Loading...
1990 08 15CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 15, 1990 Chairman conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Jim Wildermuth and Joan Ahrens MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner One; Charles Folch, Asst. City Engineer; and Dave Hempel, Enginner Technician PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CELLULAR TELEPHONE FACILITY (ANTENNA TOWER AND EQUIPMENT BUILDING) ON PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND EQUATED JUST EAST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND THE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD, MINNEAPOLIS SMSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. Name Address .......................... ~... Bill Miller Craig Hart ington A. H. Michels Bernie Wong Jerry Gustafson David Hellerman Robert Davis Lloyd L. Quinton James Frady Ed Hasek Mary Harrington 812i Pinewood, Timberwood 8140 Maplewood Terrace, Timberwood 247-3rd Avenue So., Minneapolis, MN 7128 Bristol Blvd. 8341Galpin Blvd. 2112 Minnehaha Ave. So., Minneapolis 5612 Brookview Avenue, US West NewVector 2421-161st Avenue S.E., Bellevue, WA 6720 Southcrest, Edina, US West NewVector 6570 Kirkwoo'd Circle 8140 Maplewood Terrace, Timberwood Paul Krauss presented the staff report. Ladd Conrad called the public hearing to order. Bill Buehl: Mr. Chairman, my name is Bill Buehl. I'm with the planning firm of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban and we represent US West New Vector Group which is the general partner of the Minneapolis SMSA Limited Partnership. I brought with me some slides that I would like to use in my presentation. I think it will make my presentation go faster instead of trying to use these boards. What I'd like to do first is to review what cellular telephone service is because many of the technical aspects of this telephone service impact on where we can locate this antenna so I'm going through this only to illustrate why we need to locate the antenna where we are proposing to locate it now. US West was created from the break up of AT & T and I'll show you this just to show you the market area of the US West New Vector. This is a slide showing the electromagnetic spectrum. I show you this because I understand there was some comment on the concerns that there might be interference with this antenna with other frequency users. As you can see on the slide, the cellular phone frequency is that Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 2 little green ban over on the left and that indicates that it's at a higher frequency than all the television and radio channels. What this means from an electromagnetic spectrum perspective is that cellular phones will not interfere with those users that in lower frequency. However, it's possible sometimes 'that these lower frequency users will interfere with the cellular phone so it's really our problem and we can solve that with filters. should also say that with me are many members from US West New Vector Group so we have construction engineerings and operations people with me and if you have detailed questions, I'd refer them to those people but I~m trying to kind of give you a fly over of some of the technology. Cellular is very different than the conventional mobile telephone systems. This slide shows a conventional system in a metropolitan area. The old way was to find the highest building you could find like the IDS building. Put your antenna on top and serve your users in a large, cover the metropolitan area with one antenna. The drawback where you couldn't serve as very many users. The cellular system gets it's name from the creation of cells that are laid in a grid pattern across the metropolitan area. The reason that the cellular system can handle more calls is not because of the quality of radios but because of the magic of computers. Each one of these cells is created by an antenna in tine middle of each cell. Each cell can handle about 25 simultaneous calls. As you get into the interior of the metropolitan area~ all you need to do is make your cells smaller. They still handle 25 simultaneous calls and you can get down to where your cells might only be 2 or 3 blocks in an area. We're not at that point now. The Chanhassen site is dealing with an area in Minneapolis out in this area. So that's where the name comes from. The way it works, maybe you already know this or you have a phone in your car or a hand held phone. When you're within range of the antenna that's in the cell, then you can talk to the system. The system then can talk to any phone in the world so you can be standing out in the field or in your tractor or in your car and talk 'to any other landline phone or any other cellular phone in the world as long as you're near an antenna and }nave coverage. As you move from cell to cell, the computers automatically switch you to the antenna that can give you the best reception. $o this is the cellular phones from a series of cells across the metropolitan area. The importance of this is that the cellular grid system gives a blueprint. There's a blueprint of the Grid system of the metropolitan area. The importance of that Grid system is that it allows us to build the least amount of antennaes and therefore have the least amount of land use impacts. If we cannot place a cell antenna where we need it, then we may have to go find two other sites to cover the one coverage area that we could have done with one site if we have to move the antenna. So that's the importance of the cell system. This shows the system that's currently built by US West New Vector in the metropolitan area. I don't think we're Going to Get much out of this graph but here's St. Paul. Here's Minneapolis. This is the area that US West New Vector Group and Cell One, by Federal law there }]ave to be two carriers, are licensed. In one aspect, these little red dots show existing antennaes that are up in the Twin Cities area. US West New Vector has about 33 at the present, time and the one important aspect of the license is that in order to retain the license, US West New Vector must fill out their coverage area so we're Getting a lot of pressure to hold our license. We must fill out our coverage area. $o that's where the pressure is coming from. And this is a mature system where we have antennaes in all your cells and you }nave complete coverage. In the Twin Cities we don't have Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 3 complete coverage in every area. Me have some coverage but not all these covered so we are trying to fill in some of this grid that we need to fill. in in order to fill out our coverage area. And in order to locate the cell many aspects are taken into account. Topography is very important. Existing towers. Especially AM towers. We have to be aware of all frequency and airwaves that are being used. We look at existing water tanks if He can. There's one very close in this search area. However Cell One already had that water tower and we could not locate it there because of the interference problems so many factors are taken into account and exactly what's in that cell, where we're going to locate the this area here, a close up of that map I showed you earlier that you couldn't read very well. We have existing antennaes in Shakopee, Shorewood, and out by Cologne. Now we have coverage problems in here because of the terrain. This is a topographic map. You can see t'hat it is a very hilly area and you're well aware of that living here but we needed to locate a cell inbetween these two and drift this way a little bit and this is the area that it was very clear that this was the place that the cell had to be located. This shows the search area. The more exact map of where our engineers and where the computer indicated where we needed to locate the antenna. This circle shows only where the antenna needs to be located. The coverage area would be much larger of course so you can see that it's centered right here in this agricultural area. The city of Chaska here. The city of Chanhassen over here. We had another factor in this in that we could not work with United Telephone who owns the land line system on this side of the solid black line. We had to stay in the US West service area with our antenna. We need to hook up this system to a land lock system to transmit to all the landlock phones so again it shifted the search area right into this area and it's a very small area as almost all our search areas are. Once the search area is decided and a specific site is chosen, as in this case a specific site was chosen on the Volk property, more tests need to be done to get a more exact equipment proposals. In this case the height of the tower. The number of...type of antenna were all factors that need to be finalized. For this application we were under the impression that 125 feet was going to be tall enough to give us effective coverage. We had to get our application in on by a deadline l believe August 7th but we could not have our final engineering runs done by that time. Now we learned in just this past week that our engineers are · telling us the most effective size would be 175 feet so I'm asking that we can amend our application for a conditional use permit to go to the 175 feet instead of 125 feet. The reason for that is we just couldn't get enough... So here is a picture of the coverage area. I'd like to get some notes over here. I don't know if you've driven by this area. This is looking basically northeast. Much of the search area is shown by this slide. You can see it's agricultural in nature. There are some larger lot developments to the north. That's Ridgewood and to the east. Krauss: Timberwood. Bill Buehl: I'm sorry, Timberwood and the one to the east was. Krauss: Sunridge Court. Bill Buehl: But the site does meet all of the local zoning requirements. It is in an agricultural district. The orange area shows the ag district. Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 4 The pink areas are in this case industrial districts~ Nc'Ye in an ag district where this type of facility is permitted by conditional use as Paul told you. Also, Section 20-919 requires that telephone equipment buildings be landscaped. Have a hard surfaced driveway and meet all setbacks which we do with this proposal. This is a site plan of our 2 1/2 acre site. These are existing trees ~Jhich will stay. These are trees that we propose to plant in a landscaping plan. This is the building and this is the tower right here. On this plan we were still operating under the proposal of 125 foot tower which easily meets the setbacks for tower height setbacks. The setbacks are supposed to be equal to the tower height by the ordinance unless it can be shown that the tower collapses in a proCressive manner and in this case, this is a self support tower. But if we go to the 175 foot tower, we're still, we have a 330 x 330 x 330 parcel. We would only be 10 feet over the line if it were to fall in a straight line. These towers don't fall in a straight line. It's a self support tower and it's much stronger than a guide tower and if the tower ever would fail, if it would take a direct hit from a tornado or some other great catastrophic event such as that and even then if it failed, they're built to go over instead of falling over. One link that's not quite as strong as the rest and the tower .just crumples on itself. So still we could meet the setback of the requirements even with the 175 foot tower on the parcel that we have at this time. I need to go through the compliance and issuance of standards of a conditional use permit. I'll do this as quickly as I can. I'd like to show the distance away from the surrounding structures. This is an aerial that 1 inch equals 200 foot aerial photo. Our site is here. Can everybody see that? It's probably hard to see. The closest buildin~ is across in the industrial park~ It is 1,050 feet awa¥. This is the closest structure. The closest residence is 1,100 feet away so we're fairly far away from any existin~ structure. The standard is that the facility will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety~ comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood. A~ain this is a safe structure. It's a tower that is one of the safest built. It is a self supporting. I do have a letter from the manufacturer of the tower that outlines the collapsing pattern~ I saw in our packet that we submitted that we had submitted a letter regarding a guide tower. This letter regards the self support tower and should be entered. The ne×t standard, the cellular facility will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan. The only comprehensive plan in force at this time is the 2000 plan which still earmarks this as agricultural. That's the only guide that ~e could go by for this project so we are a permitted conditional use in an agricultural zone so again this is the current plan. It's zoned agricultural and the comprehensive plan zones this as agricultural. Even if this was a residential zone, as Paul eluded to~ it's my interpretation of the Statute that it's still a conditional use. I'd like to pass these out to all the members. Mr. Chair if I may. This is an abstract of your ordinance given telephone equipment buildings~ There's 3 parts of the ordinance that I'd like to address. First of all, Section 20 at the top. 20-919 provides a telephone equipment buildings are allowed in all zoning districts as a conditional use~ That includes residential, ag, industrial, every zone so in this case, this is a telephone equipment building. It has telephone switching and cellular telephone radio that will be in the building. /his is what it looked like~ And also the next Section 20-915 allows antennaes shall be permitted as accessory uses withim all zoning districts so we have a telephone equipment Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 5 building and then an antenna as an accessory use of that building permitted in all districts. Permitted under a conditional use permit so even if this was a residential area, we would still be here going through this same process which is an application for a conditional use permit. The next standard that I need t.o address is that the facility will be designed, constructed and operated and maintained so it will be compatible with the appearance of existing intended character of the general vicinity. Again this is this area. The essential character of this area is formulated by the railroad tracks, the county highway, the ag land and the many industriai uses across the road. This tower will have a thin profile as you can see here and many times after these towers are up, they aren't noticed by people in the area. I think Paul eluded to that in the Minnet. onka area. In fact I challenge you to when you go to work tomorrow or look around where you live. If you start looking up, you'll start noticing many antennaes you didn't know where there and we've had many people tell us about that experience. The top of the tower will look more like this. This is the antenna ray that we'll be using instead of the one I showed earlier. This dish will not be there. This is a Cell One antenna at. Baker Road and 494. This one is 160 feet right off 494. I'm sure many of you drive by this as you drive into to~n to go to work or other uses. The facility, the next standard, the facility will not be hazardous or disturb existing or planned neighborhood use. Cellular is a very low powered system. This graph shows the millowatts per square centimeter which is this power density measure. This is the American National Science Institute standard of what's a safe level of exposure to these millowatts per square meter. It's just again a higher density measurement. As you can see, Cellular has a very iow powered system. Your cordless phone, the ones you can use in your home right now with an antenna on inside your house, has more power density than Cellular phone. Hand held CB has more than twice as much. You're in much more danger if you stand 2 feet from your micro~ave oven in your kitchen than you will experience from this cellular. The next standard is the cellular facility will be served adequately by streets, police, fire protection. Conrad: Bill, excuse me. ~ lot of these staff is in support so you're telling u.s stuff that they've already agreed. Bill 8uehl: But they don't agree with some things. Conrad: And I think you should hit those but the ones where you're in agreement, you know. Bill Buehl: Okay. Well I'd like to enter my presentation into the record but I'll skip over those parts. Okay, I'll skip down to the surrounding property values. Is there any more questions on the site plan? I'll skip over that part Mr. Chair if you desire. Conrad: The only thing that I'd suggest is you're saying that you meet the setbacks and you don't based on the height of the tower that you're now proposing. Bill 8uehl: At 125 or 1757 Conrad: At 175 you don't. Planning Commission Neeting August 15, 1990 - Page 6 Bill Buehl: Well we would because your ordinance allows less setback if it can be shown that the tower collapses in a progressive manner. Conrad: And you didn't did you? Sill Bueh]_: Yes. This tower if it fails, it goes over...the letter. Conrad: I read that and I guess I didn't get that same feeling. Bill Bueh].: Or the property simply needs to be expanded to 350 by 350 wi]ich the owner is willing to do so we're only 20 feet off. Conrad: But at this point in time, I guess I wasn't persuaded that you met that. Paul? KTauss: Mr. Chairman, clearly they're information in that regard could have been more timely but I've worked with similar towers in the past and I've seen films that have shown towers that have gone through tornadoes and they do snap in the middle and just fold over. In the past I've construed that to be consistent with that collapsing progressively designation. Bill Buehl: I might also add that the greatest and massive part of this tower is in the ground. There's very massive footings that go very deep into the ground with tons and tons of cement 'that holds it in place so I think we've met the requirement for the setback. Again, if needed we can expand the amount of property so that it doesn't go, even in a straight line scenario, it would be on the property. Then I'd like to address the depreciation of surrounding property values. The staff report indicated that the proposed residential development around this site would be deterred by this 'tower. I think 'there are many examples around the Twin Cities where people have built houses almost underneath taller antennaes. This is an array of antennaes in Eagan. These houses were built after the antennaes were constructed and you can see they're very much in full view of the antennaes. In this case, this is a picture taken looking north towards the residences. We tried to get as low as we could to show you what the view would be above these trees. This tree is about 112 feet so we're about half again higher than that tree. But still you can see that the closest residence is one in these trees, cannot see the 'tower. The closer you are if you have trees around it~ of course you can't see the antenna. By the time you can start seeing the antenna, you're far enough away where it would be just a very thin line on the horizon. Again the areas in the Twin Cities, okay this is White Bear Township where new housing developments are going up right next to a tower much taller than the one we're proposing and very much within view. Also in our packet you included a letter from Peter Patchin that did a study for us on..~tower and is very conclusive that the presence of antennaes does not depreciate the value of residential or industrial property. Again there's another picture showing houses that are very close to that tower in Eagan which is a much higher tower and transmitter facili%y and these are much newer houses that were built there after the antenna was put up. Are there any questions? I'd like t.o reserve the right to respond to comments..~ Conrad: We usually always let that happen, yes. Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 7 Bill Buehl: Thank you. Conrad: Thank you Bill. It is a public hearing. Are there any other comments? Bill Miller: Most of these came up while he was speaking so they're not goin¢g to be very well done in order or anything like that. Conrad: Why don't you give us your name. Bill Miller: My name is Bill Miller. I live at 8121 Pinewood Circle in Chanhassen. I ~uess I just have some questions. You said there was no effect on television or radio reception. Is that within a certain distance or absolutely none? You're not going to start seeing lines on your television or something like that? Bill Buehl: Absolutely none. Mr. Chair, I'd like to defer that question to 'the engineers that are here from US West. This is Dave Hellerman, the Operations Manager in Minneapolis. Dave Hellerman: As far as interference, no. There is none. We have a lot of sites, we've never had any complaints. Interference with television or anything like 'that. Bill Miller: How about cordless telephones? Dave Hellerrnan: No. They operate on a much lower frequency. They're even more immune than television. Bill Miller: Okay. I guess the next question is, how do you determine the height? Why does it have to be 125, 175 and along that same line, why can't it be 60? Are there alternatives where you could put a 40 foot tower up if it costs twice as much? That type of thing~ You can put a 50 foot tower on your roof but you can go out and buy a power antenna for your roof too that's a lot shorter. Dave Hellerman: Let me explain. The first order of magnitude for the tower is how large a circle we need to cover~ Obviously the higher it gets the larger the coverage circle you'i1 get. In this case we have some problems because of the hilliness of the terrain which Bill mentioned. I'm sure you're all aware of that. That's one of the things that makes this property residential area, and there are some holes that don't get filled very well. Some low spots. That hilly terrain. It's beautiful. It's difficult to get radio waves across the perimeter so that when we started doing a specific program that. does estimates of the signals strength every 100 feet~ On a 100 foot grid and it found too many holes at 125 feet to get the kind of thorough coverage that we need so people when they're drivin~ along in their cars up and down don't lose our signal. We just found that we needed a little more than we originally thought. The crude estimates that we started with. Bill Miller: Sort of going down the same line. Is the alternative to have several 50 footers then? I mean are there alternatives to putting up a 175 foot site? I mean if you're in a city, you've got all these cells getting Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 8 srna].le'~- and smaller all the time~ [)ave Hellerman: Yes, we certainly could get the same coverage with a lot of ,50 foot towers. It would be, I'd have to see a map but it'd probably be on the order of 8 to 10 short towers and then we~ve got 8 to 10 facilities and we have to multiply the equipment by 8 to 10. The whole thing .just gets. Bill Miller: I understand. I just wondered is it possible. Dave Hellerman: In theory, yes. It is possible. Bill Miller: Okay, and then another question. If the pace of technology and cellular te].ephone seems to be changing pretty quickly in general and don't, know a lot about it but I know a little bit about it and you know, for the next question is, ho~ about the timing of what you're doing. Why are we needing te do this right now? I know you said you had to fill out },our charter or whatever it was to fill out your area. ~hat is tile exact timing of when you have to fill that out? Is it next month? Is it a year? Is it 19997 20147 And why do you have to do it right now? Bill guehl: It's October, 1990. Bill Miller: So why did this come up so short, all of a sudden then if it's that near term? 8i1.[ Buehl: We would have liked it. Bill Miller: $o by October, 1990 if you don't have something set in this cell you're going to lose something? Bill Buehl: Well we need to fill out our coverage.~. Mary Harrington: What happens if you don't? Bill guehl: Then the, I guess the FCC would review our license but we're pretty much... Bill Miller: What about all these other areas that you showed not being. Bill Buehl: We have some coverage. Shakopee. Bill Miller: Yeah, that's what I was assuming. 8il]. Buehl: Right. There is. Bill Miller: $o if you didn't put this up, you're not going to lose anything? Bill Buehl: You'll have poor coverage and no capacity. Dave Hellerman: There's a percentage criteria and I think you know, this isn't the only thing we're doing. We have you know quite a few projects that we're working on simultaneously. This is just one of them. Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 -- Page 9 8il.]