 7 Gene Borg: Well berming all over really in a drought because those are the first things to die. If you drive around town here, a lot of things that are termed are dead. If you go down on Kerber on those developments, all those trees are dead. They have no way ol= watering them so they rely 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 terms 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 be able to ~ater and keep ~hem alive and I think if you ~ater 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. 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 lot of room to work on this site. We've got a site that doesn't come close to complying with current standards and we're not asking that it comply with 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 and 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 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 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 there I think is going to restrict that... Krauss: Then the car that is parked there will get crushed? Ray Schleck: Exactly. Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 1990 - Page 8 Gene 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 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. Ray Schleck: As far as green, percentage of green area, we comply with that · Krauss: You're right on the numbers. Conrad: Is that right? See that doesn't even look close visually. So what's the lot coverage? Ray Schleck: There's a 20 foot setback area in here that's all green. Gene Borg: And there will be more green area when we pull out those stalls to accommodate for wetland. Krauss: The allowance is for 65A 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 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 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. 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... Krauss: That would be fine. The primary purpose of that island is to protect the cars that are parked adjacent to it. Ray Schleck: This area here...3ust asphalt for asphalt sake. Conrad: Okay, anything else? Ray Schleck: What did we touch on Paul? Krauss: I don't know. Ray Schleck: I think we're all set. Is there anything else in here Paul that I might have missed? Krauss: 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 Engineer. The question becomes one of design of the road improvement iself. The existing McDonald's retaining wall is built in the city Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 1990 - Page 9 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 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. 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 Z 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 that 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 whatever 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. Any other public comments? Yes sir. Tom Kursonas: My name is Tom Kursonas and I live in the residential area 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 in before McDonald's came. At nighttime the way McDonald's is laid out right 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 the 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 ~ummertime trash bags in 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 the 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 area. So thank you very much. Conrad: Thanks for your comments. Other comments? Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public heairng. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Ellson: I started getting a little confused. There's no outdoor dining is there? Gene Borg: No. Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 1990 - Page 10 Ellson: 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 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 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. Ptanning Commission Heeting April 4, 1990 - Page 11 Emmings: Nell if 25 is what's required and it's only 22, how does that 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 and there was no mention of variances. Although the standard was the same at 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 ail 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'm 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 you 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 beck of a lot of we can do. This thing exists and we're probably adding to the problem somewhat but l 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 get that done. I don't have any other comments. Erhart: Well this whole south frontage road thing is going to be a bigger problem because now as we develop that industrial area to the east, as far 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 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. Planning Commission Fleeting ~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? KTaLtSS: 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 Z 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. ~4e've already, no matter what we do on the FlcDonald's site, we're going to do as much as we can but it's going to have limited Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 1990 - Page 13 effectiveness. There are a number of situations where property owners 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, it 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 the 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? 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 a 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 some 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. 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 Apr i 1 4, 1990 - Page 14 Gene Borg: Ne 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, Z 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: Nell 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: Ne are too because clearly, I mean you're ~alking about the most intensive part of the site and not screening it for 6 months of the year Planning Commission Heeting April 4, 1990 - Page 15 is an issue. But these are the kinds of things we can work out or will 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? Erhart: You interjected the dots? To remove the north end of that island. Emmings: He wanted it back in. Erhart: Oh, you wanted to put it back in? Krauss: This thing? Erhart: Yeah. Krauss: We wanted to restore the traffic island there for the reason, as trucks went through there, if you park there, you should have a reasonable expectation that your car's going to be there when you get out. Erhart: Nell 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 we going to remove, are we going to put in real curb cuts here as opposed to 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: Nell we torn them out on West 79th Street and put in real curb cuts, thank goodness. Can we do that here too? Hempel: Yes. As a part of the Lake Drive project we are going to provide a concrete apron, typical industrial apron into the site. Both of them so it will be much smoother. Erhart: Great. How many trucks come into this place now? 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. Of course I'm not watching every minute. Erhart: You're expecting then that by putting this in you're going to 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 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: 3o 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 beck 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 17 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 Heeling April 4, 1990 - Page 17 Emmings: No. Not a little bit because you hit 65 on the button according to their plans. Batzli: Is the plat correct that the remaining acreage is 5.7 acres rather than the ?.96 in the staff report? Obviously it still exceeds the 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: 3ust that portion there? 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 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. Batzli: Where would you put it? Krauss: You'd just set it in the parking tot. 