. Miller: I'm just trying to see the criticality of this issue. I'm trying to understand. Okay. Dave Hellerman: We've been working on this for quite a while. It's not something that came up yesterday that we have to do tomorrow. Bi].] Miller: Okay but when he said Oct~ober, it sounded like all of a sudden. You know we're August. That's only 2 months. That sounded pretty serious. What is the area that's going to be served currently by this tower and how ].cng is it going to last before you need another one? Dave Hellerman: This tower will serve approximately a 3 mile radius. Again there's some terrain considerations but that's roughly speaking, about, a 3 mile radius. Bill Miller: And how many concurrent users is it going to be capable of? Bill 8uehl: You've got 25 simultaneous calls, Bill Miller: Is that based on the equipment on the ground and then you can add additional units on the ground with one tower? I mean is it going to ge 25, 50, 75 or are you going to have to have more towers? Dave Hellerman: We can expand this up to the point where' it would cover about 50 calls roughly. Maybe a little more than that. That of course depends on the technology. There is technology today on the horizon that might allow us to serve a lot more calls without any physical change in the structure. That's what we're hoping. Bill Miller: So how long is this, when are you going to reach the 50 then? What is your plan say? When do you really need this facility right here and when is it going te be filled up? Dave Hellerman: The rate of growth ef our whole industry is beyond, this whole industry has existed about 6 years. ]'he rate of growth is surprising to all of us at various times you know so roughly speaking, and again without knowing what the future holds, we're doubling our capacity every 18 months. Something like that. I wish I could give you better estimates but it's all... Bill Miller: I understand. So what do you do in 18 months? What happens in ~8 months? Dave Hellerman: Well we will be adding other cells. Whether the focus will be out here as much as in the city is something that we have yet to deter~,~ine. I'll point out one other item that is important to us in that it gives some extra urgency to this particttlar project is the U.S. Open coolf tournament is being held down the road next spring and that adds a little extra. That's certainly not the sole reason 'for putting our building in but it did put up the flags that we needed the capacity here. Those kinds of events put a lot of users on this. Bill 8uehl: Bill, I'd just like to say one thing about... I tried making a call right up there by the HcGlynn's Bakery site and my phone didn't Planning Commission HeeLing August 15, ~.990- Page 10 ~ork. Couldn't get out of the area because we didn't, have the capacity. S~_ll ~lilJ. er: kJell LhaL happens to me everytime I go to LA t. oo. That's nothing ne~. I kno~ but that's not some deficiency right here. That's nothing to do ~,~ith Chanhassen. Dave t4eJ. lerraan: . ..k~e're not al~,Jays perfect and kJe do the best ~.4e can. Bill Miller: Why not use the Chaska ~ater to,er or something existing already that, high ~,~ith something smaller and less noticeable? Is there some problem ~,~ith that? Bill Buehl: Because Cell One is already on that tokJer. That's their antenna right next to it. Bill Miller: Where? In Chaska? Bill Buehl: Yeah, the Chaska to,er. Bill M~ller: Ho~.~ about the one, do we have a ~ater to~,~er right up here somek~here don't ~e? Is something ~arong ~ith this one or does that tnave somebody on it already? Conrad: That's outside the area. ~i].l Puehl: It's outside the. search area. Bill Hiller: So that search area literally had to be that little 1,000 square foot piece of land? What if something was already there? ~4hat if that ~,.~as already a big building? Harm Flarrington: ...everybody's done back here, what would you have done then? Bill Buehl: We'd have to go through the conditional use permit in that district. Bill Miller: What if there ~as one big plant there? Do you put one right up in the middle of a plant? Bill Buehl: Oh yeah. We have many antenna sites right on top of the roof~ 8ill Hiller: So you'd pop it right on top of somebody? Bill Buehl: And we also have sites currently in South Minneapolis in a vory tense residential area. Bill Miller: You mentioned you couldn't make a deal or something like that ~ith US Telephone Lo move it otherwise. What ~as the problem there? Bill Buehl: I 'm not sure of the details. I just kno~ that it. ~,~as out of the question. Mary Harrington: Based on your side or based on their side? Planl-~ing Commission Nesting August ~.5, ~990 - Page 11 8ill Buehl: I don't kno~ the details. Bill Miller: Why couldn't you get the... 8ill Bueh.].: Most of our search area was in the US West Telephone service area ar~yway . Bill Miller: I'm just trying to see why. 8ill 8uehl: These are good qwestions. I can understand your concern. 8i].1 Miller: I guess I have a question for someone up here. What does conditional use permit mean? Is that going te take toe long te understand? Conrad~ It just means we have conditions. Basically they can't have something unless they meet the conditions. 8ill Miller: Does that mean that you have the po~er to stop this if you choose to? Conrad: If they don't meet the conditions. 8ill Hiller: Okay. Are the conditions, the conditions that exist 'the day they ap~ly for it or can conditions be changed? I ~m just ~ondering. Conrad: There's some vagueness in the conditions. 8ill Miller: I have a couple more. Am I taking too much time? Conrad: Go ahead. 8ill Hiller: I saw Hhat the tower looked like. When you put up that picture of that one I guess you said was near 494. How tall was that? Bill 8uehl: I believe, Paul you'd kno~. 1607 Krauss: The one that I'm familiar with off of Baker Road's 185 feet tall~ It sits down in kind of a sully. 8ill 8uehl: I don't really know. Bill Miller: I just want to make sure that He're looking at something that's really what we're going to see. You say there are no health affects or safet, y affects and you're certain that that tower wouldn't hit an extra 10 feet and smash a car going do~n the road down that 10 foot side? 8ill 8uehl: I'd like to refer the letter that I submitted. I think it's pretty clear in there. Dave Hellerman: It takes a pretty severe natural event., lhey don't just fall over. If it were, and it's a long shot to go over. 8ill Miller: ~ell I understand that but bridges do fall in once in a while and things de happen en occasion. PLanning Comrnissi. on Hosting August 2,5, 1990 - Page 12 Dave Hellerman: It would be during a tornado or something like that ~Jhich you. would...warning. Bill. Mil, let: Don't we have tornadoes around here sometimes? 3ust kidding. The area that's going to be served by this you said was 3 miles? Dave Hellerman: Roughly. Bill Fliller: So somebody in Minneapolis isn't going to ever be using something like. It's not something that could be used for a distant or someone ~aho's in a Shakopee cell would never be tacked onto this one or something like that? Dave Hellerman: The idea of cellular is to limit the coverage of each cell :Bo you can reuse the previous...so our goal ,is to limit it to where it has to... Bill Buehl: I'd like to add that the cell will service the local community as rnuch as users of TH 5 and the new planned TH 2~2. I believe they're very close te the coverage itself and cellular phones have become more and more popular and they're becoming an important factor that people consider ~,Jhen they look for a place to live .... developments I've heard talked about ill this area are the houses are...cellular phone~ Maybe you use cellular phones yourself. Bill Miller: No I don't. Bill Buehl: They're becoming more and more popular and they're going to be used for much more than voice transmission and if you don't have the circuitry in place. There are many appliances that you can plug into this circu, it and it's like saying that cellular phones are for voice transmissions like that on the computer... Many, many uses coming down the pike that circuitry... Conrad: Anything else Bill? Bill Miller: I think I'm about done. I'm just checking my long list here~ Oh, and one last one. The trees in that little area. You said they were 112 feet tall? Bill Buehl: Yes, Bill Miller: That's not elevation of the trees there were 112 feet tall? Bill 8uehl: Right. The power posts, that whole string of high power lines, those vary, They're around 100. Some are a little bit taller. Some are a little bit shorter. They're between 95 and Bill Miller: Okay. As far as a couple of other things I guess~ The fact that they're not noticed. I guess I'd make a point obviously that if under the comprehensive plan homes are built tbere~ it's definitely 8oin8 to be noticed by someone that's much closer. Maybe if you're 2~000 feet away you don~t notice it every minute. I don't notice the Chaska water tower every day but people come visit us always ask us about it but if it were a block Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 -', Page 13 alway, you'd certainly notice it I would think. Or half a block or 2 blocks or 3 biocks~ As far as decline of property values, I guess you can do all sorts of studies t.o prove numbers but ~ guess ~'d just make the point that it has some effects, I can tell you ~ probably wouldn't buy a house thaL was right next t.o one which would certainly lower t,h~ potential value of that house. I guess I would agree with Paul's recommendation at least now t.o deny it and at least give time to investigate some o~ these things which I would like to investigate to make sure some of these things are accurate, I'm not denying that they are. I just want to look into it and see and to consider some of these other items and go without validating some of these things. I don't think it's consistent with the land use we talked about at th~) last comprehensive plan and it might also affect property values and tax values of whatever has to be put in there. That's all, Thank you. Conrad: Ttaanks Bill. Are there other comments? Mary Harrington: Hi. I'm Mary Harrington and I live up in Timberwood and I have the highest piece of property in Timberwood too and you bet your hippy I could see it. if they put it over there. Z'm about a quarter mile north of them. Of the 84 people who signed the petition for the surrounding area to be included as single family residential~ if you will remember that month and a half ago~ whenever it was~ the petition was presented that affected the area of that. Almost 50~ of the folks were not from the Timberwood area but of the one~ that are from the Timberwood area. and the ones that are down on Galpin. I had a chance to speak to Nrs~ Jerome Carlson and the Gustafson's and a few other folks. Some of these folks are on vacation at. this moment. Oh~ and some of them were very disgruntled and frustrated but did not wish to show up. Gotten apathetic here I guess but Mrs. Carlson said that if there's a petition out~ that she wishes to sign it to the effect that we are not interested in having a tower that at the t. ime~ you know 125 feet. I own a 2 story house and so I said my 2 story house is 24 feet tall so if ~ piled up 5 of my houses: Z would be that height of that tower. Now I've got to pile up 7 of them and ~ said that's nothing that I want in the surrounding area. I think it's not consistent with the housing area. There is some conditional use grandfathered in. Items across the street from it which nobody wishes to see go industrial in that little area either which is south of Jerome Carlson. The Gustafson's who are the closest property to this one, when they found out about it they did not get any notification on it and they didn't read the paper~ they were appalled at the thought. They did not wish to see it either because I mean it's obviously visually going to be noticeable and it .just doesn't seem compatible and the houses, I mean there's no way you're going to sit and put landscaping around this thin9 and block it off. I mean it's just too tall and I'd like to see this put into an area where the existing area is industrial existing at the present. Where something like this should belong. Conrad: Okay. Any comments? Jerry Gustafson: Can I speak from here? Conrad: Yeah. PLanning Commission Meeting Augu. st 15, 1990 - Page 14 3erry Gustafson: Yeah. I would like to address Mrs, Harrington and say that the Gustafson's. Conrad: As long as you give us your name and address. Jerry Gustafson: Jerry Gustafson. Hary Harrington: I spoke to your wife. Jerry Gustafson: And that we're not apathetic. [flary Harrington: Your ~.gife was appalled. Jerry Gu. stafson: I have a couple of questions. Number one is, you know the tallest fewer in Idinneapolis years age ~4as the FOshay lek,er so it's just full of antennaes. Rlhy isn't there room for one more antenna cfi the ~,~at. er te~4er there in Chaska? Is one antenna, does that fill it up? 8ill 8uehl: Yeah, in this case it's way over on the edge of the search area. I don't think that ~4ater tower is in the search area. It's also in the United Telephone's district and I believe Cell One has the antenna right next to it and we would interfere with one another on the same frequency ban. You can't be that close. So k~e can't locate there because ef frequency interference and telephone phone lines...prohibition. ,¢:ould much rather be on the water tower if we caf]. We would rather riot have to build a tower structure. Jerry Gustafson: I would think that would be ideal for you on the water to~4er . Bill guehl: And ~e are on many water toHers. Jerry Gustafson: The other thing is, I have a hand held telephone and I can call from like Hopkins to my home and I have no problem in reception or k.~hatever, t,Jhy do we need a nek.~ to~er right there? You can get into that little small area that you've got. Bill Buehl: I'm not sure what kind of telephone. Jerry eustafson: t.lotorola that I just hold. There's no antenna on the car or anything. Just hold it. Bill 8uehl: I should maybe let Dave answer that. Dave Hellerman: There are some areas where we have coverage problems in the area here. I can go through them on the map... The other thing is, as the system expands, we need more and more cells to provide the same quality of coverage as there are more and more u. sers because what happens is you have more and more users en the same frequency and unless we have antennaes close te the users in this area, they won't be able to get the same int,:~rference free reception. That's kind ef the growth we were discussing.. !,,Jo were discussing growth. So as we have more users, we need more sites te maintain the same quality of service. Planning Commission Meeting ¢'~ugust. ;iE,, 1990 - Page 15 Jerry Gustafson: It. doesn't matter how many users you've got. The same site ,¢,Jill handle as many... Dave Hellerman: No. There's a limit on a site. Between 30 and 50 depending on how it's been figured internally. The site ~on't support an infinit, e number of users. Jerry Gust. arson: So you're counting on a number of more users using telephones to call into that area and that's ~hy you need the tower? Dave Hellerman: I't's users in that area ~,~ho want to use their portable or mobile telephone like yours. People can call land lines in that area. that what you're, or am I misunderstanding you? ~il]. Buehl: Mr. Gustafson, do you have a cellular phone? This Motorola., is that a cellular? Jerry Gustafson: Yeah. Bill ~;uehl: ~nct you're saying that when you're home you can call. Jerry Gustafson: No. Like ~hen I'm in Hopkins ~here I work, I can call, when I leave, from inside my car and there's no antenna on the car or anything and I have no problem calling home. It's nice and clear. Dave hlellerman: That's going on the ~ires to your home. That's on the telephone wires into your home. I mean you're in Hopkins. Jerry Gustafson: No, no. I'm calling from inside my car. Dave Heilerman: Right. But the connection into your horne...that's on wires in this area. Ellson: The antenna's in Hopkins then? Dave He].lerman: The antenna is close to where he's calling. Ellson: ~hat you need is the antenna from where you're placing the call from. Dave Hellerman: Right. From where you're serving the cellular telephone, correct. I apologize if I misunderstood. Jerry Gustafson: Well the only other comment I guess I'd like t.o make I know people build houses next to objectionable sites and I don't understand ~4hy they do that. Put a $200,000.00 home next to a swamp or something. I don't kno~ but to put something there that is objectional and then offer a residential area, you kno~ put $200,000.00 homes on it, I don't ttnink ~ould be... I just don't think... Conrad: Good. Thanks for your comments. Other comments? Craig Harrington: I've just got a couple of quick questions. Craig Harrington. MapleMood Terrace in Timber~ood Estates. ~ couple of Planning Commission Meeting August. 15, 1990 - Page 16 cluestJons that I have that, my concern that, I don't have a cellular phone but I'd probably like one and hope maybe someday to maybe get one and I see the technology is something that's growing and needed but with that ~ have a concern that 5 years 'Fworn nob~ and Bill, some of the other uses that you use for this like computers and things like this, are we going down 'the line and I guess these axe the concernm that I have and the hesitency that T have saying that the City should endorse something like this. Axe we going to be staring at a 200 foot towex ox a 300 foot towex 5 years from now or multip],e towers on that site? And then perhaps incxeasing power or morneLhJ, ng ].ike that ox maybe other uses fox tob~exs that may be coming into play ~here intexfexence could be a factor. The xeal concexn I have t. hexe v,~as~ T ~,.~a's in a iaorne one time that was next to the ones on 35-W in Bloomington. My goodness, I walked into that home and just went down into the basement. I'm a real estate appxaisex and walked through the basement and the pipes were literally singing countxy western music and it really was a concern. I know that you appxoach this ~hole axea that this is not something that's going to intexfexe but I guess maybe right at this moment it isn't but is i~ going to sometime in the futuxe and I guess that's my concern. I don't, think anybody can maybe guarantee unless you xeally have some ~echnology of what's going to be happening in the futuxe. Dave Hellerman: I can tell you what we do know. First of all, I used to ~.~ork at that station on 35-W a long time ago. That was before they liked country music but in any case, the nice thing about cellular system from the standpoint of your concerns is that as the system gro~s, the sites become leper and the po~er actually 9ets smaller because you want more and more smaller cells. That's ho~ b~e increase the capacity so ~hen ~e started cut building this sytem~ ~e were building to,ers of 300 to 400 feet. New in some ef the peripheral areas ~e're still doing that b~here ~e're covering for miles. Ce].ogne is 250 or 300? 485? Okay. But as ~e increase the density of our users, ~e're able to make the towers smaller and the to,acrs leper because He don't want the cells to be bigger. We want them te be 8maller and that's the direction that ~e're 8Din8 in. So that e~hile it's peseible that t. his area's growth continues at, by this area I mean Chanhassen, Chaska. If 8red, th continues like we've been seeing, ue may need more towers, they will be smaller and leper and eventually we'i1 be doin8, e~e see a dam ~hen we'll be on top of 60 foot telephone poles. Something like that.. Craig Harrington: Will higher buildings obstruct that where they may have to go higher? Dave Hellerman: No. What we're doing in areas that have a lot of buildings, we .just end up going on the rooftops. Unfortunately there are ne single buildings that...but at some point that might become a realistic ~.~ay to go but to answer you. We're not getting higher or bigger. We're getting lower and smaller as the system groHs so ! really don't see the potential for what you're concerned with. 8i].1 Miller: I have a question. Have you ever... Dave Hellerman: We are doing that. Yeah, He are currently in the middle of a program t.o do that. We actually are doing on in Arden Hills where :~.:e'].]. be putting on the shorter one ~ithin the week but we do have planning Planning Commission Meeti. ng ,z,:u,_lu....,,tc ¢., 15, 1990 - Page for the next year, there are several that we are doing that. We are going to lower thorn down, yes. We're kind of new at this too. It's a new indu. st:.ry but that is happening. C,.or~ract' Are there other comments? Anything? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing ~as closed. C:onrad' We'll go around the Planning Commission for comments. Tim~ we'll ?:;tart at your end. Nrhart' Paul, on the map, the area to the, you're concerned about future zoning. The area directly to the west of that south site~ south ef C,q I8 and north of the tracks. What's that. going to be? Krau. ss' Well this is based of course on the draft that we're going to take t.e public hearing. The way the draft is right now. Srhart' Can you draw a ].ine, where's industrial and commercial? Krauss: This area is all residential. The area that is proposed not to be and aisc this area is residential. The area that's proposed not to be are these properties here, here, here and here. Eirhart' Okay, those are all industrial. Krauss' On the current draft, yeah. ,:.~rhart: And you're basing your denial on the fact that that point down there, that penninsula is intended for residential? Krauss' Correct. Erhart' How do you weigh their interpretation of the ordinance allows th is... Krauss: Those are some of the ambiguities of the ordinance that I eluded to earlier. I think possibly Jo Ann can expand on this but several years ago there was an attempt to deal with antennaes affecting, well ham radio antennaes and satellite dishes that were the current rage and the language in there is net. as explicit as we would like it and I think can be misinterpretted and through a series of misinterpretations extended back in t. he analogy that that's being used. I think it's a real stretch and the ordip, ance also provides that where 'there's conflicts within the ordinance~ becaL/se ordinances are cumbersome anyway and there ofter are conflicts, the most restrictive determination is the one that shall apply and lastly~ based on the advice ef the City Attorney~ ! didn't get. a chance te review thio 1. asr bit of information with him yet this afternoon but ~ u~ill, but in speaking te him previously, he advised tis to clear up the ambiguities that we. knew about already in the ordinance. To clarify that and ~,e have an intent, to do so. PI. arming Commission Meeting AugL/st. 15, ].990 - Page 18 Erhart: Can you show rne what line is the ambiguity? Krauss: A couple of things. First of all when you go to telephone equipment buildings. 20-919. The intent there, and we've got the file ups'Lairs and the intent, there was to deal ~ith regulated utilities. US West. NSP. Erhart: Isn't. this regulated? Krauss: No, it is not. It's under different law. That's where, and there's a lot of misunderstanding about this. This is not an utility corr~pany. These are contracts that are up for bid in each metro area and there's two bidders ox ~o operators that. compete for competition in each area but their rates a~e not regulated. They'~e not ~equi~ed ~o have mandatory service. They're not ~equi~ed to do any of those things that. a xegu.~ated telephone company is. F~rhart.: Well, I don't want to get into that whole thing. Let's move do,~'n to Section 20-915. Where's the ambiguity there? Krauss: Okay, the ambiguity and possibly Jo Ann can explain this a little bit more. The intent, was that, this is an overlaying conditional use in the residential district., that was supposed to account for Ham radio operators. There is a sentence in there that says in all residential clist~icts only one is permitted pet lot, satellite dish, amateur ~adio antenna tower, which is fine as fat as that goes and then g~ound mounted vertical antenna. What is that? Well, unfortunately the definitions weren't adopted with the ordinance but the definitions and maybe Jo Ann can explain this. This is referring to another style of ham radio antenna tower. It's not 175 fool cellular telephone to~e~. Now at this point, the o~dinance is ambiguous and it's tough t.o explain that unless you go t. hTough the background but that was the intent. ~rhart.: Did yOU want. to get into it Jo Ann? Olsen: If yOU want me to I can. Erhart: No, I don't.. I guess I take the same position as... I think after the last meeting we are obligated no~ to... I think we have an ordinance. I think the ordinance allows, no matter how you cut it, al!ews a radio antenna in this area and for that reason alone, I disagree with your recommendation not to allow it but I think there's another point here too that I'd like to make and I think quite frankly, for the same reason that we have future proposals for rezoning this area, I think this radio sn'Lenna, considering the lo~ surface area there and the high density of landscaping, it provides a really good buffer from a future residential area from industrial so I think there's some assets. My opinion would be to, I would recommend it's approval. Conrad: You said it acts as a buffer? Erha'rt: I think it acts as a buffer, yeah. I don't think the thing is very visual at all. Cor~'~r~'~ iss ion Nesting 990 - Page o..-}nrad: So the land itself is a buffer? ~}'rhart: Yeah. I think the land itself overrides the visual impact on the tob.~er. 'fen knob~ I ,~ould prefer to have it right in an industrial area. So you could put. it on the other side ef the line, ~euld it change it that mu. ch? ..lust putting it over SO0 feet? ~nd combined with the fact that I thJ. nk the ordinance clearly allows it and plus ~-,~e're talking about a future erd.%lqance change that may take a year te get it changed. I just don't think that ~,~e have enough basis for denial. That's my comments. Conrad: Steve. Emmings: Paul, if we accept their arguments that our ordinance might, allo,~.~ this, or does al. low it, can Ne deny something based on a plan that's in the process or that 'sould permit it 'shen ~e knoll that plan is probably going to chan.ge? Have you talked to our City ,~ttorney about that? l<rauss: Yeah, I did ask him about that and he frankly is concerned that while he agrees that the intent is justifiable, that the language of the ordinance is eno that a judge might rule against the City if it came up. Yen kne~,J ~ thJ. nk that you're being asked to pu.t blinders on in essence. YoLi're sort o1: boxed in ~qhere you're saying you know that this area is going te change and you knoN that in al~ likelihood that it's going to change te residential but you're net supposed to look at planning is an ongoing process and you've been involved in this process for quite some time he's and the result ef that is on the immediate horizon. I {~uess [ have a problem ignoring the fact that that exists, especially k~hen the existing land use plan gives little or no definition as to 'shat's intended cut there. Tt .just drek~ a line and it's a great blank. Based on the attorney's recommendation though, Me are going to propose language te remedy that. Nok~ we really haven't talked about legally how should the City prot. ect themselves on this. There is a possibility of moratoriums if ~,~e need te do that and then on and on. bJe v~ill discuss this at length t. omorro~. He did read the report and he did raise that concern. Emmings: okay. ~ell that would be a concern of mine but I really, I think I 'sas here 'shen we worked through some of these ordinances that they presented and I'm really comfortable saying that I don't think that's what in our ordinance applies to this type of use 'shatsoever. When we said a telephone equipment building, I knobl we had in mind things that are connected by ~ires on both ends and here ~e've got something now that's kind of~ yen. kno~.~ when is a telephone a radio and when is it a telephone? Me'ye get something neb~ that's kind of a hybrid and this is clearly net a telephone equ.tpment bu.tlding. ~t least as we contemplated that term under t. he ordinance. Rise I question whether er not that tower is an accessory use to that building. I think it's the principle use and that the building is accessory to the, actually I think they're both principle uses. I den~t, one is no good ~ithout the other so calling it, I don't, think, at. least, in my mind, that. buys them nothing te call it an accessory use, if that's what they're doing. As far as the ground mounted vertical antenna~ I ~as here 'shen 'se drafted that ordinance too or pLlt it in and I kno~.g that that did p, ot deal with er include a tower like we're talking about here but ~,!e ~.,~ere talking specifically abeut~ at that time, .,se ~,~ere talking specifically about, ill came up because of a ham radio operator's to~er at Planning Cornrnissior, Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 20 his house and that was something that was, that term implied that and noLhing else a.s I remember it. But anyway all that aside~ I think going to vote fox this thing amd I~m going to tell you mM xeasons. Fixs~ of ~1] a ~ower is going in ~hexe before any homes might be developed around there so that somebody corning in is going to be able to see it. It's not :something ~e're going to impose on people who are real close to the site. Timberwood is fairly close but I think it's far enough. All of those ?.eople that ~i].l be looking at the to~er ~ill be looking at it against a background of an industrial area which takes away a lot of it's impact to me. The only thing that I'd like to see a.s an added condition here. I don~t think they should be allowed to put any additional, I think ~e should k~ow exactly what they're going to hang on the to~,~er. I don't think the tower will be that obtrusive, it's more the stuff that's on top of it. and I'd like to knov~ ~hat's going to be on top of it exactly~ You shob~ed us one picture and that didn't bother me but I think it should be restricted to b~hatever, b~e should approve what's going up there. It should be restricted to that and it shouldn't be changed unless they come back. Also, I don't think the to~er should be allotted to be used for any other purpose. I don't know if they have any plan to do that but I don't think they should use it for any other. They shouldn't he subleasing it te someone else who wants to put something else up there unless we know what it's going on to. Krauss: One thing you may want to consider, and ordinances I've drafted in the past have done this, is .it basically takes the premise that if a tower's going to go t~p someplace, you might as well make the most efficient uti.litizatien of it. You don't want penthouses and things up there that block out the sky but you may have a desire to encourage people to ce-locate so you do only have one instead of. Kllson: I think he's saying come through before you do that. mrnmings: I'm nn~- saying b;e wouldn't allo~,~ it I'm saying b;e want to have a chance to approve it before it gets hung up because we might, not want out other than that, I don't }lave any other comments. Conrad' Annette. Eli. son' I believe that despite the height, that it isn't as objectionable a::s probably even telephone poles. I'm sure in the early days everybody wanted te].ephene but they didn't-want those poles in their backyard. I think b~ater teo~ers and satellite dishes and things like that are a lot more obtrusive than this and I've seen people building right next door to that s,.o there's no doubt in my mind people can build around i.t. I agree ~ith Steve ?.hat especially if was there before the people come and I agree with Tim that ~e're right on the border of calling it industrial se I don't kno.~.! that that much distance is going to make that thing. I'm not really ,:convinced however that the alternatives that we suggested are totally cut of the question. I have trouble believing that I don't know, that two phone companies don't work well together or something like that. I'm not convinced that those other property owners are saying absolutely no. Is it .it.,'st a cost effective way. This will be cheaper so they don't want te do that. I'd like to see that pursued maybe a little bit more before it goes to council that absolutely, positively, cur other ideas are cut of the Pl. anning Commission Hooting August. 15~ 1990 -, Page 21 quest, ion and I'm not. sure that I got that feeling from it but I don't -~-ea!].'::, see a huge problem with it and I agree b;ith St. eve's idea as fax as adding other uses but I don't know. I think if it's there before those hou. ses go in there, it diminishes the property value from what? From ),~hat it. j.s now? I really doubt that and if you're the one building on that lo't~ >'oN're going in with your eyes open so I can't, I think the main reason that we ~4ere thinking of denying it was because e{ the property values and ~.~. don't necessarily agree that ehat's~ going to come across that b~ay so I ~..4euld veto to approve it but I sure want them to convince City Council that those ether alternatives are definitely cut of the question because they a!sc:, N.ere in that search site. ~gain~ I~m net convinced that it's a .rlefinit~ no Nildermut. h: Pau].~ I ~.~ant. to congratulate you on an excellent report. t. Jnfortuns. tely I happen to disagree with it. I don't think we have a good basis on ~,~hich to deny this conditional use permit. Virtually everything seems to be there. The one thing that ~ do think is missing on the part the explanation given by the applicant is that I don't {eel the alternate sites ~ere explored very we~ or explained very He~. The other concern that I have J.s -that the proposed alternate site that we offered Paul~ ~4as at abou. t 1,000 feet so, or ~,000 yards so ~e're relatively c~ose. ~t was a mat. tot o{ apparently not being able to get together with the property el4ner. ~ th~nk in support of the applicant's position, ~t is a ~ow intensity land use. Anybody going in to build on a site somewhat adjacent to it knows the tob.~er's there. [ don't think it's going to be particularly desireable {or a residential site in that little triangle because you're very c~ose to some re,at,very h~gh use ra~road tracks. The ra~road noise is probably going to be pretty objectionable. !t looks like a reasonable land use ether than the fact that we ~te~ded ~t to be something else in the 2000 Comp Plan. 5o to be consistent, I did favor making the let a part of that industrial. To be consistent [ guess [ have to accept the app].ication ~ Conrad: Joan Ahrens: Does anybody know what the FAA requirements are for lighting on a 175 'Foot tower? Krauss: Over 200 feet requires lighting. Si].[ Suehl: That's correct. There will be no lights on this to,~,er. Ahrens: It seems like the planes fly over awful low out there. I'd hate 'tz.o have my house nearby if there's no lighting on that tower.: 8ill P, uehl: Ne filed an application to get a notice of no hazard from the FA~q before ~e build it as part of our required process~. Ahrens: I'rr, going to recommend approval of this also. I drive by that one on Baker Road several times a week and I never noticed it was there until.. today ~lhen I was specifically looking for it. I think it's pretty unobtrusive. I think that this is a satisfactory area even te put it u.p even though there's potential residential around it. lhe alternative sites are so close, as everyone has said. It doesn't make any difference if it's PLanning Comm.tssion Meeting Au. gus;t lB, 1990 - Page 22 a. 1 ~000 yards away. People can see it anyway but people see all sorts of thinSs from their ~indows. They see electrical towers. Those bi.g huge monsters and ~ater Lowers and those big sate~iit, e d~shes so ~ ~hink this is no~ as bad as al~ those th~ngs ox any of ~hose things. ~ agree with the other commissioners on most. of their comments. Particularly St. eve's in su. pport of this and I will recommend approval. Conrad: Thanks Joan. I'll be brief. I think there are, I have preferences for this not to be there. I think everybody said that. here and we'~e finding ~easons that we don't think we can refuse it but prefeTence is not to have it there. Therefore I agree with the staff report in terms of some of the conditions that it doesn't meet and that would be conditions 2, 3 and 10 of the staff ~epo~t. Incompatability with the zoning, k~hether it be today or the future. Incompatability with the character and aesthetically. ~ guess the biggest thing, and I think all the comments on the cornmission a~e very cleat and I think I support or I understand what they're saying. I guess I haven't been convinced that the applicant has really tried alternative sites. If ~e have a chance to, I guess ~hen this goss to Ci~y Council, ~ think it's real ~mpoxtant that we understand that those have really been reviewed but I feel there's enough here t.o say ~( a]...zso feel that it takes some residential land away that I'd Tat. hex keep · r-esidential in the future so for those 5 xeasons, I ~ould vote ~ith the staff report and against the proposal. Is there a motion? Erhart.: A question on a motion. If you're looking for a positive motion~ what does the staff prefer? Do you want to go back and look at conditions? De yell have some that you want to throw in at this point or are we looking for a positive motion? Conrad: It certainly sounds like the Planning Commission is. Crhart,'. If we go with a positive motion, do you want us to throw something out there and vote on it. Nrauss: I could suggest, some conditions if you'd like to consider t. hose~ bJe].l you had Commissioner Emmings' concern that if other antennaes are to be installed, that it come back for review under the CUP guidelines. Landscaping be installed as per their plan. No lights or signage be used on this site. And that the tower be painted a flat light color se that it blends in with the background. Erhart.: Okay, with that I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council Conditional Use Permit ~90-3 for SMSA Limited for a cellular transmission tower with the following conditions. That the staff ~pprove both the tower, the aesthetic design as k;ell as the building that goes with it. I state that because previously we always have the opportunity to review telephone equipment buildings and the aesthetics, 'Xrauss: Could ~e touch on that for a moment. As I understand it~ this building is a fiberglass exterior, portable structure that would be brought ~.n and tied do~r, to some footings. The illustration that ! sa~4, it's p.~int-e,::~ outside to emulate brick. I don't know if that's ~hat you're looking for. ~'.,- !, .a. ~-~ n ._'i n g c o rn rr~ i s s _t o n H e e t i n g .-.':'~',igt.!st. 15, 1990 - Page 23 Trha'r'Lv.: I would not vote for that. If that's what I thought it was~ I ~ou].dn't vote 'for that. It seems to me we're voting on this because, I~m proposing this assuming that we're talking about a telephone building type structu, re that you. see down on TH !01 that's made out of sol. id permanent rnateria]_. If that's what we're looking at, then I almost... t.,li].derrnuth: But there again we have no ordinance, ffrhart' Yeah I know but there's. Here's the ordinance. It says it sha].l be architecturally consistent with surrounding structures. ,...,,"ilderrnuth'.. . There are no surrounding structures. Trees. Rrhart: To be honest with you, I'm going to withdrab~ my motion in favor o'F ha',.,i, ng J.t come back with some more information as opposed to just changing it. Yf somebody else wants to do it. Conrad~ 8ut you've made a motion. Erhart' b~ell nobody seconded it so. Conrad: Do you want to make another motion? ;.~rha. rt Okay, yeah I'll make a motion that we P'~i 8,4 Iai.' Mr. Chairman; point of information We are willing to ., i .,. e - construct whatever type of building you, architecturally... We've built many different types of buildings... ~rhsrt Paul are you satisfied that you can take this from her~ }<rauss' It's whatever you're comfortable with. I guess I'd like some gL~ide]_ines. I mean do you expect a masonry brick building? Some of the 'ne:.,~er ut.J. lity buildings ~,!e re getting are reasonably attractive these %rhart' Okay, I'll proceed then and we can take a vote on it. That staff will. approve the to,~,er aesthetic desig'n as well as the building and the build.ins shou].d be consistent with other recently constructed public t.e].ephone and public utility buildings in the area. And due to the fact that the surrounding buildings will turn out to be residential. So number 2 is: staff will approve and document the tower shape and structure and that it's construction will follow that approval. 3~ that no other radio uses should be approved without an addendum to the conditional use permit Hhich will. come in before Council and Planning Commission. ~%nd the other conditions as staff has outlined. Landscaping per a plan. Ne iight, s and signage and that the tower will be painted a flat color. Conrad' Is there a second? t,..I i ].corm .~tln: Second Erhart moved, Wi!dermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit ~90-3 for $M$~ Limited for a cellular transmission to.er ~ith the followin~ conditions: Pl.a,nn/[ng Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 24 Staff will approve the aesthetic design of the toner and building and the b,..;.ilding should be consistent ~ith other recent].¥ constrticted public telephone and public utility buildings in the area. 2. Staff v~.ill approve and document the to,er snap., and structure and tbs .... i~'s construction ~4ill follow that approval. Ho other radio uses sha~l be approved ,without an addendum to the Conditional Use Permit ~90-3 which will come in before the City Council and Planning Commission. 4. If ct. her antennaes are to be installed~ they should come back for re,./i.e~,.~ u. nder the CUP guidelines. .?~. Ls~dscaping be installed as per the landscaping plan. .6. No lights or signage be used on this site. ?. ,,-,e t.o~er shall be painted a flat light color so that it blends in wieh the background. Ail voted in favor except Conrad who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Conrad: My reason is stated previously as I really like these uses in i.:'~du, strial areas. I don't see a need to make them cut in stand alone :..,,nits. Absolutely do not. see that need. This goes to City Council on September 10th so there are a few things that I hope the applicant heard and can present, to the City Council. You heard our concerns here and they're going to be, the Mayor's here tonight so he's listening. I think they're ~cioing to follor our comments and you may want to pay attention to a -Fe~.3 of those te make it easier. ~.eill Puehl: What. sort. of information would you like on alternatives? '--]_lson:~_ The things you said you didn't have any information on for example. When Bill was askin~ you about some of these and you didn't have information at the time. I think that would be. Pill 8uehl' I know we were contacted by... We will find that out. Conrad' ,and then work with staff closely okay. Thanks Bill. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE ONE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 1010 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, FORTIER AND ASSOCIATES. ~arfe Address ........................ {..'...t'...L,.' ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Kevin P.. HcShane ~-;:sry! P. Fortier 180 South Shore Court 408 Turnpike Road Pi. arming Commission Heetino ~d.cJl~St 15 1990 - Page 25 S. hmrmin Al-.'.~ff presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad ,:;:: ~ _!.1. ,e ,:;~ the public hearing to order. Conrad: Dary.].~ do yOU ~ant. to make any additions to the staff report? O,ary].. ~c' - ' ~ . . ,~t tier I~ll try to make it brief. ~ m Daryl Fortier and we agree %.,;it.h '!.he s~t. aff report. Conr,ad ' Than ks . E m ~n J. ~ c o r~._~,~: Ni ce 'job. Conrad' Other comments, Anything? Kevin~ anything? Is there ~ motion t.o close the public hearing: ~mmzngs moved~ Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing ~as closed. Conrad' ~4e~ll start at ~our end again. Ex hart.' Z have no comments on this one. Emrni ng~ ' None. E!].._~on: ~ just have one comment only because of what we ~ent through !a~t ~,,.eek. No~,~ is the time that b~e can throb~ something in there about the pexson ~ho~s on the lake and ~qhere their high water mark and ~here their ~,,~etland starts and thing~ like that? ~3hereas before they alb~ays said didn't kno~ I had that and we're saying now that maybe is the chance ~¢e can do ~omething like that. I ,~as thinking of a condition like tha~- Ahrens: You can tell them Christmas Lake's at the end of their lot. E!l~on' Iarn but it's the same b~ith the people on Lotus Lake. They pu.t it.. in ~xo ~ ~,3as thinking maybe it should be ~ritten into the recoxd right. :..~hen there sre opportunity's here. That ~as the only thing ~ ~as thinking Frauss:-... There i~ no wetland on this property. It's p~ett7 nice. shoreline and beach so it's very ~ell defined. I believe there's a drainage ~-'~..~oern~nt:. required over that part of the lake and if there's not, there El lson' ~o in general they're not like this Lotus Lake...? ~l--3aff: The other thing is, this is probably going to be the only b,..~.ildable are,..3 on the site. '~,xrauss' Yeah, the location of the home here, and Charles can explain ~t ~['f. need be, i'.~ somek~hat limited by the need to provide se~er connection ~hich has a tendency of pushing the house uphill. So the h~me ~qould be ~1 1E~o'n' Okay. Nothing ~urther, Planning Ccmrnission Meetin8 AL.,o,,o~- 15 1990 - Page 26 · ./~- ~ ~ ~ ~,!.i.]..,.lerrnut. h' ~ support the staff recommendation. :--~-" I- .... ;: en:~ ' No, comme n'L . Conr..3c!' I have nothing. Is there a motion'? Emmings moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recomnend approval of Subdivision ~90-12 as shown on the plat dated July 3, I990 and subject to the following conditions: Easements' ~-. Ct. andardo drainage and utility easements b. Cross access easements over the driveway in favor of Lot 1, Block 1, Beddor Addition and Lot 5, Christmas Acres Addition. Provide utility easements as required by the engineering department for sewer and water services. d. Dedicate a roadway easement measured 33 feet north of the center line of Pleasant View Road. 2. A fi. re hyde-ant is required to the u~est of the property as shown in A'htachment ~2. 3. Park and trail dedication fees will be required in lieu of land dedication. A tree preservation plan must be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. The plan should illustrate how the driveway, home placement and construction will minimize tree loss. The plan must. be ~pproved by staff. Preservation areas shall be adequately marked by a sno~,~ fence prior to construction to avoid damage. s The private driveway serving Lot 2, Block 1 must be built to a 7 ton design and paved t.o a width of 20 feet utilizing a maximum grade of and provide a turn around area acceptable to the Fire Marshall based upon guidelines provided by applicable fire codes. Plans should be provided to city staff for approval prior to City Council review. Plans for water and sewer connections shall be developed for approval by the City prior to City Council reviek~. The applicant should petition the City to install public utility extensions or make provisions for self installation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PI. arming Cornmission Hooting P,~L!gL!S't. 15, 1990 - Page 27 PUBLIC HEARING: INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR A GRADING PRO3ECT TO EXCAVATE 100,000 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL AND LOCATED APPROXZHATELY 1500 PIONEER TRAIL, BRUCE JEURZSSEN. Name Address J'ohn D. Rice Herb 8 ].oornberg Bruce 3eur i. ssen I_or en Hebbeger 505 No. Hwy 169 7008 Dakota 1500 Pioneer Trail, Chaska Wangerin Inc. Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad ,:::ailed the public hearing to order. L. oren Hebbeger: My name is Loren Hebbeger. I'm a representative of Wangeri_n Incorporated and I think the thing on this project, what we're trying to do is take a parcel of land and improve it to it's highest, and best u. se. Since ~e shut do~n on this project, which t4euld be probably in t. he later part ef May or first, part. of Hay, we've hauled a 120,000 yards out of Chaska, Arbor Park. hovered off an industria~ site and they're ?~tart. ing to build on it already. What the purpose of this situation was · origina~].y, and the group of investors that are involved in this situ. ation with Wangerin, are trying to take an agricultural site which is originally designated for a 2 1/2 acre tract development situation from !987. Level it of{ and put it te it's highest and best use which it is zoned for currently as a 2 1./2 acre tract for housing. The purpose of this situation i.e t.o i. mpreve the land and still at the same time keep it as an agricLt~tural situation untiA the ~and is improved tea developable situation ~4hich when this hauling is done it will still be an agrieultu, ral .sitLtation that can be upgraded to a subdivision. So I guess what I'm ].ooking at., I'm in the development situation, I am looking at this parcel. as an improvement to the existing situation. The zoning ~s there for a 2 I/2 acre tract. Hr. ~eurissen who Mill be participating in the project here is interested in upgrading the land and keeping it as an agricultural situ. at. ion until a development occurs. I don't feel that we're going to hurt anything here whatsoever and we're going for 190,000 yards right h.:,ut ~.,~ithin 90 clays we moved 120,000 yards which from a standpoint of traffic problems. We went down Lyman B~vd. to TH 101 and ~ent down, Pioneer Trail which is Hennepin County 1. We didn't have any problem whatsoever as 1:ar as the hau~. I guess Z appreciate the staff making recommendation for approval and I guess what Me're here for is te just move this thing along. We ,were hoping to put this ~n an orderly fashion and continue to haul here previous to this and get the job done. I appreciate you}- people's opinion. Conrad: Thanks. Other comments. Anything else? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Zrnmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Qommission Hosting 1990 - Page 28 Conrad: .loan, we'll start down with you. Ahrens: I had a hard time initially being objective about this application given the apparent cavalier attitude of the applicant to~..,ard the City in the past and a total disregard to~ard the City's instructions. 8ut I did {,;et through it. I'm not sure ! understand it. I have no idea what 190,000 yards of rnateri-al does to, removing that much does to a piece of property. Hsybe you. can explain what this property's going to look like. I mean is it. going te be flattened or what? Xrauss: Essentially yeah, I don't know if that video would help explain that., kJe do have a movie of this narrated by our engineering staff but if T. ceu].d work elf of this for a moment. Right now the existing Jeurissen farmstead is ever here ,~ith the house and the out buildings. The area that they were work.lng last spring is in here. Nee., this is basically an... Here's Bluff Creek. That's... The top of the hill is right here. Sasically you're pretty much flattening this off to olean it out. There ~.,.~ould be a berm left ~ith some trees on it there and one might be here but basically they'.