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 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 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 think the internal traffic pattern, I agree is, I think I agree with the staff report that it's very poor. 3ust 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 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. 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 to exit out that area and it would be interesting to know why, at least those particular ones are there. PLanning Commission Meeting April 4, 1990 - Page 18 Gene Borg: We just put them in there just to put them in. can just pull them out easier. It's not a big deal. That's why we 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 City 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. Olsen: We had...we did the Lake Drive and the wetland that they defined was low area. Ray Schleck: That area does have an outlet to the TH 5 drainage. 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 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. Conrad: Fence where 3in? 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 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 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 of maintaining fences in the right-of-way and those things tend to need maintenance from time to time. 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. Wildermuth: Right. And i think the same issue applies there. Maintenance and so on. Krauss: 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. Wildermuth: Yeah, but if it's City property. If the boulevard belongs to the City then, you're saying that the City would be responsible? Krauss: We would be responsible. Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 1990 - Page 19 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. 14ildermuth: 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 the 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 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 out there. Wildermuth: What can you do to help your neighbor's concern about the trash? Gene Borg: Pick it up more, you know. I haven't had a call that I've heard of. Maybe somebody has called and said something but I've never had a call that I've heard of. 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. 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 run-off into the storm sewer system. I don't think it's a good practice 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 island cut details. Just one more question. Why wouldn't we have one large curb 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. 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. ~ildermuth: 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. BerrninG 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. PLanning Commission Meeting April 4, 1990 - Page 21 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 between· 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 the old one's tailing away. Conrad: Okayi 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. blot 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 to go out that way. If you try to back, those stalls then should be drawn at 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 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. 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 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? Planning Commission Heeting April 4, 1990 - Page 23 Emmings: Well yeah. Erhart: To include required handicapped signage and curb cuts that are currently now shown on the plan and item 8 that staff will check the coverage before and do their own calculations before this goes to the City Council. I guess that's it. Conrad: Okay, is there a second? Ellson: Second. Erhart moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend 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 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. Utilize concrete curbing in the parking lot. Provide an erosion control plan. Project approval by the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District is required. 4. Revise landscaping plans as outlined in the staff report. A financial guarantee for site improvements is required. An additional $10,000.00 guarantee for completing required wetland improvements will also be required. 5. Relocate the retaining wall onto the McDonald's site, providing a minimum of i foot clearance from the right-of-way. 6. Approval and filing of the plat is required prior to the issuance of any building permits. 7. Include required handicapped signage and curb cuts that are currently now shown on the plan. 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. Satzli: I would table it until a lot of these issues can be resolved so that we're looking at what we're actually approving. Conrad: And Joan you abstain? Ahrens: Yes. 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? 8atzli: 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. 8atzli: 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 Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 1990 - Page 25 March 19, 1990" without variances subject to the following conditions: 1. Provlde 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: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLE IV, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND ARTICLE XXVII, EXCAVATING, MINING, FILLING AND GRADING ACTIVITIES. Public Present: Name Address Tom Zweirs Jerry Rypkema Mike Dwyer Terry Beauchane Leon & Delores Messenbrink Richard Vogel Willard Halver 9390 267 Street West, Lakeville 18601 Panama, Prior Lake 1600 TCF Tower, Minneapolis 240 Flying Cloud Drive 250 Flying Cloud Drive 105 Pioneer Trail 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 8eauchane: 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? Conrad: Are there any comments? Willard Halver: I live in the very close vicinity. I've been absent for 3 months. I've been getting mail in regard to these meetings. Now why Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 1990 - Page 26 hasn't a copy of that ordinance been sent to us along with the meetings? We know nothing. Conrad: Normally... Willard Halver: The blind leading the blind, is that what it is or what? Conrad: Normally what we do is we sent notice to those properties within x number of feet. Willard Halver: Well I'm in that. Conrad: In this particular case, this is an ordinance and Paul, who did we send notification to? Krauss: We not only sent notice to properties within 500 feet. Because 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. Conrad: Typically that's the way we handle it. We inform people that something's occurring. If they're interested in knowing more, they can contact City Hall for an ordinance. For Minutes. For whatever. That's standard procedure. Willard Halver: That's what I'm here doing. Conrad: Are there any other comments? Richard Vogel: Is this a public hearing? Conrad: Sure is. Richard 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 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 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 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. 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 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 Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 1990 - Page 27 saying, I think it's too bad that they have to take those hills down. You 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 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 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 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 ordinance by any means. Terry Beauchane: Well then I guess I would have to ask how much input was 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 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 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 been any control down in our neck of the woods probably since the incorporation 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 are 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 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 PLanning Commission Meeting April 4, 1990 - Page 28 vive 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 permit when it is 9ranted, the City always has legal recourse as we do with any other property owner in the City. 