~l flattened it do~n ~ith a slight grade do~n te the creek~ New we have asked to make sure there's a minimum cut level set there se that no petent£al building sites get belob~ the flooded elevation there. At. least 3 feet above it Hhich is what our ordinance requires. I'd also like to talk about the residential use on this property for a moment. This and sene ether properties were conceptually reviewed as 2 I/2 acre lots prior to 1987~ There were sene time deadlines for them to submit preliminary and final plats. Those time deadlines came and Hent and Council extended it because of the delays in getting the final ~IS for TH 2~2 done~ TH 212 passes through so close over there and the platting has been conceptually l. ooked at but it doesn't work with TH 212 and that's one ef the concerns that the Council has in k.,orking... It's not entirely clea¥...as te ~;hether or net this grading is ideally suited for whatever is going to happen in the future. There's no plan backing it up. ~11 ~e have is the original concept and that doesn't fit v4ith this entirely. Now ~hat they're doing here., and this is going to be I suppose the more minor aspect of what they're doing. The other eno, you've got on this side, on the north end of the property and it's quite normal terrain through here and what they're ..:;;:oing to do is basically knock it reasonably flat with a slight grade te it x~.vsn to a hill and then you have a steeper grade going up at the north end. ,'As we understand it from the Soil Conservation Service~ that steep grade at the extreme north end of this site is not going to be farmable and it's based on their recommendation that ;~e said that that should be established in a ground cover that will keep it from eroding. Ahrens: So, they're going to be removing earth from that northern area but not to improve it for farming which is l~hat the application said? Xrauss: Well, what they're doing is those black boxes are areas where they're going to stockpile the topsoil. They're going to pull the topsoil off, take out the clay soils they want, get the finish grade and then put the to,soil back. $o yes, it would be utilizable for farming. Ahrens: But the grade will be such you can't farm over it? ,Oianning Comrnission Hooting AL:'.CJL~St ~5~ 1990 '" Page 29 Krsuss: No~ what the .grade on the bulk of the area will be lessened over ,~jhst.~ it's quite rolling now and it's not going to be in the future. So to the extent that Mr. Jeurissen has a tough time working grades now~ most of ?be area he's farming ,.aill be fiat or reasonably flat~ That steep grade is c:.nly .goin© to occur at the north end of the property. Ahrens: Is there als intent to move more earth in the future? Is this know this i.s it for like this application but. Loren Hebbeger: That's it Ahrens: Or is everything going to just be flat after this? Loren Hebbeger: It will be flat enough for development from a housin~ situation. The elevations will work with a housing development plan and then we're out of here. Ahrens: But it's a. nice rolling terrain right now right and you're going to flattened it out? Loren Hebbeger: It will still be rolling. It will be overlooking the creek but at the same time what you've got here is a high elevation. ~s a matter of fact, his soil conservation situation talks about that. They will not even give him a 1995 renewal on his soil situation because of the terrain. They don't consider it farmable. Ahrens: How long has this area been farmed? Loren Hebbeger: His family has had it. Bruce Jeurissen: It's been farmed for a lot of years but the Soil Conservation people have just established standards now...plans of soil erosion and things like that by 1992 to let you be part of the farm program in 1995. Ne have to have plans in the process by 1992. ~hrens: But that's not really relevant to Nhat Ne're talking about here is it? Bruce 3eurissen: Nell lt's all connected. Yes it is. Loren Hebbeger: What it is is a phasing process. Keep it agricultural with an interim use and develop it eventually within a period of probably 3 years. Ahrens: So it sounds to me like the farming issue is not really an issue for you at all. Bruce Jeurissen: There's going to be more farmable acres after this is done... ~,hrens: This is quite a comprehensive report you've prepared here Paul. I 'm not going to go through everything even though I had questions as I went through here on everything. I'm sure everyone will be glad to hear Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 30 that but. I just keep paging through this because it's so, it's overwhelming to even understand what's being proposed here. To me to think that we have this area out there that's nice and 'rolling hills and we're going to give somebody a permit to just bulldoze it over for whatever reason, whether it's to make money off the earth that's being moved to the Eden Prairie landfill or what the purpose is, it seems to me that, it's hard for me to believe that this is really an improvement for the City or that it's going to give the City, that it's any benefit for the City and it's a large area and to have 10,000 trucks, which seems amazing to me. 10,000 trucks in 90 days. You anticipate that you can finish in 90 days? Loren Hebbeger: I'm not trying to argue about the situation. We already have moved probably 120,000 yards which is already done. There .was no problem whatsoever. We were hauling at 7:00 in the morning until S:O0 in the afternoon when rush hour's on. Sometimes 8:00 to 5:00 and I guess the thing on this project, we're looking at developing the property and putting it to it's highest and best use. It's a taxable situation for the community of Chanhassen. You don't have to run utilities out there. It is in a situation right now where it's subdivided for 2 1/2 acre situation. All we're trying to do is improve it and develop it. We're not going in there to cause a disruption. We're just trying to work it in a phased situation and get the job done. Ahrens: I think I have a pretty clear idea of what your intent is. Loren Hebbeger: It's in no way going to hurt the property because an investor is not going to buy a piece of property that he can't develop and that's ~hat we're doing. ~e're putting it into a developable situation with agricultural also included. Ahrens: Well at any rate, those are my feelings about this application. I think 'that the conditions that you put in here Paul are pretty specific and cover most of the items we should be concerned with except maybe under number 4 where it says no activity will be permitted during the U.S. Open Tournament. I think that this and the subsequent application we get, there should be specific dates in there covering because I'm sure there will be time before the tournament and maybe afterwards where you'll want to cease operation. Maybe a day. I have a problem with the amount of, well the traffic that's going to go on, in and out of that property. I have a problem with a lot of the items in here. Why don't we move on. Conrad: Jim, why don't you handle this Wildermuth: I think t understand what you're trying to do here and regardless of what you're doing with the clay, regardless of what you.'re doing with the topography, the fact that your ultimate goal is to develop the property, I'm reasonably assured that you aren't going to do terrible damage to the topography of the area. 190,000 yards if] the mining industry is not very much. 190,000 yards going down a County highway is quite a bit. I think Paul you've done a very good job of putting conditions on 'this request. I like all of the conditions and I think it reflects the comprehensive grading permit and excavation permit that has been put in place but I would recommend that we add two things. One is that we impose Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 31 the road consumption fee that was discussed in a letter to you. Secondly X would propc)se that. we add a requirement for compensation for either a Sheriff's deputy or a highway patrolmen to monitor the haulage route. Krauss: If I could explain. We got a memo from the County Engineer that you're discussing Commissioner Wildermuth, that indicated that there's a quantifiable amount of damage that will occur to the road. It's apparently an accepted engineering formula. I've talked to people about it that the lifespan of the road is diminished by having so many large, heavy weights placed on it. I asked our City Attorney about the possibility of establishing basically an impact fee on that. He indicated to me that it was not a course of action he would encourage us to pursue because State enabling Legislation to back that up is not in place.. So he v~as somewhat relunctant to do that so we did not recommend approval of that. What we did do though is we said we wanted a letter of credit. One of the things that. letter of credit's going to be used for is to require the repair, n',aintenance and cleaning of road damage and debris and whatever it's directly attributable to these people. If they haul on a muddy day, they may have to sweep the thing 5 times during the day. We wanted to inspect the road. Have our engineering department walk it with the County engineering department to sort of document what's out there now. It's a nek~ road. It's in pretty good shape. To the extent that it becomes damaged durinfj hauling, we're going to probably try to make the assumption that they caused it and ask them to repair that. Wildermuth: From a legal standpoint can you make that stick? Krauss: L4ell yeah. See that's a direct impact. That's not taking money so that in the year 2010 when the road needs to be replaced, instead of the year 2015, we have an account to draw on. The concept is different, and enabling legislation is different so we've done the best I think we can within the confines of the way State Statute reads now. Secondly, the Uniform Building Code does allow us to assess back our costs to inspect these things at a rate of $30.00 an hour. It's quite explicit in that area. I certainly saw no reason at all that the City should ask the general tax payers to support us being staff going out there and spending a lot of our time to monitor this thing. They should have to pay that for same as a builder bas to pay for us to come out and inspect his property and we fully intend to do that. I've talked to our Public Safety people and they have indicated that we could make arrangements for special patrols from the County Sheriff. Special weight checks. Whatever we felt we needed~ and we could draw on this ability to subsidize that to defray some of their expense as well. ,and that's basically what we felt we can do and that's what. this recommendation does. Wildermuth: Okay. That's fine. Under 2 then, I guess I'd just like to see a little rewording there to include either the services of a Sheriff's deputy or highway patrol. Where do you talk about inspecting for road damage and requiring compensation? Which item? Okay, ~. Krauss: And 9 deals with the need to clean up debris. Planning Commission Meeting August 15, ~.990 - Page 32 Wildermut. h: Right. One of the other alternatives is to construct a separate hauling road which I'm sure would make the project absolutely unfeasible after having driven out there. Loren Hebbeger: Can I make a statement at this point? Wildermuth: Yeah. Loren Hebbeger: Going back to the original conversation here. We've already hauled ~20,000 yards out of Chaska and the sherrif's department, ~ met with them. I met with the Chaska Police force. If we're in weight restrictions as fay as weight load, the~e is no p~oblem ow impact on the ~oad whatsoever. The other aspect of the point., BFI has got a bonafide scale that is registered with the State of Minnesota as far as a weigh s~tuation and ~ welcome them to come in and weigh any truck that they want on the BFI scale because a~l of these loads axe being tallied. And I guess the thing what I'm saying here, you can c~eate more problems but going right back to the original point, ~e've already hauled ~20,000 yards, down Lyman Blvd. with the County and City of Chaska involved and we haven't had any problems. Now there k~as a speeding bicker issued which I don't blame the parties involved. Wildermuth: The point is though that you're not going to be there every time they load a truck to monitor the weight. L..oren Hebbeger: I guess the thing is. Wildermuth: You're not going to watch every driver. Loren Hebbeger: Any development situation, and I feel this area in Chaska and all areas. As a matter of fact, Mr. Wangerin did most of the along 494 for Naegele and you're going to have hauling out and hauling in to develop property. I mean it's a definite situation but if you keep you~ trucks within a load weight specification, and I mean here you've got an opportunity that they could come in at any time and spot check trucks and use a scale ~hich was certified through the Highway Patrol. As a matter of 'Fact, the Highway Patrol did stop one of the trucks and took him into Chaska to Gedney which is not a certified scale and it was brought out as a point at that time that you're welcome to monitor as they come into the dump at. any time. I don't think there's any problem here if we just go about it the right way. Wildermuth: But I just think from a City standpoint. Loren Hebbeger: I agree with your concern. Right. Krauss: If I could add one thing. This evening I handed out a memo from the Acting Director of Public Safety where I was aware of the fact that we had received a number of complaints about truck traffic on these roads and his memo indicates that yes we have. Now ! mean it's a public road. People are entitled to use it but there is a concern over the impact that it has on people that live and drive along it each day. There's a concern for traffic safety. The TH iCi/Pioneer Trail intersection is notoriously bad. Planning Commission Meeting August. 15, 1990 - Page 33 This site is just downstream from that. I think that that operation from Chaska generally has been conducted in a safe manner. I'm not a~.,are ef any fatalities or anything like that but we have had complaints and ~4e're just trying to cognizant of that. ~.4i lderrnuth: I agree. Conrad: Anything else? Annette? Ellson: I'm trying to find Good reason not to do it. I don't like it. I don't think it's censistent with what we have in our goals of our plan which is to maximize the natural features of Chanhassen. Instead we're taking away hill. s ~hioh are a naturat feature and things ~ike that and I knew it. alse is not suppese to involve any kind of activities that Hill be detrimental to any persons or property and Z think it's already been proven that it has been because of excess of noise and traffic so I think based on those two reasons Z'd like to say that Z'd want to deny it. Emmings: I have a lot of the same feelings that Annette does. This isn't an improvement to the property in my mind but nevertheless, on the other hand, I order black dirt into my property and it comes from someplace. They wee gravel and sand and dirt and all kinds of things and a].l kinds of construction and it all comes from someplace so I Guess there's some kind of a balance here. Somebody owns some ~and here and they want te se~! off some ef the land and ! think they have a right to do that and I think the fact that we passed this ordinance underlines the fact that they do indeed have a right to do that if they want to. They're not creating a pit or a hele or defacing something ~ike the river bluff like we had w~th Moon Valley and so on so I Guess I feel overall that they probably have a right to do this. Z guess what bothers me more than anything else is the past behavior of these applicants certainly doesn't engender any trust in me. I den't know how we're Going to know that they're only taking abeut 190,OOO yards. I don't knew how we're Going to know what they're doing. I den't trust them to operate within weight limits. I don't trust them to drive the speed limit. I don't trust them at all because they've got a bad track record here so I guess if we're going to pass conditions, I want to make damn sure that somebody's out there policing them because they need to be policed. But other than that I guess I support. ~hat? Loren Hebbeger: That's fine. ~ust go ahead. Ernmings: Thank you. I guess I'd support the application. Conrad: Tim? Erhart: In seeing the memo from Scott Hart, I kind of regret not complaining myself now because I certainly had thought about it many times. I feel strongly that the truck traffic on Lyman Blvd., TH 1OI and Pioneer Trail route was I felt that it was somewhat dangerous because I drive that reute which will probably surprise everybody but that is probably the one reason ~hy I ~ould support the proposal here in that, in addressing everybody's concerns about well this is isn't helping Chanhassen at all but you know, if ~e don't allow them to take it here, then they're just go te Planning Commission Meeting August ILS, iL 900 -., Page 34 Chaska and then they'll just drive through all of Chanhassen using some of the worse routes which is what they did. I fe].t that was real detrimental to everybody as a whole that drives that clay all the way through Chanhassen on those winding roads. ~hen they removed this material out of here previously, again I thought I agree with Joan and Jim it sure doesn't seem right but you knew when you consider the alternatives, it's better than that.. So I guess I don't have an overall problem with it. If there's a problem with it, it's the fact that there's a market in it. If somebody wants this material and for a reason which really, and everybody's trying te address that. The fact is somebody's going to buy it. They're going to get it from someplace. I think this place, this particular location is the least detrimental in the City of Chanhassen. Actually the best place is over on the river one. Krauss: Moon Valley. Erhart: Yeah, Moon Valley because they don't touch Chanhassen but. The question I have in rny mind though is what does Eden Prairie, ~hy doesn't Eden Prairie allow them to take clay from somplace closer? Do they have an ordinance against it completely or what? Krauss: I really don't know. Eden Prairie staff has never contacted us in any way, shape or form about this and from what I see in the newspapers and on TV, I don't believe Eden Prairie staff is on speakin8 terms with the landfill at the moment anyway. Erhart: Do you know why they've not looked at Eden Prairie as a potential site to get clay? Loren? Don't they have hills? Loren Hebbeger: I guess what the situation is, we have 3 other sites that we'll be working on and I guess basically, this material meets certain classifications. In the Eden Prairie area there just is not a clay that would meet the specification so as a result we're out in this area and we'll be in Carver County also. We've got several other sites that we're going to be working on to develop. Krauss: Where will that go? What route? Loren Hebbeger: That will come down 212 probably. But I don't feel there's going to be a problem here as far as moving the material. It will be done in an orderly fashion. It will be done in a phased situation. As a matter of fact, this site would have already been done if we could have extended our permits which the original permit goes back to 1987 which was a phased situation. Well, we ended up in a problem here and I guess maybe a permit was issued the wrong way but I just can't, I~m not tryin~ to argue with the people here. They were made aware at the time that we were hauling the people that we were dealing with~ the engineer, that we were going to phase it. Erhart: Okay, thanks. On the other hand I agree with Steve in that this thing should be controlled as tight as we legally' can. Again, that doesn't leave us a lot to do because you get into an issue of road destruction and the fact is, if they don't take it here and they take it out of Chaska and Planning Commission Meeting August ~.5, ~990 - Page 35 they drive through the roads and we have no control over that at all so I think there's minimally what we can do to compensate the road destruction. I think you've done that in your item i. If you can find, I guess what you're saying here is if you can find specific damage that would be specifically attributed to this particular project., then we can go back and charge them. I question whether $30,000.00 is enough for a letter of credit. $30,000.00 doesn't do a lot roy you. Krauss: Well it's covering a lot of things but I guess Dave, do you want t.o expand on that at all? We did take a look at this and try to get. Erhart: I don't want to get into it. If you're satisfied that $30,000.00 covers most of the road damage that you could envision. Krauss: I'd like their first born son too but we tried to come up u~ith a reasonable number. Hempel: Basically what we're looking at is restoring the site and getting the vegetation back on the slopes and if they leave it in an unmanageable site like they have left it right now. It gives us the opportunity to go back. Krauss: Keep in mind too that this being approved on a phased basis and each phase is going to have to be tidied up before they go to the next one. If the City Engineer isn't satisfied that they're acting in compliance with that phasing program, we'll shut it down so that will tend to limit the damage. Erhart.: Well it doesn't take long to spend $30,000.00... I have one other thing is that I don't understand why this has to be alto~ed on Saturdays. The reason I say that is I, you know this is a semi-residential, a~ricultural area. People want to go home to their homes on Saturday and have some peace and quiet and when they were working before on Saturday and Sundays, I could hear it from ray house and I live farther away from the people than the people do in Pioneer Hills and it wasn't bad but you know if it was a major issue to getting this thing done, I would object to it. On the other hand, it seems to me in consideration of ali. the other issues, that we could limit this thing to a normal work week and not try to be intrusive on the neighbors as much as possible and I'd sure like to consider not allowing it to be done on Saturdays because it does make noise and you can hear it all day long. It's a constant drone of earth movers and equipment so. Krauss: The ordinance does establish those times but it allows you to be more restrictive if you think it's necessary t.o so it's really your call, Erhart: Okay, well again just in summary. I think it's okay. I think it's something that we don't, the alternatives a~'e Norse and we ought to go ahead and approve it. I'd like to see, I guess you reconsider the letter of credit. ,Really having enough monies to cover it in a k.~orse case situation and restrict this to Monday thru Friday operation. Planning Commission Meeting Augtdst. ~. 5 , ~ 990 - Page 36 Conrad: Paul, you've done a real nice job. In fact on all the staff reports tonight they're really thorough. It. really helps. There are so many issues that you bring up with your analysis that may, well I really appreciate it but it gives me confidence that you know what you're talking about and that the City has some control in what we're doing here. In this particular case you're putting on a tot of controls yet I don't see ~hat they are. The words are we will have to control. We will have to monitor. To be honest the track record hasn't been great as other people have previously said. I'm not going to hammer that in but that makes me nervous because of some past incidences and because we're nervous about this in our community. I don't have, it tells me until they awe proven that they accep~ our guidance o~ our control, it tells me ~hat ~e need to ove~ control and as other commissioners have said, and especially gim, that over control has a cost on the City staff. Maybe you can help me Paul but it's the case, we can charge for that control. I didn't see it specifically in this. Is the~-e, I've gone through it several times right now. I saw it for the other one. I thought I saw it in the Halla. Is there a charge? thought I saw $30.00 an hour type of. Krauss: Yes. It's in condition 2 which is pay the Uniform Building Code permit fee, County and staff and I think Commissioner Wildermuth added Sheriff's Department's time to monitor and inspect the operations to be charged to the applicant at a rate of $30.00 an hour. Conrad: Who is doing that? Krauss: Who will actually be doing the monitoring? Conrad: Right. Krauss: I think two of them are sitting at the table wight here. It will be our staff in conjunction and coordination with the county staff. Conrad: And how do you determine? I'm really concerned about enforcement. Absolutely like I'd want you out there every day. I'm just not comfortable at this point in time. I think this should go through and Annette, as you said, this doesn't seem like it's in character with what we've been trying to do in Chanhassen. I kind of agree yet on the other hand I think as I looked at staff report, I think it's permitted. I think it can be done and I think if it's done right, we're not going to have any problems. But again, I'm not convinced that it's going to be done right and that's just where I'm at. right now. That's a problem. Loren Hebbeger: Can I make a statement on this? Conrad: Sure. Loren Hebbeger: You know a developer comes to an area to come in and improve things and try to put it to it's highest and best use. I feel that you know you talk about over monitoring things. This can get out of hand too. Plaoning Commission Meeting At]gus~ 15 , 1990 - Page 37 Conrad: We prefer not to. [4e really try to keep government out of it as much as ,~e can but that site has not, you haven't given us any confidence out at that site yet and you haven't been in the area and done some projects that we can say oh yeah. They're reputable. They'll trust us. They'll stop when we tell them to stop. They'll fix the erosion control barrier when k~e tell them to' stop. They will do it immediately. They'll fix it immediately. I'm not convinced of that. Loren Hebbeger: I guess the thing that this revolves right back to Don, that. a permit was issued originally here and I think it could have been in a rea]. legality situation from a standpoint. It was represented. You people issued a permit as far as I'm concerned that we tried to live t~ith and it has cost us some money as a result to shuffle to other sites. This site would have been haulecl out and been all done already and ready for development if we wouldn't have had these problems. I guess the thing is, Mr. 3eurissen is involved in the development of the property with the group and he is not going to let his property be downgraded to a point where it's not going to be developable. I guess you people can put a lot of restrictions on. In Chaska for an example~ they had an inspector that looked at the elevations of what we were shooting as far as what. we hauled out. There was no problem. If you're improving the property~ granted you can be over cautious on things but if it's not going to hurt anything, your engineering staff has got an elevation topo of what we're going to What's going to be done and as far as a bond, a bond will take care of that situation. I don't know what over restrictions, it's .just going to make it rougher for a person to come in here. If you're going to do this ~ith everybody rather than this situation and I 'feel this situation goes right back t.o Moon Valley because of their situation there. Now as far as I'm concerned, Moon Valley is not even. Conrad: I hear what you're saying but here's something that's very different for this area. You're bringing in a lot of trucks. You're hauling some land. You're telling us you're improving it. It's hard for us to accept the 'Fact that you're improving the site by hauling out the clay. That's a tough one to accept. Loren Hebbeger: Let me give you an example. Conrad: When we in this area are trying to keep those areas as natural as possible. We're trying to make them very liveable so some of the things you're saying is not in concert and it. probably sho~s that you really haven't been in Chanhassen working with us as much as b~e'd like to have you work with Loren Hebbeger: I guess Don what !'m saying is this area is set up for 2 1./2 acre tracts. Do you want to put a house up on top of a hill that you can't even get to ~ith an elevation from a roadway standpoint? I don't know. Conrad: It's zoned agricultural isn't it? Loren Hebbeger: It's ready to be developed as a 2 1/2 acre. Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 38 Conrad: But it's zoned agricultural. Loren Hebbeger: At this point. At this point yeah. Conrad: And that's, in many of our thinking, that's not bad zoning and it ~i.1.1 be developed for residential sooner or later but again, you've heard the commissioners talk here. They're saying that yeah, you're going to be, from our standpoint it looks like you can do it but you haven't. What the staff is also telling us, they're uncomfortable with a lot of things. Truc:k movement. Erosion control. A lot of, you're moving a lot of dirt and when you do that, you've got to have some controls. L. oren Hebbeger: I agree ~ith your concerns. Conrad: Uhat I'm telling you is because you don't have a good record in town, we have to over control which is what we don't ~,ant to do. I really would rather not have these people. Chanhassen's not making that much money off of this deal. It's just not and we're saying well let's allocate a lot of our time to make sure that it happens right because it hasn't happened maybe according to what ~qe'd like to have had done in the past. Our fault. Your fault. It just hasn't worked so no~ you've got to prove to us. L. oren Hebbeger: Alright but I guess what I'm saying to you right now, are you doing this with every developer that comes in that's going to move any material in the future? I think. Conrad: You're the first one that we've looked at. Loren Hebbeger: Okay. This situation, we held back because of your resolution that you were passing. Conrad: I thought you continued after we told you to stop. Loren Hebbeger: ~ell the thing is, it was represented to start out ~ith the original engineer. There was not litigation done on this thing. It ~as close to that point because it was represented from day one from an underlying standpoint here and I don't know, what staff happened to staff but you can't blame somebody that issued a permit and it was represented to them as such that we were going to do this in a phase situation. ~11 of a sudden Ne get shut down because, we feel that Ne got slighted because of the Moon Valley situation. Now ~e're going right back to that point and I don't think it's fair because we're putting this thing to a housing development. ~e're not a mining permit as far as takin~ gravel out and digging a hole. Emmings: This is a clay mine. You're mining this property to take the clay and se~l it to somebody else. Loren Hebbeger: It's part of the development situation. There's overages there that we feel that we want to get rid of. Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 39 Emmings: And you would have gotten rid of it even if it meant, that you had to pay to dump it someplace? Loren Hebbeger: It wouldn't have made any difference. We're going to move iL. That's the situation. Thank you. Conrad: Anyway Paul. We've got. a creek running through here and that. creek, in terms of the impact of this development, how do you assess you control any kind of pollution? Any kind of runoff into the creek. Who develops those plans. Is it the applicant? Is it the staff? Ho~ do ~,e monitor? Who monitors? Krauss: The erosion control plans have been developed by the applicant. We've asked for improved ones. We coordinate our efforts with the Watershed District. There was some temporary, when they closed up the site in the spring there was temporary measures in place to minimize erosion. They've since blown out and there's substantial damage and impact to the creek right now. The first thing we ~ant to have done on this site is correct, that existing situation. Conrad: And how often would we monitor something like that. Once those get in~ what would be a monitoring schedule to see that they're still in force or in pi. ace. Krauss: I guess I'd defer that to the engineers who have more experience with that tiaan I. Hempel: Either myself or another inspector would daily monitor the site. Conrad: Would you really? Hempel: We do that to all our improvement projects. Daily visit the site to make sure the improvements are going to according to the plans. Conrad: Really? Hempel: Yes. Erhart: Why don't you, if you've got erosion running into the creek right today, why isn't it corrected today? Hempel: We have made attempts to get the applicant to do that but. so far we've had no luck. Erhart.: What have you done on those attempts? What kind of action? Hernpel: We've stated in letters. Certified letters to the applicant to restore the site. Maintain erosion control throughout. Reseed it and it's failed to generate any action. Emmings: So there you go. Conrad: And how long has this happened or lasted? Planning Commission Meeting AuaLtst- ;15, ;1990 - Page 40 klempel: Since probably the end of Hay. Since the project has stopped. Krauss: I'd also tike to add, we have no letter of credit at this point to draw on. Had we had that, we would have already drawn it. Emmings: Did they in fact set aside topsoil on the part that they've excavated so far? Hempel: There is topsoil stockpiled on the site right now. Erhart: Did some of that topsoil run down into the creek? Hempel: That site it was placed directly.on top of the knoll so it basically sheet drains in every direction so it probably did not get concentrated enough to flow into the ditch. Conrad: I'm not sure, like Tim said, the .$30,000.00 letter of credit. We've 9or to trust, you're the professionals. It just doesn't seem, based on the magnitude of what's happened here and Tim you've got to help me because you have a better sense for some of this stuff but it just doesn't seem like that can compensate for some of the things that can go on. Whether it be the pollution or the road, it just seems like it's a small amount. Wildermuth: Yeah, just what we heard about the creek. It sounds like the City's going to have to go in there and make the correction if the applicant isn't going to do it so we've got to probably double this bond so we can afford...contractor to go in there and get 'the job done. Krauss: We tried to take a shot at what was a reasonable dollar amount. We talked with our engineering department about that. The number is not a magic number. There wasn't a formula that we used to derive it. Wildermuth: Well what we just heard about creek erosion problem is consistent with everything that's gone on in the past with the applicant. I guess it's about time we take some action. Erhart.: Let's say you get a storm and you see clay and dirt washing down into the stream, how fast can you respond if they won't? What do you give them 30 days to do it or i day? Hempel: We give them 72 hours to restore the erosion control or we'll end up doing it and charging it back to the project. Erhart: 72 hours. Why so much time? Wildermuth: It's not easy to Get a contractor right? Hempel: Yeah, most contractors comply within 24 hours but legally there's something we have to Give them 72 hours. Wi ldermuth: Hob., can we have it, I don't mean to be smart but how come we haven't 9one J.n with the city contractor or city hired contractor at this Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 41 point to correct the stream? Folch: I don't think we've had any way to recoup our costs if we did go in and do that. Wildermuth: Okay. So now you'd have some bond money to draw on. Erhart: I would think as a minimum condition here that this should not be approved until the site was brought up to the standards. Add another condition here. Contingent upon bringing it up to current standards for erosion control. I'd like to have a response from Loren. Do you have to work on Saturdays? Loren Hebbeger: I guess basically what we're looking at. is to get this pre]eot done as quickly as possible. That's our intent. ~e could probably have this thing done within a 60 to 90 day period. We go in there and we'll be out. As a matter of fact, it would have been done already. Erhart: All phases? Loren Hebbeger: All phases. We've got a volume that we can move fast and like I said, we've already hauled 120,000 yards out of Chaska within just a little over a month so I guess I'm not trying to push this thing along but what our interest is is to get this developed to an agricultural situation back for Mr. 3eurissen who will be participating in the development. We just want to get the 3ob done is what it amounts to. The reason why that erosion has helped, as far as certified letters, we have not received anything from the shut down and Mr. Jeurissen is the applicant and this goes back to, when? Bruce Jeurissen: Middle of May. Loren Hebbeger: The middle of May. So as far as erosion control, we're 100~ for that but we have not even been made aware ef anything. As a matter of fact, this permit was supposed to be issued within a short period of time. Of course we had a lot of rain. Don't get me wrong but we're sorry if there was a problem there but we were not made aware of it. Emmings: Have you been out to the site? Loren Hebbeger: Yes. I have been.. Mr. Jeurissen lives there. Emmings: Yeah, have you been out to the site since May? Loren Hebbeger: On probably a weekly basis, yes. Emmings: Have you noticed that the erosion controls that you put up were no longer there or no longer functioning? Loren Hebbeger: I don't feel that there's anything really serious about the situation. Ernmings: You've looked at them and they look okay to you? Planning Commission Meeting August. ~5, ~990 - Page 42 Loren Hebbeger: Right. This has occurred all over the metropolitan area. Erhart: What's occurred? Loren Hebbeger: Soil erosion problems. I mean it's. Erhart: Do you feel that dirt has washed into the creek? Loren Hebbeger: No. I don't feel that there's anything excess. As a matter o1'- fact, Bruce is the one that's basically on site every day. Erhart: I'm asking you. Do you feel that dirt has washed into the creek? Loren Hebbeger: Nothing of excess. It went down 'the hill into a st4arnpy area is basically what it amounts to. You can talk to Mr. 3eurissen. I mean he's the one that's there. I'm not trying to argue here with you. I guess I don't feel that there's a big problem here. Hempel: If I could comment on that. A recent site inspection about a week ago the culvert that was installed underneath this project, both sides of the culvert did have rip rap on in the initial installation. However, due to the recent rains here over the summer, the rip rap is now downstream of the culvert. Also, the erosion control was put up along the south side of the site and along the east side and along the ditch. There was left an earth berm approximately 3 to 4 feet high and that earth berm has broken through at a weak point and has been, the channelization and source of all the erosion going directly into the ditch. Erhart: How many yards would you estimate went into the ditch? Hempel: There's not a sand delta built up where this point enters the ditch. However you can see remnants of it downstream where the silt has filtered out in the slower water. Erhart: Less than 100 yards? Hempel: I would say approximately less than 100 yards, yes. conrad: Okay. Well, I think we have to have staff review the amount that we're talking about in terms of a letter of credit. I think we have to have staff Give us some kind of commitment in terms of the monitoring because I see, now that I found it, the $30.00 per hour rate. You know, it just appears to me we need a lot of monitoring and we need staff to pay a whole bunch of attention to this until we're convinced that the applicant is running it ~;ithin the scope of this permit, t think Steve you said that nothin.g happens, Tim brought that up? Okay. I think that's important. F~ssential and you know that one thing I hear in Chanhasse more than any other thing is the lack of enforcement. The tack of monitoring. I'm not hearing criticisms with some of the ordinances. I'm hearing from neighbors that they don't do anything about it. And geez, here's a case where I'd prefer to spend staff time a different way. $30.00 an hour, I'm not sure that that, I'd rather use the staff for something else to be honest. ]'hat seems like a waste of time to go out and monitor this with something that's Planning Commission Nesting August ~5, 1990 - Page 43 in the future, something that's a mining operation basically and really doesn't benefit the community a whole lot at the current time. So I guess I'm really, I guess I challenge the staff to figure out how this doesn't cost us time a~.,ay from other projects to tell you the truth. Yet on the other hand, L4here we monitor this thing, because I'm concerned. I'm fi. at out concerned and until they prove to us that they can work acceptably well here in the City and geez, I don't think ~4e're that. tough to work with, I think we just have to be really concerned. Especially with the fact that we're basically strip mining. We've exposed stuff. We've got drainage problems. We've got wind problems if it's a dry summer. We've got traffic problems. There's a lot of considerations that bother me about this and maybe that's .just because I'm not familiar ,¢~ith what it is. I k.~ould hope that we could do it as quickly as possible. Just get it done with and then we don't have all this stuff. Then our monitoring can be shrunk too but. Loren Hebbeger: Let me just make a statement here. N'e've moved a lot of material in different areas and basically if you've .got a letter of credit or a bond, that basically ensures that all specs ~ill be met and if they're not met, you call a letter of credit or the bond. I don't think you need an inspector out there, which I can agree with what you're saying is your people are more valu. able to be on another site and if the thing is trashed, which I'm sure Mr. 3eurissen is going to let his site be trashed because he's involved with the development. I agree with '~hat you're saying but at. the same time, the bond or letter of credit ~4itl cover any problems that if it's not done according to specifications, you call it. That's the situation. Conrad: You know we review a lot of development proposals here and many times we feel we get burned because Ns're nice guys. Loren Hebbeger: I admit you're concerned. Conrad: ...take care of it and Ns'ye been burned on people clear cutting. Ns'ye beer, burned on a lot of environmental things and it's one of the few assets. It's one of the assets we try to preserve and that's the environment. It's whether it be the bluffs, the trees, the creeks, the water. When you say that you've been there since Nay and some of our erosion control vehicles are down and not working, I'd ~ather not have staff tell you. I'd rather have you figure that out and you take care of it. I'd rather, you know that's the point of your business is to make sure that you don't harm anything else so just the nature of some of the things being brought up tonight makes me concerned. Makes us tell staff watch them and that's not fun to do. bJe'd rather not do that. Loren Hebbeger: I can agree with your concerns and I can't argue with you one bit. Emmings: I think an investment in monitoring this one is also justified by the fact that as more proposals come in, ~e're going to have a bet'beT base of knowledge on ho~ to deal with them. So I think it's important to just to gain some knowledge and experience with these types of projects. Planning Commission Meeting August 15, ~990 - Page 44 Conrad: Anything else? Is there a motion? Emmings: I'm Doing to move that, let's see. What am I moving? I'm going to move that we approve Interim Use Permit ~90-2 to excavate material 'from the 3eurissen farm subject to the conditions in the staff report with the following changes. You have an introductory statement there that violation of these conditions would result in immediate suspension of operations. Not,; is that, I'm wondering if that shouldn't be a condition as opposed to being in a little preamble there. Krauss: That ~ou. ld be fine. Emmings: Or is that what the. Krauss: That is provided in the ordinance in terms of revoking. Emmings: Well let's make it. explicit so I guess what I would do is add as number 12 that sentence that's contained as the second sentence in that opening paragraph. Then as number 13, a new one that would say that prior to issuance of this permit the applicant shall repair the existing erosion controls and remedy any problems caused by failure to maintain those controls to date to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Also, in number 4, we'd limit the hours of operations to Monday thru Friday as opposed to Honday thru Saturday. Wildermuth: Why take Saturday off though? Emmings: That's my motion. Krhart: I second it. Ahrens: Are we going to increase the letter of credit? Emmings: My understanding is that his direction to staff was to review the amount in the letter for credit and make sure it's adequate between now and the time it goes to the City Council. $o I guess my motion is made taking that into consideration that that will be done. Krauss: Could I possibly ask you to modify that? You know we wanted to make sure that we were going to bi. il back our time at $30.00 an hour and that's in there but under subheadin~ or under condition 1 I'd like to add a bullet that says cover costs of site monitoring so that it's clear that we can use the letter of credit to draw against. Emmings: Alright. I'd include that in my motion. Erhart: Okay, I'll second the motion. conrad: ,~ny discussion? Wildermuth: Do you want to include monitoring of the haulage by the sheriff's department or the County patrol and compensation for that? Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 45 Emmi. ngs: Why don't you make a motion for an amendment. I guess I don't understand. It seems to me, it's more important to me that the staff knows what's going on out there than that the county s. heriff's office. If the county sheriff has to go out there to check some things, I guess I don't feel that. ~4ildermuth: I'm concerned about the road and the safety aspect of it with that intensive hauling. Emmings: That's the County's job it seems to me. That's, well of course we pay them to do that don't we? Krauss: Well I mean the County is out there patrolling all the time in terms of the Sheriff's department but we may want to ask them to do extra monitoring when they're hauling to make sure that loads are tarped. To make sure that they're ,within weight guidelines. To make sure nobody's speeding so we may be in a position of asking the County Sheriff to put on an extra patrol occasionally to back us up and ~e had anticipated being able to reimburse their time as welt~ Erhart: You've thought that in your statement in item I included that? Krauss: Well item 2 I think covers it but Commissioner Wildermuth would I think wanted us to be more specific. We just said County staff time to monitor and he asked that the sheriff's deputy be added. Emmings: Okay. I'd amend the motion then to include that in number 2. So instead of City and County staff time it would say, City and County staff time and County Sheriff. Krauss: Sure. Wildermuth: What's your thinking Steve on taking Saturday out of the oper'ating hours? Emmings: I don't kno~. It just seems appropriate to me. I don't see why they have to be ripping up and down there when folks are at home I guess. Saturdays is off time. ~4ildermutb: But on the other hand, it seems like the sooner this projects gets completed the less disruption. Emmings: Make a motion to amend it. Erhart: 8ut on the other hand, what assurance do you have that they're going to try and get this thing done as far as they can. There's absoluteiy nothing on any piece of paper from this .group that says it has to be done in a year. In fact we gave them a permit what, how many years ago and they went in and did it later so you're basing this on the assumption that they're going to go in and do it as fast as they can. Wildermuth: That's true but I'm assuming that they want to get the project done because Mr. 3eurissen probably wants to get back into the farming Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 46 business or they want to develop it. Loren Hebbeger: He wants to get certified. That's ~4hat we're basically. It's holding him up right nobJ. That's one of the reasons we ~4ant to be on the Saturday. Gee the thing dome and I think ~4ifhin a very short pexiod time t4e c8~ move the thing and get it done because the quantities will move fas%. We do need a Saturday. I just, 6 days a week in an orderly. As a ma~tex of facb Saturday's a better situation because of the fac~ that fhere's not as much traffic and we can move the material. Chaska, ~4e had no prob]_em ~ith that. ~4ildermuth: Let's not restrict the applicant. Emmiogs: Make a motion to amend my motiom. Wildermuth: I'll make a motion to amend the owigioal motion striking the statement about restricting Saturday operations and allow the applicant to operate 6 days a week. Conrad: Is there a second? The motion fails. W~].dermuth: Okay, we've got a motio~ on the table. Conrad: Any other discussion? Emmings moved, Erhart seconded ~hat the Planning Commission recommend approval of Interim Use Permit ¢90-2 to excavate material from the 5eur~ssen Farm subject to the following conditions: ~. Submit a $30,000.00 letter of credit in a format acceptable to the City. The letter of credit will be used to ensure the - maintenance of erosion contt-ol; site restoration on a phase basis; - preparation of "as-built" grading plans preparing demonstrating compliance with approved plans, on a phased basis; - repair of haul roads due to damage caused by the operation as determined by City and County - removal of mud and debris from haul roads as frequently as required by City and County staff; -control of dust and other - noise analysis and other testing i¢ required; - cover costs of site monitoring by City and County staffs. 2. Pay a Uniform Building Code g~ading permit fee of $787.56. City and County staff time and County Sheriff time to monitor and inspect the Planning Commission Meeting August 15, ~_990 - Page 47 operation is to be charged to the applicant at a rate of $30.00 per hour , 3. Noise levels stemming from the operation are not to exceed MnPCA and EPa regulations. If the City determines that there is a problem warranting such tests shall be paid for by the applicant. 4. Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and prohibited on National Holidays. If the City Engineer determines that traffic conflicts result due to rush house traffic flows, the hours of operation will be appropriately restricted. No activity will be permitted during the U.S. Open Golf Tournament. 5. Provide a revised erosion control plan for staff approval. The revised plan should provide full protection for the creek, wetland and drainage areas. Erosion controls to be established and approved by the City prior to the start of excavation activity. Failure to maintain erosion control will result in revocation of the permit. Under the first phase of the operation, the applicant shall clean and restore the creek channel to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. submit a revised grading plan prepared by a professional engineer indicating that no area will be excavated below the 971' elevation to ensure that homes can be built above the 969' 100 flood elevation in the future. Obtain approval of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District and maintain the operation in full compliance with their requirements. 7. Excavation to be phased in accordance with approved plans. As-built grading plans prepared by a professional engineer indicating finished grades shall be prepared by the applicant for each phase, for City approval, to demonstrate compliance with approved plans. 