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. 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 t. humb their nose at it. Emmings: Well we don't have an ordinance yet. We're here to pass an 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 stipulations of the ordinance and the permits and so on, what recourse is there? 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, there's a setback requirement. Noon Valley's already exceeded that setback requirement. Terry Beauchane: Okay, but wasn't there already existing ordinances and so on that governed the second hole in the ground up there? Krauss: That's open to some serious question. Emmings: 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. Terry 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 become of the land? Either at Moon Valley or anyplace else if someone was to do this? What is to become of the land? 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 kind 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 does not comply with that and he's gone. The business is done. Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 1990 - Page 29 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 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 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. 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. Wilderrnuth: 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 do it in gold mining. Wildermuth: It's a mineral depletion tax just like an oil depletion tax. Terry Beauchane: That's right. 3ust like an oil depletion tax. 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 Cornmission Heeting ~%pril 4, 1990 - Page 30 Conrad: Oh no. That's not right. Not with the bond. Terry Beauchane: Could be. Conrad: Not with the bond. The bond is there. 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. Terry Beauchane: What would the amount of bond be on an operation such as? Batzli: I don't know. Krauss: It's established specifically related to whatever... Wildermuth: For that permit right? Conrad: 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 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. Terry 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 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 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 the excavation that has been going on over there, again what do you consider or who considers or who determines what the hazard is? 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 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. 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 so there's a standard right in it. It's right there. Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 1990 - Page 31 ]'erry Beauchane: Okay. Concerning number 4 with the 300 foot setback but 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. Terry Beauchane: Who has determined that it is 50 feet? Krauss: That's the information we got from Mr. Zwier. I'll take his word for it. Terry Beauchane: Oh you will. Okay. Again, I have t© ask the question, who's drafting this ordinance? Ellson: Well 50 feet has nothing to do with the ordinance. When Moon 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 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's where he is right now. Terry Beauchane: What if it's zero? 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 the point at which the ordinance is put... Terry Beauchane: I guess that's why we're here and the homeowners and 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 dug 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 was .just up there the other day. Conrad: Right now we're looking at an ordinance that really talks about 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 so right nouJ 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 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 Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 1990 - Page 32 ordinance for Moon Valley. This is not a Moon Valley ordinance tonight. Period. This is a general ordinance for Chanhassen. Terry Seauchane: You wouldn't even be looking at this ordinance if it wasn't for Moon Valley. Conrad: Obviously stimulated the interest. Leon Messenbrink made a comment. Conrad: No, we've all walked it. Leon Messenbrink: You don't even know we exist down in that corner. Conrad: I will debate that Leon Messenbrink: I've lived there 35 years. Conrad: You're wrong sir. Batzli: 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. Would you like to see certain things in here that aren't in here? Would you not like us to do anything? 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 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? Conrad: And we don't know. 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 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? Ellson: Exactly. Terry Beauchane: Now, what happens between the time the spring operations start up and the time the ordinance actually is passed and becomes law? Conrad: They're not governed by any ordinance. Terry 8eauchane: So they're free to do whatever they want? Conrad: Whatever has been permitted in the past. Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 1990 - Page 33 Terry Beauchane: Does that also include the hole in the ground to the north? Emmings: They're not working there now are they? Krauss: The hole in the ground to the north has been the subject of a lot of discussion. The City Attorney originally believed that since they were 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 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. Hr. 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 then mine on them. That the grandfathering would not cover that situation. We originally researched the matter and concluded that the property up to the north along Pioneer had been acquired by Hr. G¥iepentrog was the predecessor to Mr. Zwier at a date prior to the adoption of the ordinance, i.e. then it was grandfathered iD. Mr. Vogel and I have been talking on 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. Ne checked again the tax records that we have and as near as we can tell, the computerized records started in 1980, Hr. Griepentrog owned it in 1980. So 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. Wildermuth: I think the interesting thing though is that Mr. Zweirs 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. 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 what he's telling you? Wildermuth: How could I possibly do that? Terry 8eauchane: Okay, my point. Nildermuth: But the point is that he has stopped. Terry Beauchane: Well sure, it's wintertime. It's wintertime but wait until the roads open up. Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 1990 - Page 34 Ellson: The sooner this gets to Council, the sooner it passes, the sooner all that will have to be dealt with I guess. Terry 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 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 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 mud 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 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 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 traffic problems on Th 169/2127 Ellson: Sometimes we limit like hours and things like that. If it's something that we can address... Krauss: We can address the turning movements out of this site. We 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 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 going to off load it significantly. Terry Beauchane: So again it would be up to the determination of the City then 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 doesn't really talk about external. That would be a site specific concern · 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 where they'll be turning. If turn lanes are necessary into a site like that that's fixed. You can require that. Planning Commission Meeting A. pril 4, 1990 - Page 35 Terry Seauchane: 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 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 of Chanhassen has no control over TH 1697 conrad: That's possible. Basically it means that we would have to work 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 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 have to deal with it with the City Council. At least Ne 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 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. But 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. 