8. Site restoration shall be completed on a phased basis before work is allowed to proceed on the follow, lng phase. Provide a revised restoration plan indicating depth of top soil and ground cover for city approval. Slopes over 18~ are to be permanently vegetated with an acceptable ground cover. 9. The applicant will be held respnsible for controlling dust and fumes from the site. A plan providing details of the method to be employed to clean truck tires before they exit onto the public right-of-way is required for staff approval. It shall be installed prior to the start of work. It shall further be the applicant's responsibility to clean the public right-of-way as often as required by staff. 10. Pioneer Trail is the only permissible haul road in Chanhassen. Other routings will require review and approval by the City Council. Appropriate "trucks hauling" signage shall be posted and kept in good condition. Prior to the start of work, the condition of the haul road will be documented by the City and County staff and the applicant will be held financially responsible for all damage that, in their opinion, Planning Commission Meeting August ~5, ~L990 - Page 48 is cuased by the operation. 11. The City will work with the County Sheriff to coordinate speed and weight checks. If trucks are violating traffic taws, staff will require that the operation be shut down and will ask the City Council to revoke the permit. 12. Violation of these conditions will result in the immediate suspension of operations by city staff with the permit being brought back to the City Council for review and possible revocation. 13. Prior to issuance of this permit the applicant shall repair the existing erosion controls and remedy any problems caused by failure to maintain those controls to date to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. All voted in favor except Annette Ellson ~ho opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Ellson: I don't think it meets our permit standards that are listed in here. Number 2 and number 7. conrad: And 2 and 7 are what Annette? Ellson: 2 is that it's consistent with the City's comprehensive plan and 7 is that it's not going to involve activities that would be detrimental to people or property such as noise and traffic. Conrad: This item goes to City Council September loth. Thank you. Krauss: Mr. Chairman, could I clarify that? Because there was a desire to work this through as quickly as possible, ~e've been asked by several people on the City Council to have this on their next meeting which is August. 27th. Conrad: Okay, thanks Patti Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 49 INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR A GRA~ING PROJECT_TQ FILL .~0.000 CUBIC YARDS__OF MATERIAL TO SUPPORT AN EARTH DAM LOCATED AT_lO00 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, DON HALLA. This item was withdrawn by the applicant. PUBLIC HEARING~ PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SITE__PLAN REVIE~ TO REPLAT__~_LOTS INTO fN~. AND FOR A RETAIL MALL BUILDING OF ~~,822 SQUARE FEET ON PROPERTY ZONED_CBD AND LOCATED ON LOT 2, BLOCK 1, 8LOOMBERG ADDITION, FRONTIER RETAIL CENTER, 8LOOMBERG COMPANIES. Kevin P. McShane John D. Rice Herb Bloornberg Clayton Johnson Brad Johnson Fred Hoisington 180 South Shore Court 505 No. Hwy. 169 7008 Dakota Bloomberg Companies Lotus Realty Consultant Paul Krauss presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Fred Hoisington: Don, it is I believe. Conrad: You can call me Don or anything you want to Fred. Fred Hoisington: At least you didn't leave tonight like you did the last time I was here. Conrad: Well I was going to make the comment, it's after 10:30. It must be time for Fred. Fred Hoisington: That's about right. I think it's always 10:30 or after. Let me just say that we would very much liked to have had an overall plan before we were to render an opinion oD how the parking would work here. We're confident however that a plan can be developed that will in fact work but what it's going to require is that we not face everything onto West 78th Street and that we have to begin to internalize that block. The difficulty right now though, as most of you know, is that. the parameters are very well established for this project. You can't change it. I mean you can cut little pieces of it off and reduce it's size and so forth but this is the kind of thing that as long as I've been involved here we wanted to see happen here. A restaurant, shops and those kinds of things so it's important we think that it occur and I guess the bottom line is that you }]ave time to work out or have them work out a plan over time that will in fact work. We're confident that that can happen. Now, if a number of things happen simultaneously on this site, or in this area, there is a real potential for a parking problem. That can happen anyplace in downtown Chanhassen but here I think maybe the risks are ever a little higher. The Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 50 Dinner Theatre is only operating at about 900 seat capacity today but there's more capacity in the Dinner Theatre than that. Now there are some divisions here that would suggest that we perhaps ought not consider the Dinner Theatre but. we can't avoid that_ because if it is full, and the potential exists for that to happen in November and December, then it will use literally all of the parking that's in front of the old Frontier Center which means that the 43 parking spaces that are available to this development alone can't begin to satisfy it's own parking demands. No,J, in the short term, and the short term could really be a lot longer than I can visualize at this point. The centerpiece or the old Frontie¥ Center over to the furniture store doesn't operate during that peak 6:00 to 9:00 period. Only the hardware and the rental store do and they close at The others close at. 6:00. What that means is that even if the Dinner Theatre is operating at something approaching capacity, and the new F~ontie~ Center is operating at something approaching capacity, you're probably in pretty good shape for quite a long period into the future. Now what we hope will happen here is that this center will be so successful that it will bring a lot more people into this area than we can ever imagine and when we were out there counting cars for the Dinner Theatre, think it was 2 weeks ago, it was depressing because there were no cars there at all. But what you see today is not what you're going to see in the future and if this has any chance of being successful, which I think it has, I think we're going to see some things next door that will also be successful and the synergy of this ~hole thing will or does have the potential to create a parking problem but t don't think you're risking anything in the short term in that case. Regarding the repoYt itself, I guess if you'd like to ask questions about any of the specifics there, I'd be happy to answer them but I'm not sure unless you want me to, to go into all those percentages and so forth in detail. Conrad: I'm just curious Fred, what the parking solution is. Fred Hoisington: Well Ladd, the parking solution is one that is an evolving one. It's not one where you can necessarily solve it all right now because this whole piece is going to remain as it is. It's not going to change. Paul and I have been exploring or thinking about alt the things that could happen here and we've been looking at this whole center area for a long time and trying to figure out ways to make that work. Short of tearing down this building and then internalizing things so that you in fact have parking on the back side. You have plenty of room for parking out here. The only problem is you have a grade change here and somehow you have to be able to step down that hill so that you can make this parking work for that center and we think it can be designed to do that but the immediacy of doing that isn't'here because there isn't development yet for this center. And it functions at less than what ~ve would expect it to generate in the ~ay of parking because it's not a real strong but the solution Ladd will come...and the short term, I don't think you'll have a problem. The short term is until something begins to happen here. Conrad: Until they move out. Fred Hoisington: Well, first of all the rental folks here are going to move out and that's going to leave a rather peculiar space here that has to be used for something but no. Until something changes here in the interim use. Planning Cornm£ssion Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 51 Erhart: In a different structure? Fred Hoisington: Possibly a different structure. I don't think that structure's going to lend itse.!.f particularly a high generator of traffic. I just don't see it · For example, that rental store, you've got 6,000 square feet of what they term retail. It has 3,400 square feet I think of storage and yet just the dimensions and the way it works, I don't know that the whole 6,000 can be occupied for a retail use. It just doesn't lend itself to that so I think Tim you're right. When the building changes, then I think we have some real serious problems. Erhart: Or opportunities. Fred Hoisington: Or opportunities, exactly. Erhart: The real problem today is that there's no convenient, there's no way to get from the rear parki,lg lot to the front where the retail is without walking around some things. There's no thru way to walk in. Fred Hoisington: We've thought about escalators, elevators, all those things back here to get people easily out of the corner of this building and down into the back side but you know we can talk that all we want to. We still have some space that needs to be used for something other than warehouses, what this can be used for now, and this use we're treating this is as a warehouse. The Hooked on Classics portion of it because it. really isn't a big generator except when they have shows. When they have shows of course they don't conduct them there~ they conduct them someplace else. Conrad: Okay, thanks Fred. Clayton, do you want to talk to us? Clayton Johnson: Clayton Johnson representing the Btoomberg Companies. I've got a couple other gentlemen with me here tonight. I've got 3chh Rice, our legal counsel and Herb 81oomberg our President and owner and I'd like to invite them to participate with me in this and maybe if you want to speak up a little bit, Herb might have a hard time hearing you. While you guys were dealing with all these other weighty issues, we walked over to the hotel tonight and we're ready to open tomorrow night. We've got two floors ready to occupy and Friday and Saturday night we're going to be sold out. So that's kind of a fun problem and it's kind of exciting to go over there and be a part of that. I thought that maybe a better use of our time would be to adjourn and go over there because if you went over there you'd understand a lot better a lot of the things that we're going to talk about tonight. Paul, you fooled me. I'd never know that you recommended approval of this thing by reading your report. The conclusions, the facts underlying the recommendations don't lead me to believe that you support it. I want to first of all deal with the parking issue. Parking is a concern that's been expressed by Paul and by Fred and obviously as owners of this property we're concerned about it. We certainly wouldn't want to build a building that we couldn't rent to anybody because there wasn't a place to park. I do disagree though with some of the conclusions. Fred's report basically to me supports the program and supports the project. I don't know where Paul drew the conclusion that parking 'was a problem from Fred's report. When I read Fred's report and he says it isn't a problem. The long term concerns, somebody made the comment tonight that when Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 52 hardware vacates we're going to have a more intense use there. I don't agree with that. /he hardware is a very intense use. Z don't believe you're going to find tenants that will generate more visits than Kent does in that location. .It happens that that building is not 6,000 feet of retail facing the front, it's 4,000. It's approximately 5-20 foot bays 60 feet deep. The way we look at this project is as follows. We think that over the years there's been all this discussion about how we're going to connect the hotel to the Dinner Theatre and how we're going to have people going back and supporting that retail. That's a lovely thought but it's not a fact. Ne have not been successful with retail that lives off of the theatre trade. What you have from the hotel to the furniture store is a convenience cef]ter that is a mirror image of what you have on the other side of the street in Retail West. And I did an analysis of that and the parking stalls in that area are 1-64. You have 153 on Retail bJest right across the street. Now the comparisons are as follows. We will have, when this new building is completed, we will have 18,000 square feet of retail. We will have 6,000 square feet of restaurant. We'll have the new 5,000 square foot restaurant and Paul's Deli of 1,000. kJe will have 5,000 square feet of office which Retail [4est does not have and we'll have 164 parking stalls to serve that area. So I mean parking is a concern of us before we would ever. The other thing is this whole thing got started on the wrong foot. I mean we see this as the final piece in a big puzzle that we've been working on for 4 1/2 years which is called the redevelopment of downtown Chanhassen. Sure we're involved in working on the new retail shopping center but that's out in a raw piece of ground. That's not redevelopment. This is the final piece in the redevelopment puzzle. ~4hen we agreed to have our building demolished and we demolished 30,000 feet by the way of building to make way for the hotel, we didn't ever consider that it would be a problem to rebuild 12. ~4e looked at these parking situations tong before we ever agreed to the demolition of our building. The other thing and some of the comments that ~ere made that were not contained in the report but were made tonight, the Dinner Theatre parking has changed. I think it's a mistake to judge the Dinner Theatre parking by what you remember. The Dinner Theatre parking as you remember it was before we had the new road in front of the Dinner Theatre. Before we created all the new parking over there and you probably recall as I do, when we had vehicles parked all the way down in front of Frontier Center. I challenge that. That's changed. There's been provision for bus parking and there's a substantial number of additional parking stalls up there on the theatre parking lot so that's a new situation. Z think it's going to be difficult for us to come to some sort of a resolution tonight and I thin. k that as I've been a part of these things in the roast, the process shouldn't be where the staff report comes in and we sit here and disagree with every single recommendation. I mean it puts you in a position where these things should be worked out ahead of time but I guess in fairness to everybody, we had our submission ready on July 2nd. We were on the August 6th agenda. ~4e were pulled off the August 6th agenda because the staff report wasn't done. I got the staff report on Tuesday morning. Yesterday. I called Paul today to try to ~4ork some of these things out. We haven't been able to so I mean I would be happy to go through the laundry list and give our feelings on each and every one but I think it's going to be very difficult and it's a great inconvenience to us. Our financing on this project unlike the shopping center, the financing is there. The $375,000.00 to build the building's in the bank. The hotel people are PLanning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 53 obviously very anxious for us to get that ugly sprinkler pipe covered up before ~,~intertime and get this building in place so time is of the essence but I think it's going to be very difficult. $o Ladd if you want me to, I will go through starting on page 2 and give you my comments. Conrad: Might. as well. Clayton Johnson: We go to page 3 in regard to the provisions in granting this. Permanent cross access and parking easements. Conrad: Just a second Clayton. , Emmings: He should go to page ll and 12. Clayton Johnson: Okay, they cover them all? I just want to make sure that I haven't missed any other comments on their comments but I can do that. Emmings: If you go through the conditions, I think it would be easier for us to keep straight what you're saying. Clayton Johnson: Okay. I've got them all marked up. Atright. Number 1, Herb's designed, built everything in downtown Chanhassen. He doesn't feel he needs any architectural help. Revising the architectural plans to put brick on, I think that's over reaching. Trash storage facilities, we don't have any problem with that and designing exterior trash storage with masonry, that's not an issue. On item number 2. Permanent cross access and parking easements shall be filed over properties that comprise the Frontier Center/Bloomberg/Dinner Theatre/Hotel complex. The easement shall involve the City in chain of title so that rights cannot be unilaterally eliminated by property owners in the area. I've got John Rice with me. He'd be happy to comment on that. That's not acceptable. There are cross parking easements that currently exist between the hotel and our property. There are currently cross parking existing between this center and the Dinner Theatre but we are not going to be giving cross parking easements between this and the Dinner Theatre parcel. And the issue to accomplish it in the chain of title. The financing's already in place on the hotel. I can't go over. We don't own the hotel. We have an interest in it. I can't go over and dictate to the hotel owners that they will grant an easement and that it will be recorded and that their lender will permit it. I mean that's outside of my control. The same thing is true on the Dinner Theatre. The people that are operating the Dinner Theatre have an option and in that option it's very specific that cross parking easements do occur but I cannot go over there and dictate and their lenders that these will be recorded and be in the chain of title. It's outside of our control. Parking for 40 automobiles. We own the city building to the rear. There's parking currently in place, hard surface parking to accommodate 300 and some cars that we have the right to park on. If there's a concern that we provide parking for our employees, we would be more than happy to have them instruct them to park in that area but we don't see any reason to construct 40 new paved parking spots on an area next to Hooked on Classics which is currently under lease and they have the right to park there. We can't go in and tell Hooked on Classics we're going to take 40 parking stalls in front of their door. Their lease currently protects them from that. No new food establishments shall be considered. Here again, we don't have a PLanning Commission Heeting August 15, 19'90 -- Page 54 problem with restricting any new food establishments in our center. I cannot sit here and guarantee you that the hotel will not have any food establishments. I don't own the hotel. We can't tell you that the Dinner Theatre can or cannot come in. To say in this development and to define the development as the Frontier Center, everything that goes from the hotel to the Dinner Theatre, that's very reasonable, bJe don't have a problem with that. At the time the new addition is granted, a certificate of occupancy or Kent's got to get his rental equipment out of there. ~4ell, we don't want the building so bad we're going to put Kent out of business. If it's a prob].em and if it becomes an issue at some point in time, but to say that Kent cannot operate his rental business there. Number one, he currently has a lease. ~4e fully intend that he's going to be the new shopping center but I don't know if he's going to be there or not and if he isn't, he's going to want a stay. Kent's been in this town for a number of years. Been very successful in business. I don~t believe he wants to ..leave and I'm not going to tell him that he has to leave. If the parking at the rental is causing some sort of a problem, if there's a parking issue over there, that's not objectionable. The snow storage is not an issue. The next item's very, no new additions or modifications to the building or uses of any of the involved properties, bJell here again, that's a very broad statement. We fully support the concept of a PUD and we want to come with a PUD for the balance of the property. All the property that faces south. That is exactly what we want to do~ however not in the current time frame. As you've been aware of some of the other PUD processes goes on for months and very honestly that rear of our property is not ready to be developed. The current use where we've got Fragrance ~qarketing in there and the warehouse function, that's the current use today. I can't rent it. fo~- anything else. Hooked on Classics in the Frontier Building, that's a good use right now. At some point in time we would love to come with a new plan and to do that in the form of a PUD is, at that time is not an issue but that is currently very restrictive. And again, you have to understand that we do not own the hotel property. You can't give the broad brush on all of these parcels. Truck deliveries, I don't know where that came from. That's certainly nothing to argue about. The driveway running bet~4ee~ the north and south parking lot shall be paved. It was paved. It's currently been torn up as a part of a city project. The sewer and water project. I think there what you should do is get your engineering staff and ask them to restore the premises in the condition in which they were prior to the time construction took place. I'm sure it's the responsibility of the contractor. There's one issue that wasn't covered in the staff report. I'm surprised that Public Safety didn't make an issue of it. ~4e're concerned about it. There's currently a sprinkler system that serves the bok~ting alley and our property and that sprinkler system does not currently have a shut off under the control of the bowling center. And somewhere the fire marshall is going to have to work with us and with the bowling center and tell us what the provisions for that should be. I don't believe that we want, I don't think any of the old property owners want to have a situation where their sprinkler system, the shut off for their sprinkler system is outside of their control. That's an issue that I think has to be resolved for our benefit as well as the bowling center. I do have to go back just on a couple of things Steve because one of the issues here is, an assumption has been made that we want to replat the property and we did not intend to replat the property. John Rice is here and he's happy to address that but we don't feel that the current city ordinance would require that. Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 55 Ne think it's unnecessary at this point in time. We would have the property al]. under common ownership but we feel that there aren't any other lenders involved. We feel that can be accomplished without going through the replatting process. You know there's a comment in here in the staff report, about tearing down the Frontier Building. I don't kno~ where that comes from. I mean the Frontier Building is a building of some 30,000 to 40,000 square feet. I can't imagine. It's never been our plans to tear it down. It's very valuable. It produces a significant amount of rental income. I don't know why we would consider tearing it down. I don't know where that came from. It certainly is, it's a steel and concrete structure. It can be revised. Nhat'd I miss? Anything? Oh, yeah 3. Parking plans. That parking lot's already in. That's a city project that's been under construction. I hope we don't have to tear it out. The comment there is that it be reviewed but they're just blacktopping that right now. There was a comment in the engineer's report about the water service. That's item 4. That's all been done. That's completed so that's okay. Sign plan. $ignage is a problem. In our submittal what we did is we took the current, there is a current, what do you call one of those big tall signs? Pylon. Well, there's an existing pylon sign and what we propose to do in our submission is to move the pylon sign to the middle of our property. The pylon sign currently sits right here and it was just relocated there and we plan on moving it here to define Frontier Center. Frontier Center being here to here. The pylon sign in our submission was to be relocated with entry monuments on either end. I don't know, Paul do you have an issue with that or do you want to leave it where it is? Krauss: Nell, I guess I'd really like to review it. I mean that wasn't clear from the plans I had that there's entrance monuments as well. I'm concerned about what's on the signs so we'd like to review that. Clayton Johnson: Okay. Yeah, the entry monuments at both driveways and the pylon sign would announce the center and then a message board on there for the tenants. You know on the landscaping, gee I thought the landscaping is very elaborate. You know we're taking advantage of all the green space there that exists between the hotel and the building and that we're planning on the restaurant overlooking that area and the landscaping, if you've got a set of our plans, we thought that we made the best possible use that we could of that. We stayed off the property line even more than ~e were required to create that green space out there. One of the things you should understand is we do not have a tenant to occupy that restaurant. We will be building the shell but we want to make sure in this submission and approval that we have the permission to go in with a 5,000 square foot restaurant-and it would be intended that the restaurant would be on the area overlooking the green space there between the hotel and the shopping center . Conrad: How many parking stalls Clayton do you need for that restaurant? Clayton 3ohnson: Ne figured, Paul what's the City ordinance on a restaurant? Krauss: I think it's 1 per 50. Clayton Johnson: 1 per 50 square feet? Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 56 Krauss: Yeah, gross. Clayton Johnson: So 25. Conrad: See this is your business and you've got to encourage somebody to come in there. If you're going to put up a shell and encourage them in there and you feel that a restaurant would come in and not feel. If they need 50 stalls, right there that would worry me and I'm not getting into your business but. seeing what I see there for a restaurant, you don't want people walking. If you've got to walk more than 300 feet, they're not going to do that. Clayton Johnson: There's 43 right ir, front. For instance at the Riveria there's 53 to the east. The Riv's 5,000 feet and they have 53 to the east. Now they haven't had the use of that for the last year and a half but that's what you have. We have 5,000 feet and we have 43 right in front~ Conrad: And you don't think any prospect is going to be concerned with not having themselves right at the doorstep? That seems like a real negative. Clayton Johnson: But one of the uses, you know I do pooh pooh the value of the Dinner Theatre/hotel in regard to the retail but in regard to the restaurant, that's a definite plus. A good share, I mean. a significant portin of the restaurant's traffic is going to come from the hotel guests. No doubt about, it. And from people that are at either the theatre or the hotel. Sure we're concerned. We don't know how we can create any more ].and though. ~ do that mirror image. I say here's Retail West right across the street. Same number of stalls. Same amount of square footage. We have 5,000 square foot of office. I don't think the office is going to conflict with the restaurant in terms of parking and we mirror that right across the street. We've operated Retail West, I mean we haven't operated it but you've seen it operate now. Retail West's been in existence for a year a half and they've operated without the 53 stalls. Retail West and the Riveria have been operating with whatever they've got there. I don't know what they've got there. I don't know what they've got. Ahrens: But their restaurant in there only has about 2 occupied tables at any given time. Clayton Johnson: The Riveria? Ahrens: No, the other restaurant. The Chinese one. Clayton Johnson: Well it'd be similar to Millie's Deli. Millie's Deli isn't even open in the evenings. They're closed at 4:00 and they'll be occupyin~ approximately the same amount of footage. Ahrens: That's not similar to the restaurant you're proposing? Clayton Johnson: No, but the Riveria would be. The Riveria would be similar. Our restaurant will mirror the Riveria in size and I would think less parking demand because it's next to the hotel. Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 57 Krauss: If I could clarify a couple things. These are arguments or discussions that we've batted around periodically on a number of meetings. I think Fred can possibly shed some light on this comparison between the two shopping centers and also we've had several meetings to try to rationalize the sets of numbers that we're starting with. But. the restaurant alone generates a parking requirement for 100 stalls. Clayton Johnson: At 5,000, yeah Krauss: And there's 43 stalls on this property. Clayton Johnson: Well the Riveria generates the same need. They're exactly the same square footage. Wildermuth: 100 stalls instead of 50? Clayton Johnson: And they have 53. Krauss: At 50 square foot per stall gross, yes. Clayton Johnson: But Paul isn't it true that the CaD, the whole purpose of the CBD is to accommodate. I mean what did we envision? What did we envision when we started this whole process and tore down that 30,000 square foot building? I'd like you to walk over there. I think it looks a hell of a lot better today than it did last October. Krauss: Much of this 30,000 square foot building is now containing the hotel. I mean there's not a full trade off here. There's a lot of history here. I depend on the City Manager for the history. I asked him to review this report. He has. He's comfortable with it. Fred can expand on some of the details in terms of comparison. We're pretty comfortable with what we're saying. It's really up to you to decide. I think it's clear that this is not something that we're going to be able to work out. I mean clayton called me up this morning and said well what can we do to work this out and I said well Clayton, you've got the report in your hand. That's our recommendation. That's what we think it's going to take to make this thing work. Clayton Johnson: It puts the commission in a tough position. I mean you know. Emmings: Not really because I have to go home. Clayton Johnson: Well we would have liked to have worked this out starting July 2nd. I mean we're here now. Krauss: If I could clarify that too. July 2nd, we met. We asked for and received assurances that we would receive an overall development plan which we never got. We got some of the materials and there were a few materials missing. The item was delayed once. I will take part blame for that. I think Clayton was on vacation too the same time I was and didn't return my call when I got back into town so there's a fair amount of discussion as to how the delay occurred. But be that as it may, here's where it sits today and do with it what you will. Planning Commission Meeting A, ugust 15, 1990 - Page 58 Conrad: Fred, are there other things that you can respond to based on hearing? I'm sure you've heard both sides or know where everybody's at. Fred Hoisington: .... Ladd that I never agree with Clayton's numbers. His comparisons and so forth. I think there are differences between the two sides of the street but on the other hand I don't think that's worthy of arguing over. We've already done that between us. I think the more pertinent question at this point is whether these conditions that Paul is recommending are necessary and we've talked about that and we think they are pretty necessary. I can appreciate that Clayton does have some problem or might have some problems with a couple of them. I think he's disagreeing on everything there but a couple might be difficult to do but I think most of them are pretty doable if we could just agree. Clayton Johnson: Do you want Kent to move out? Fred Hoisington: No. Clayton Johnson: Welt, why'd you put it in? Krauss: It's getting late and people tend to get testy and I really don't want to do that at this point. Nobody's asking~ the rental equipment you know you can continue to rent rental equipment. You just don't have to put it on main street for everybody to see and I think it's a ridiculous argument to say that somebody's trying to throw anybody out because that's certainly not the case here. Conrad: Okay. Well, this is a public hearing. John Rice: I promise to be brief. Mr. Chairman, my name is John Rice. I 'm counsel for 81oomberg Companies. I just want to respond to a couple of things. The tear down of the buildJ..ng. There was two parts. There's the 10,OOO square foot part and then there's the other part that stuck out. There was a study that the City commissioned by BRW as to whether or not that second part of the building should be torn down completely or whether only the outer northern facade and wall and somewhat back into the east and west wall should be torn down. And then the rebuilding of that building. Go on from there to have the retail purposes adjacent to the hotel. Now if we had the east and west walls standing, would we be having this converstaion? BRW recommended that the whole thing come down because you'll end up with a better end product but we wouldn't be having this discussion if we had an east arid west wall standing there. Would we? Would you say, gee you've got to leave it because you don't have enough parking to do what you want to do and throughout all of this, the plan has been exactly the plan that's proposed here. A complimentary retail/arcade/ mall area that compliments and provides an access and tYansition to and from the hotel. I want to speak just to matters of title. Mr. 3ohnson has covered all the other things and so I won't reiterate what he said. That doesn't mean I don't agree with him but just as far as title. Btoomberg doesn't control the hotel partnership. I can assure you of that. ! was involved ir] that transaction, 8toomberg does not control International Theatre Corporation. Mr. Scalon. I was involved in that transaction. I can assure you that we don't control him. We cannot control what these other entities do and have for le~at rights to operate their business in Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 59 space that they either lease or own. We don't control those mortagees. We don't control our own mortagees, bJe are more controlled by them and we can't dictate cross easements. Easements that they consent to this. That. they consent to an additional encumbrance on land. Just can't be done. ¢~not. her thing. Even if there is a cross easement, despite the recommendatior, that the City be in the chain of title so that the things cannot be unilaterally changed, that is not acceptable to have the City be in the position where all of that is controlled by the City and that no change can be made or for each and every change in the transfer, change or transfer in the ownership or mortgaging of the property, that the accommodations of the City must be sought and obtained. And that applies to each and every one of the places where something is going to come in in the chain of title. Cross easements. There is a cross easement with the hotel property. Between the hotel and this piece of property so there is access to the hotel parking spaces for this property as does the hotel have access to this property for overflow parking. Each case it's for overflow parking. Finally, in regards to the question of platting. Mr. Krauss and I disagree about whether or not platting is required. I have read the ordinance and I think I have all of it. The subdivision ordinance. There's not a requirement that the property be replatted. It may be inconvenient to have two separate parcels in some circumstance forming one parcel that is the property that we're acting on but what we're talking about taking is 21 feet in depth off of what is Lot 3 of the Chanhassen Mall and it's basically in the cantilevered area north of the Fragrance Marketing section. 21 feet by approximately, I don't know, 50 feet. Not a very large piece. If you're going to replat, what then has to be replatted is Lot 2, Block i, Bloomberg Addition with it's related easements onto the other property and all of, not just t[~e 21 feet dok~n into Lot 3, Chanhassen Mall but the entirety of Chanhassen Mall and there are so many encumbrances on Chanhassen Mall by reason of the party walls. That means that the City will have to sign the plat. That means that Mr. Dorrick over in the Bowling Alley's going to have to sign the plat and you're talking about a, you're just talking about a tremendous additional burden. If I may quote the Chairman in good will, we heard before that you do not want t.o interject the government unnecessarily into the affairs of the management of property and this is a case to require replatting where it's not legally required by the ordinance even though under some circumstances it might be beneficial. It is an unnecessary and unduly expensive intrusion into how the property is handled and platted and described. All it takes is a simple variance approval by the Council of a metes and bounds description that is less than the required 5 acres or 2 1/2 acres under the ordinance. That's all it takes and you attach it to the existing Lot 2, Block 1, Bloomberg Addition and you've got your property and you've got. your lot. Thank you. Krauss: Could I address at least two of those things. In terms of the .platting. Frankly, I mean I don't know if Mr. Rice wants to go into metes and bounds division, if we'll find that acceptable or not but at the present time you're being asked to accept, I mean the CBD has a 0 setback~ This building has a negative 21 foot setback. That's not permissible. Mr. Rice not only disagrees with me, he also disagrees with the City Attorney who's opinion I sought on the need to require platting for this. He also disagrees with the City Building official who says that the situation here is in violation of building code. As to the possibility of having P~anning Commission Heeting August 15, 1990 - Page 60 easements that have the City in the chain of title that encumber property, Mr. Rice should be fully aware that that's fully legal. In fact he was a party t.o us doing that. in the corridor area that separates this site from the hotel. Clayton Johnson: Nobody said it was illegal Paul, it's just can you do it? Krauss: Yes. Clayton Johnson: ...there's an opportunity to do it. There's not a negative 21 foot setback. When we get all done, the property underlying the building is going to be one owner and it's all going to be on the property. To describe it as a negative 21 foot setback is intentionally mis].eading. It's not the case. Krauss: I mean we can argue this in front of you. I don't know what else I can offer. You know it's sort of like a Twilight Zone episode here because our realities are so different and I don't know what else to offer you tonight. Conrad: Okay. Still a public hearing. Any other comments? Clayton 3ohnson: Well we started on July 2nd and we have to have a format. ~ mean I'm willing to stay here tonight until we get it resolved. I don't know what's going to happen if we table it and go back. We'll do whatever we can do but we can't do what we can't do. If we can't accomplish the terms and conditions, we simply don't do the project. We just bury the pipe. That's it. But I don't know what's going to be gained by postponing it. Conrad: Any other comments? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Emmings moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. /he public hearing Nas closed. Conrad: It's 11:15. Joan, we'll start with you. Ahrens: Well I don't know what we're going to do on this tonight. I mean are we going to attempt to vote on this? Conrad: We stare could. We can send it off. You know we've got 3 choices. We can table it and see if they can work it out. Obviously the key issue is this parking. Reasons for the parking problem goes back in history and the applicant bas some valid concerns in terms of some historic reasons for that and surprising justification for wanting to go ahead right now. On the other hand, staff has some standards that we apply to everybody. Ahrens: Is this something that staff can work out with the applicant? Krauss: No. I think that we've had a series of meetings over this. What we're basically confronted with is a situation where we say we have an issue and the answer is, well there's nothing we can do about that so we PLanning Commission Heeling August 15, 1990- Page won't. What you have before you is the way it sits and I'm afraid, I would like to think that there would be some progress but I wouldn't count on it. Ahrens: Well, in that event. I guess it's up to us to go through this and make a decision. Conrad: I think so. I don't think the applicant wants it. It doesn't look like there's something we can send back for more information so that it can be worked out. I think whether it goes ahead pro or con, we should get it out of here. Ahrens: I think the parking is a problem. I don't know how it can be resolved. We're dealing with a limited land space there and it's just going to be a problem. A lot of small downtown areas are problems like that. I think that the report that was sent out, I agree with it~ I meal] the parking situation isn't, how it's attempting to be resolved is not. ideal but it may work. I don't think that I totally disagree with Clayton that the parking situation on the west side shopping area is similar to the retail area in the Frontier Shopping Mall. I think it's completely different. The types of stores. As I understand it the type of restaurant. that you're proposing would be very different from the Riveria. It would be more of an all day kind of restaurant with breakfast and lunch and that kind of a situation which would bring a lot more people in. Draw a lot more people from the community. I think it's very different. I don't know what to do about the parking problem. I think that we may have to live with it the way it is temporarily. Bet as many stalls as possible from whe. rever we can. It is a problem. Brad Johnson: Excuse me. I kind of represent the restaurant. Conrad: Why did't you speak during the public hearing Brad? Brad Johnson: Can I just point out something about parking and why the restaurant people are not concerned? Conrad: I'd really be interested because ! think... Ahrens: Which restaurant is it by the way? Brad Johnson: It's like an Applebee's. It's that food line. There is, and this is why I've never, Fred and I a long time ago we talked about parking. If you look over in h-ere. 99~ of the time this is pretty near vacant. There's certain peak times that this is used. gilly's is active after 9:00. The bowling alley is going all day long but all day long they have a tremendous amount of parking in there and what Fred is sayiDg and what all of you have said, is somehow we've got to get people to be able to enter through here. That will take time because who knows if the bowling alley's going to be there forever. That type of thing and who knows if this is going to be there forever but in our grand plan we even had a parking ramp here because we knew someday we might have a problem but currently in downtown Chanhassen there is no parking problem and that's what Fred's saying. Fred is saying that we can work it out because you've .got to work it out or these guys will die but today there's an easement where we plan on having the entrance of the courtyard that. runs from here PLanning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 62 to here and a new stairway to go over to the hotel corning out this door. Clayton Johnson: It would be helpful if you could do that. Brad Johnson: There's just a nice stairway that leads to all this parking and there's how many parking spots there? Probably 120 at any one time so we perceive that anybody knows or livss in Chanhassen is going to go to that restaurant and knows they can't park here, other than in January when nobody goes to the restaurant, you just drive over here. Walk up this nice little thing to the courtyard and park there and that's all in. We have tremendous amount of parking down here and it just turns out, I didn't know it was going to be there, there's a nice stairway which also allows the water to run out of that area, right out the backdoor. There caT] be, when that restaurant's designed, there will be a door put right here. There could also be another door put right here so it's even closer and they can just go into here. You've got parking. There's plenty of parking in that area to handle it. Conrad: I think that's your problem and not ours but I guess ! just don't, if I were running a restaurant and I worked for several of them, I'd be real nervous about. The visibilty is on 78th and that's where people go. Brad Johnson: But it's no different than in Calhoun Square. Ahrens: [Veil a little different than Calhoun Square. Brad Johnson: The parking ramp that, I've gone down there and access is about that far away. People just learn that you go in the back instead of the front. You can't get in off Lake Street. Ahrens: That's different. Conrad: Well Brad, it's not our business. That's your business and we're not going to tell you how to do it but. Brad Johnson: I'm just saying as a temporary solution until somebody figures this all out, okay? Long term. You've got parking that's within 75 feet of the back door of the restaurant. Ahrens: I think that's what we talked about and that's what the report said that we had, the parking was sufficient short term and that's what we agreed in the very beginning. Conrad: Can I jump in or would you rather for me to be quiet? Ahrens: Go ahead Don. Conrad: Who's problem is it to figure this out? Who's going to pay to figure this out is my question. Krauss: There's a fundamental issue here though with whether or not cities have the right to regulate parking standards to keep people so that, make sure that people park on their own property or whether or not we have the right to regulate anything quite frankly. I mean I've heard every issue Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 63 contested tonight. Clearly I mean the o~-dinance establishes parking standards for the well beif~g of the community. NobJ if we wanted to take a laise affaire approach, then tell us to change the ordinance and throw out those standards because right nobJ this proposal is not consistent with what the ordinance says. I mean specifically the ordinance says that parking has to be within 400 feet of a building entrance. Well not we're talking atJout coming through a back door of a hotel, through a corridor. I mean Fred did take a look at where parking was available on this property and it was concluded that there's a whole lot of stalls inside the ring road. The problem is they're not where people are going to readily use them and we've always conceeded that. I mean everybody knows they're there and the issue is how do you get them there and I don't think that's been ans~¢ered. The ordinance also requires that parking that you're utilizing parking either be under the same ownership and merge into a single tax parcel as the site served under public ownership where the use of parking facilities shall be protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the City. You're being asked to vary that standard as well. Clayton Johnson: We wanted to change all the tax parcels Paul but to do that, you wouldn't let us without going through the City. I mean we don't object to this whole PUD process. We don't think the world should stop while that happens. This parcel will be under one ownership. Everything that we have considered in out- parking lot. Conrad: So there's not enough parking long term. Who's going to solve that? Is the City going to underwrite solving that problem or is that Bloomberg Companies' to solve the long term problem? Herb Bloomberg: That's Bloomberg Companies' problem. The front is already done. We've got all the curbs all poured. There isn't one inch of that whole 78th Street that isn't developed today. Vie hope it's blacktopped by Friday. Okay. I don't think we have any problems. I just wish we would stop grape hanging on this whole subject and if you'll bear with me for a minute. Of course I've only been involved in this for 30-35 years. About 20 years ago someone came to the City to apply to build a concrete block building next to the Hanus building. They were right across in the feed mill property and here we sat with a rather new theatre and I thought my goodness, that's going to be a heck of a thing to look at and so I bought that piece of property. The feed mill property in self defense. We held it. all these years. Paid taxes. No income on it. We cut the grass. We tried to put a split rail fence. Even looking half decent and now what today, we've got a beautiful development along that whole north side of 78th Street. 3chh Rice and Clayton 3ohnson have worked on every piece of that north side of the street. There perhaps isn't a law pertaining to property on the books that haven't been explored in all these different parcels but believe it. It's all done. We've now got a beautiful clinic across the street. There's a lot of parking spaces in there but the best part is, and we certainly agree with what Fred is saying that there's no short term problem. The long term problems to me are very optimistic. We've got one plat there behind the Frontier Building and I can show you a 300 'foot square. 90,000 square feet of space and we could use it att for parking. At one time here a couple years ago we voted down a civic center. The civic center was going to take advantage of the passageway and use the property, double decking maybe and put a parking ramp behind Filly's on the Planning Commission Heeting ¢4ugust 15, 1990 - Page 64 west side. And so that's still a possibility. I think legally that could be done but mainly, right behind our properties there, see we operated a lumber company right there, lumber operation for 25 years and it was a wonderful place because it was shielded from the northwest winds. The walk out space and you could bring in trucks you could load and you could, this was very convenient place. Now that's the back end where the Classic Cars now comes out b~]t my feeling is that the really, this certainly is going to come on the south side and it's been brought up a few comments here, either elevators or escalators in some of this property. I would much rather come to a restaurant and say I'm going to park in there behind. In the lot behind and walk in and take the elevator up and then I'm on 78th Street. This is the way, there's just no question that that's the way that's going to be developed. But as far as 78th Street today is concerend, it's done. It's completed. It's finished and I don't think we have any problems unless we just imagine them but we do have to, we can't... ~4e're not building a new town out in the prairie where we can go by all the rules that Paul likes to speak of and you can have all the ordinances but if somebody wants to go out here at TH 41 and take 160 acres, you can do all the rules. Do exactly according to the book but we're in a downtown development. We're working with the old town and I think we've done a beautiful job. We're the envy of every community in f4innesota with our HRA performance. Our tax base is beautiful and it's getting better every day so we don't want to pass the word that Chanhassen's hard to do business with because I don't think Chanhassen is. I think that we have so many beautiful places around here that are adding to our tax structure and we're going to do substantially more things here in downtown Chanhassen but we're right on the ragged end right now in that we'd like to wind this thing up. And like I've been saying, we've got almost a half a mite of frontage from the railroad tracks to the end of the shopping center area. We're now talking about the development of 95 feet against about 2,600 feet and still we make a big problem out of it. I just hope that somehow we can cut through the red tape here and simply let's try to do business. I've been working here, I haven't had an argument with a single person in Chanhassen in living here 32 years and I'm not going to start now but sometimes your patience gets kind of worn thif]. I appreciate all the problems that you people are facing and living with every day and it's tough. It's a great public service that people are willing to sit like you are every night here without pay and try to do a good civic job but I think that sometimes we need t.o count our blessings. We've had a lot of things to be thankful for and it's, I think we have a town we can be proud of and I think it's .c]etting better every day. Thanks. Fred Hoisington: Ladd, I think this staff report puts the burden to solve that longer term problem on them so I think Herb is exactly right. My concern is, when I say there's no short term problem, it's because this development depends on this parking next door. It does not, it cannot survive on this parking alone. It has to have this parking to make it work and so at minimum we've got to have some assurance that that can use this area as this can use this area. Claytor~ Johnson: That's a given. That's not an issue. Fred Hoisington: Well is it a given? That I don't. Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 65 Clayton Johnson: It's never been an issue but when you try to tell us that we've got to go and record cross parking easements with a property owner next door that's not us, we can't do that. That's not a problem on Frontier's side. Fred Hoisington: What if that owner isn't you anymore? Clayton 3ohnson: We are the owners of that parcel. Fred Hoisington: Well I know you are now. Clayton Johnson: That's why we're willing to give it and we are able to give it. but I can't give something I don't have. Fred Hoisington: You're saying you can't give the hotel and you can't give the Dinner Theatre? Clayton Johnson: No. We already have it with the hotel between this parcel that we're talking about and the hotel but to record it in the fashion that Paul is recommending in the staff report, I can't deliver that. Ahrens: Have you asked the Dinner Theatre? Clayton Johnson: The Dinner Theatre's not an issue, it's the hotel. Why is a lender in ~4ashington D.C. going to agree to record a new easement? ~hrens: I do that kind of stuff everyday. It's not a problem. Believe me. Mortagees don't put up a fight with that. I mean most of the time people are perfectly ~iliing to give those kinds of easements. It's not a big deal for mortagees to grant cross parking. Clayton 3ohnson: I wish you'd had my experience on the bus depot then. I'll never sign another easement as long as ! live. I mean we are more than happy to try and accomplish those things but to say that we will accomplish them, we cannot do that. Ahrens: Well you know, I think as far as the conditions go in the staff report, the staff recommendation, the face brick, I don't. That's not an issue for me. If you think there's a reason why you have to have that in there, then I'll go along with that. I don't know why that's in there but the parking easements, there is a problem as far as I'm concerned requiring them to have that done. You have to have that done. You have to have consent by the parties to an easement and if they can get it, great. Krauss: I'll just throw in my 2 cents. Ellson: You're saying you just want the attempt. Ahrens: Either that or we have to require them up front. We can't require somebody else to give them an easement but are we requiring them to go th~'ough the process to? Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 66 Krauss; On the one hand Clayton is saying that he has rights to utilize spaces. On the other hand he's saying he can't insure that he does have the right, to utilize those spaces. I can show you a supermarket, a former Red Owl supermarket on the corner of Hopkins Crossroad and Excelsior Blvd.. The supermarket, building was owned by Red Owl. The fellow who owned the Red Owl. The Red Owl chain bought some additional parking for this guy when he expanded the building. They were in two separate ownerships. What you had was when Red Owl went out of business, or shut down their stores, the party that owned the parking sold the parking lot off to a McDonald's. They ~ere then left. with a buiJ. ding that had no parking. I think if you go past there today there's a sporting goods store and you'll see that that's kind of left with one tittle strip of parking on the side of the building and there's a McDonald's sitting next door. That's the situation that the ordinance is designed to avoid. Ahrens: I think we realize what can happen when parking isn't, when there isn't an easement. I mean anything. They can change ownership and all of a sudden you're stuck with somebody that's saying you can't park in our lot. I mean that's what can happen. I think an easement is a smart thing to do. I think it's important. I think that those negotiations should start ~ith the theatre. Clayton Johnson: We have the easements. It's just that we cannot assure you that they will be in the chain of title. We can't assure you that the City will. be in the chain of title because they are currently not in that form. Ahrens: Well, I think your lawyer can work on that. The next, let me see here. Again, the no new food establishments. I don't know how you're going to do that. How are you going to tell them. I mean they have no control again over businesses that they don't own. How can you tell them? Krauss: Well again as property owners I think they could be held subject to a condition that's applied to them relative to. Ahrens: But you're telling them that the Theatre can't open a restaurant. Krauss: Well, at that point we have some, there's probably some difficulty with that. I should tell you too that the Theatre's talked to us about expanding their restaurant. Ahrens: Well, there is a condition in here that says that no new food establishment shall be considered over and above the current restaurant anywhere in the Frontier Center complex. Maybe you want to reword that somehow because they don't have control over the entire Frontier Center complex correct? Krauss: Well actually, the Frontier Center in capitals, I believe they do. The other, the hotel and Dinner Theatre they don't. Ahrens: Okay, so do we just want to eliminate the hotel and Dinner Theatre? Krauss: Sure. Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 67 Clayton 3ohnson: Okay make sure, we already have a restaurant in there you know. Millie's Deli. Krauss: No, acknowledging. This is just. saying anything over and above. Ahrens: It says no additional. The driveway, do you want to leave that in here? Is that the, City's re,spon~ibility to fix that? Krauss: I told Clayton this morning, I don't care who builds it. If he can convince Don that the City's liable to build it, that's fine. It ju. st has to be built. Ahrens: Should that be left in as a condition? Krauss: I believe so. Ahrens: I have no other comments. Conrad: Okay. Jim? Wildermuth: I guess my feeling is that the issue should be tabled and I think a number of these differences should be worked out. Based on what we're looking at here tonight and the disagreement that is clearly evident tonight, I think we're just too far apart to be able to make, the applicant and city staff are too far apart for the commission to make an intelligent recommendation. Conrad: Anything else? Annette? Ellson: I tend to go against tabling it or whatever. I think you do get to a point sometimes where you've got to be honest and say that they're not going to solve them. That's what we're here for is to break the tie, if there is such a thing, and there's also City Council beyond us that's going to be overseeing it as well. So I agree that I'd like them to at least make attempts to get it into the chain of title. The cross easements. If they've already got it, whether it's verbal or whatever now, then all we're asking is to be all the more official and maybe they're already ready to do something like that since they already seem to have some sort of easements right now. John Rice: Excuse me, could I speak and put that issue to rest? I know the public hearing's closed. Conrad: Yeah, the hearing's closed. I don't know that we're going to come a conclusion on that cross easement deal. Let us continue to go through here. Go ahead Annette. Ellson: ...remain the same. I agree with the rental equipment thing. I don't think we're putting them out of business. We're just trying to get back the parking stalls and stuff like that. It was an interesting point about parking in the back. Is there going to be any signage that will tell somebody from the back how you can get to the restaurant from the rear? Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 68 Krauss: 14ell I don't know. In fact I thought that that was a door that was going to be locked and just be an emergency entrance or the key to the hotel . Brad Johnson: It's a full open sidewalk. There is no door. It's just a corridor. It was always planned to be there. Ellson: If you're parking in the back is it going to say, "To the Restaur ant "? Brad Johnson: It's no different than if that was a public parking lot and you just walk up the stairs and you .go up into the restaurant. You don't go into the hotel. Krauss: On the plans for the hotet~ that was shown as, it wasn't shown as a sidewalk. It was shown as an emergency exit. Brad Johnson: For the hotel. Krauss: If it's going to function as something else too, we can take a look at. it but that was not the original intent or if it was, it Hasn't clear. Clayton Johnson: I think we'd better take a walk. Conrad: I don't think I'd go Paul. Krauss: Not on a dark night. Ellson: No, I think we should go ahead with it as is with the recommendations and move it along. Go ahead Tim. Take it away. Erhart: '~ell it's obvious that the two parties are not working together on this thing. I don't know how you resolve it. It's not here. I think we can, I'd be happy to maybe make some comments on some of these things. Somehow you guys have worked yourself into corners and either through additional parties or more time, all these things are, on the face of everything, there's logical solutions to every item on here. They certainly aren't being discussed in a format, tf t had this meeting going on at my company, I'd stop the meeting right there and come back another day because it's obvious a lot of emotion i~ it. I think also a lot of insensitivity to the point where I think some of the behavior is I think a little unprofessional. Oespite frustration, I don't think it's necessary to say the kinds of things that give the kind of expressions that I think I've seen here tonight. I think you've got to go back and work on it. If it's gotten emotional, bring some other people into it on both sides who can look at it with a little fresher point of view and you know it's something we're going to do. This project ~ge're going to do and it's going to be approved. It's got to be done and we've just got to bring reason to this thing and get rid of the emotions of it. Comments on. some of the items are, I'll just say again on the architectural. I don't know hou~ much we've been involved historically in the a¥chitectural review of the whole thing. If it's something we haven't done much in, this is probably a little bit. late to get into at this time, although one of the things that Plannin¢3 Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 69 bothered me about the' whole thing is that the whole hotel came in with what ~.~,e saw was a cedar shake roof a~]d all of a sudden we're not getting a cedar shake roof. I thought that was a pretty important part of that project when I looked at it. bJell now they're talking about a cedar shake roof and I'll tell you what I believe, we're not going to see a cedar shake roof on this building. I'm not looking for an answer but it seems like they're a~ain a lot of, you ~onder a lot. Cross easements, I can't make a judgment on that. You know you've got to look at what's reality. You've got to get Roger involved in it and go for it. It's certainly nice. There's a great concern about parkin~ but we've got to live with the existin~ situation~ It may not. be possible to 9et those easements. It may not ever be possible to assure 100% that we're not going to end up with a parking problem. I think most, I think this is a project that's got to be done. 40 automobiles for parkin~g in the rear for employees. Are you going to have employees that are ~oin~ to wa~t to park in the rear who leave work at night or come into ~ork at night? I don't know about that one. If there's an access out through the side through those doors, maybe that will work with adequate lighti~]g. Maybe a security camera or something and make employees use the bowling alley lot and mount a camera and monitored by somebody in the hotel or something. There's a security issue involved. The food establishment, I guess everyone's agreein8 to that one. Again, the rental equipment, I really don't know what to say on that one. t don't know if you can go over and, as much as I agree entirely with Paul's intent there, I think we ou~ght to forget those parkin.g spots. I'm not sure that we can really draw the line there and say we're going to do that. I don't know if you want to say that okay you can't do this building or this project because you can't do that. It's a very, very hard line that you're tryin8 to draw and again I think we've got to get this hotel and Dinner Theatre out of the one provision where it says no food establishment shall be considered. The drive%~ay I think we've got to find, we should find out what is the deal with the driveway. Is it the City's responsibility and if we're 8oing to make an emotional issue out of it, let's get the facts before we dra,~; the lines. That's my comments. I think it's, I don't think this is the place to resolve these, what has become emotional issues. Conrad: What do you want t.o do? Erhart: I think we ought to table it. There's a ~umber of issues that we're not qualified to. We don't have tbs data and we're not qualified to make a recommendation. Fred Hoisington: I guess my feeling is that it's urgent to keep this thin~ moving along. I would be a little concerned about tabling it. I ~uess ~hat you might want to do is approve it with conditions with a couple exceptions. One, just leave a question mark as far as the chain of title question. I don't know if any of us can answer that.. Paul and 3chh obviously have different opinions... 8ut ].et those things be worked out between now and Council by staff and the proponents and see if they can't come back with...something that will be workable. I'm afraid if we delay it for 2 more weeks we may, I won't say ~.4e'll lose the project but we've really pushing up against bad weather conditions to .get it done. Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 70 Conrad: Okay. Well, I like this project. All we've said is negative stuff but I like it. There are some problems obviously and I 'm not sure that I agree with you Clayton on everything you've said. In fact 50-50. Disagree with ha.if of what you said but I like the project. I think it's neat.. I think it's neat to see West 78th almost complete and as you ~4ent through the list Clayton, I didn't find, you know I think you said in most cases you didn't have disagreement. I think parking is the issue and I don't have a clue on some of these and typically ~hen t don't have a clue I have to go with stale report. Yet in some o¢ these cases, I guess I've got Lo question some things. On the cross easements, I don't kno~ and to be honest, when you don't know on a technical issue, you almost have to go along with staff but I'm no~ comfortable yet on the cross easement issue. The only thing I want to do is assure that we have parking in the Cront for the restaurant that's connected with the Frontier Center. That's ~hab I ~4ant. I think that's easy. Paul wants some more things and those ate the things bhab I don't understand so I think k~hat Clayton's saying is, for sure there's the cross easement with the Frontier Center. That's a piece of cake. Can't guarantee some o~her things but those are the things that i~ we felt it ~4as important to guarantee, they've got to do it. Otherwise the project doesn't fly and I guess on one hand Clayton's saying maybe they may not be able to get those guarantees or those cross easements ~rom the other owners. I don't know. The parking in the rear for 40 automobiles, that one doesn't bother me. That's one that I guess, Paul is that an important one? That one doesn't make much sense ~o me in terms of being critical at this juncture. Krauss: Is it as critical as the others? No, it probably isn't and the information tonight on that corridor in front of P~ilty's may resolve some of that. We'll look into that further. That's probably something. Conrad: Yeah, I had a feeling that that was probably the case. I think that. that requirement sure is debateable based on where Brad said people, his restaurant wants to park people. I think the others, going down the row. Clayton has said they're okay. I guess staff has a comment in here that's saying hey, we want to see where this whole complex is going and you. kno~, I guess I would leave that in here simply because we don't want this to happen again where we come up and butt heads and ~ think that that section should stay. In terms of the responsibility on reparing the driveway, if it's the City job then it should be the City's. That's another one that again %4e need some review on so again, I guess I don't want to see LiS sit here. I'd like to move it on. I think it's a neat, I like it. in general. There are 3 or 4 areas, and as long as, and I'm convinced that it's not the City's problem to solve the parking. That is Bloomberg Companies' to solve the parking long term and as long as the City doesn't have any financial liability and as long as they don't affect how the City operates, I'm comfortable sending this, when I say the City operates. As long as there's not a spill over to West 78th Street or across the street or whatever, then boy I tell you, that's their job to figure that out. Brad's job to figure out how restaurant patrons are going to park x number of feet away from the front door of the restaurant. That's not our job but I'd like to see this go through b;ith maybe a bulk of it, the way the staff talked about but in my mind I'd like to see some added review of, I wish they were numbered. The easement issue. The parking for the 40 automobiles and the driveway bet~qeen the north and south ,°lannLng Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 71 parking lots. Those issues seem to be debateabte in terms of the staff report. Whether we send them through as needing more 'review, I guess whoever makes the motion has to clarify what you want done but I think we should gel this out of here. I think staff can do some additional work with Clayton in the next couple of weeks. Maybe not come to resolution but they can get to City Council and they can deal with some of these. I don't know that some of these are resolvable. I think it's going to be, it's not whether they're going to come back in agreement. I really don't believe that that's the case here. It's a case where do you want a project or do you want to table or kill it and we've been told by our consultants that short term, we're probably not going to have a problem. The biggest problem that we see is parking. We're not going to have a problem short term. So whoever makes the motion can consider my comments and make the motion before 12:00 because I'm not sticking around past then. Ahrens: We've got a whole lot. left on the agenda. Conrad: Clayton? Clayton 3ohnson: Would it be proper for me to just run through all the... and clarify some of the things. I mean I think we're in agreement on 90~ although there are some very key items that I would like to make sure get in the motion otherwise there's no point in moving along tonight. Can I just go through them real quick? Conrad: Okay. I'll stop you if I, yeah. Go ahead. I'm not sure what you're going to tell us that we don't already know. Clayton Johnson: Well for instance on the no new food establishments. That's not an issue if you confine it to Frontier Center. Ellson: Right. Take out hotel and Dinner Theatre. We've got that. Wildermuth: Can you start with number 1 and just go down the whole list.. Clayton Johnson: Number 1 is the brick issue. We don't like it. I guess if you're going to start redesigning our building, that's not the end of the world but ~ don't like it. The cross easements, we will give you cross easements on the Bloomberg parcel and we already have cross parking easements existing on the hotel but I cannot guarantee you that they're going to be in the chain of title as Paul has laid out here. You will get everything we've got and everything we can give. The 40 automobiles, because we've already got it in another 300 spots back there, I don't know why we should build 40 more and we think it's in conflict with our lease with Hooked on Classics. The food establishments we talked about. As long as you confine it to Frontier Center, that's okay. The occupancy on West 78th Street. On the rental equipment, I have a hard time with that. I mean I am going to have a very difficult time going over and telling Kent that he can't use that property the way he's used it. and I don't know, you're kind of reaching. You're going over and you're dealing with this issue but I don't know. I mean if you want to say that, you've taken the burden off of me. No snow is no problem. The additions or modifications. ~ mean there again it'd be nice if we knew what we were talking about. I don't think we can infringe on the rights of other property owners like the PLanning Commission Meeting August 15, ~.990 - Page 72 he)tel and the Dinner Theatre. I think you'd have to confine that to the Bloomberg parcel. Truck parking's not a problem. T.he driveway is going to be resolved. It's going to either be, I mean k,e had it all paved before and it got tore up. Either LtS or them do it. Adequate turn radii, I would like to see that. Is that a condition Paul? KraLtSS: Yes. Clayton Johnson: Well, you guys just engineered and built the parking lot. Don't make me go in and tear it up. Do you really mean that? Krauss: That ~4as a concern raised by the Fire Marshall. Conrad: Where's tha~? Ellsop: Number 3. Clayton Oohnson' Number 3. They're just pouring the curbs no~ on ~t. Herb Bloomberg: They're done. C~ayton :ohnson: They're done and I mean I don't like to think that ~e're going to have to go back and tear them OLt~. If ~hey didn't look at them before, I don't kno~. 4 is done. 5 is done. 6, I told in our submission, Paul in his report speaks...in our submission on the signage, ~e just plan on moving the pylon to the middle and put two entrance signs. If you want more detail, that's something ~e may have to come back with. Ellson: For the Council's approval? Krauss: Yeah, I would prefer that. Otherwise the sign plan's not going to come back to you. Clayton 3ohnson: We'll come back ~ith signing on the whole Frontier Center . Krauss: Sharmin has indicated that monument signs are mot permitted in the CBD district. Clayton 3ohmsom: They're already there. ~4e already have them. We're just talking about moving them. Krauss: No, monument signs Clayton. Not the pylon. Clayton Johnson: The pylon we have. Krauss: Right. I acknowledge that but new monument signs. Monument signs are not permitted. Clayton 3ohnson: Entrance, monuments? We've got that right noN. ¢l lson'~ Okay, can ~e move on? Conrad: Yeah. Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 73 Wildermuth: What about number 8? Clayton Johnson: Well we think that that's something that Rice and Knutson can work out. We don't like to go through the platting process. We think it's unnecessary. We think we wiii have a piece of property under one ownership. The building will be totally on that piece of property. It won't have a negative setback. We just don't think it's necessary to go through the whole platting process. Erhart: A lot of people think that but everybody does it. You're talking about a var ial~ce otherwise. Krauss: Unless this is something that can be brought under a metes and bounds division. And again frankly, I don't care how we move the lot lines as long as it's done in a legitimate way. We do have authority to review metes and bounds at the City Council. It's a simplier