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 ordinance? Are we looking like 3 months? 6 months? A year? Ellson: 2 weeks until the City Council. Conrad: No, it will be longer. Leon Messenbrink: Let's be realistic. Are we looking at 3 months? That's what I'd like. Conrad: A couple months I would guess wouldn't you Paul? 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 you're 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. 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. 8atzli: 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. 8ut 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 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 MnOot fencing. This 6 foot tail 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. $o there's a definite cost to the actual fencing materials but there's a collateral cost that is significant as well. 8ut 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 Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 1990 - Rage 37 would command in terms of a bond or letter of credit. No one has been able to tell us that but that would cost a lot of money. Mr. 8atzli says it's important to get that money up front. That would cost a good deal. 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 land 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 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 that 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. Thank you. Conrad: Could you go back to the permit costs. $35,000.00. Can you... 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, that 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 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, a trap. The functional equivalent of the letter of credit in our opinion is 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 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. Z~iers' 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 Planning Commission Meeting 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 pr. event 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 ~4orth 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. Z 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 ali 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 Mood 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. Witdermuth 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 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 does that mean? That's my question. And also, is there an ordinance? l thought there was an ordinance put in 1972. Is that right or not? Conrad: No. Richard Vogel: That's what you were telling me Jo Ann. That before the... Olsen: There is a mineral extraction ordinance but nothing of this detail. Krauss: And it doesn't have a mechanism for getting at uses that started before 1972. Richard Vogel: Okay, fine. Conrad: Other comments? 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 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 public 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 respond. Emmings: All he can do is repeat himself. Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in 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 tin]e. Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 1990 - Page 40 ~.hrens: 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. ~hrens: 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... Planning Commission Meeting ¢,pri~ 4, 1990 - Page 41 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 the activity is going to occur. Ahrens: 7-33(E). Page 2 of the ordinance. Is that excavation or filling of more than 100 or less than 1007 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. You might want to check that. I don't have any more questions. Wildermuth: I think the redraft of the ordinance is very appropriate. I think Roger did a very good job redrafting. I think the new language in many areas makes the ordinance more ;4orkable. 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. Conrad: Tim. Go ahead. Erhart: You woke me up. 3ust one thing to start out with. Did anybody 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 allow 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 top 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? In other words, the current ordinance. Krauss: They don't comply because they never had a permit. There's no 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 ~ally Griepentrog and his wife bought this property from Zimmerman in 1986. 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. t4hat I thought I heard you say is the fact when that Nas 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 19727 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 Griepent¥og 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 PLanning Commission Heeting ~pril 4, 1990 - Page 43 that Tim has, there's a warranty deed here and it's dated 1986 and it clearly the fee was transferred from Zimmerman to Griepentrog on January 8, 1986. It doesn't say anything about an underlying contract or that the deed was given to fulfill the terms of a contract but they don't have to. Ellson: But for their specific situation, they're 9oing to be looking into that so. Erhart: Okay. I think we all agree oD that then. I guess one comment directed at Moon Valley's attorney regarding all these costs. I guess my 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 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 impose 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 is 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 it jumps back to 12. On page 4 there. What is that? Is that a mistype? Is that next one 14 or what? Krauss: Oh yeah. Erhart: Okay. The question that I have, it's not clear to me that the 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 particularly 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 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 5 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 landscaping. Satzli: Wouldn't that come under grading under a building permit which is excluded? Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 1990 - Page 44 Erhart: Well that's what I'm asking. Krauss: Not necessarily. 8atzli: 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 10t cubic yards had to go in and provide a tree survey indicating locations and types of alt 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. Planning Commission Meeting April 4, ]_990 - Page 45 Krauss: Yeah, we can do something. Erhart: I know you and Jo Ann are very reasonable but you never know who or what situation might be where that differs so. On page 5 there I think that on paragraph C, line 6, I think where it says subdivision 7-348. 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: Nell actually that does give us the authority to say we don't 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 Z think, I didn't like the comments of the neighbors that this seemed to 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 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 be 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 now 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 bl. uffs. Plannin..q Commission Meeting ¢~pril 4, 1990 - Page 46 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? Ellson: 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. Z 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 . 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? KraLlSS: I don't know. Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 1990 - Page 47 blildermuth: 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 has remained idle since the topsoil removal. Emmings: They've stripped off the topsoil but haven't yet gotten to the business of... !4ildermuth: Haven't mined anything. 3ust 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. ~ildermuth: 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? Ernmings: 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. Satzli: 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 it 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. Satzli: Well I agree. I just didn't think that added anything and I was confused. Wildermuth: Probably excavating. Satzli: I think in the permit required section, 7-32 on the next page, we 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? ~4ildermuth: 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 aD 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 9oing 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? Krau. ss' No. Batzli: Do we call it interim use permits? Krauss' Yes. Right. Bat. zli: 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 paYagraph B(4)(d) on page 4. The small (d) there. Something 3ust 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. ~4ould that be something that should be required or would otherwise be required under this ordinance since they're going to be disturbing the 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 plan 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 Z 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 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 as 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 ~uttin~ it in there doesn't hurt. Emmings: I suggested that last time and Roger didn't put it in there. 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't bring up anything I brought up last time. Batzli: I guess since we weren't privy to why some things were in and were out, some of this is kind of rehashing things. Emmings: I think it's a good thing to do. Planning Commission Meeting April 4, 1990 - Page 50 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 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 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 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 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. Batzli: Okay. And so then the question is whether can the City Engineer then couldn't extend that anyway under the ordinance or could he? Krauss: 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. Batzli: 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 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. 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. Erhart: Then why not define that event up front? Krauss: Well you're doing that when you're approving their plan. Batzli: 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 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. 01sen: Annual review. Batzli: Yes. So then my first sentence would read, which I haven't 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 approval. Okay. Under 7-41. ~4e're stating that the City, letter of credit acceptable to the City in the amount of costs complying with the a.~reement which is right in the middle of that block, 7-41. Z think we should clarify who's setting the costs, etc. in this particular paragraph PLanning Commission Heeting ~,pril 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, as 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 of 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. $o 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 Council in any event. I would also add at the end of that paragraph that the City 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 by 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 be reviewed at least annually during the review. Last b-ut not least, well it's probably least. 7-45, paragraph H, well it's 8. Paragraph 8 on page 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 people 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 talking here about dust, smoke and fumes, bJe've talked about noise in a different 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 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. ~4hat's a fume? What's a smoke? You catch a whiff of d.eisel. I don't know. It's kind of transient. Noise we regulate elsewhere. Batzli: Yep. I agree. But I guess here we say operations shall cease 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. Otherwise I agree with Steve. Conrad: I have nothing to add. The change in the ordinance I think makes it more flexible. I think the changes this time that have been incorporated are to my liking. Planning Commission Meeting f~.pril 4, 1990 - Page 52 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 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. 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 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. Batzli: 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 can be when it comes out of the chute. Erhart: Since you've offered most the changes, are you comfortable voting on 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. Batzli: Nell 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 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 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. Conrad: 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 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. Batzli: Cumlatively in a 12 month period, yeah. Wildermuth: I don't have a problem with that. Emmings: 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 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. Conrad' So you agree with Brian's? P_tannin.g Commission Heeting ApriL 4, 1990 - Page 53 Emmi~qgs: 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. :1: am at a loss on number 9. I really don't understand what that is 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. Haybe 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 du¥ipg the period of the permit. During the period of the permit. Corlrad: Landscape plan. Emmi]Jgs: 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. ~e'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. lot of it I didn't understand Brian. You'll have to explain it to me. Hike Dwyer: There was a due process consideration brought up in 7-41 with respect to the letter of credit. Conrad: Yeah, right. That made a lot of sense and I didn't think anybody 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. Hike 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 Ordina~ce ~mending Chapter 7 and Chapter 20 of the Chanhasse~ City Code 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 Satzli: 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 Planning Commission Heeling April 4, 1990 - Page 55 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 at 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 little 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 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 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 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 blending 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 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? 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 the 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 alternatives are. With that I would notify everybody who would be affected by that. Erhart: The property owners being the hotel and... 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. Planning Commission Heeling April 4, 1990 - Page 56 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 ma. ke 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 177 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 Stockdate'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? P_tanning Commission Meeti~qg Ap¥il 4, ;[990 - Page 57 Erhart moved, Nildermuth seconded to adjourn the meetlng. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim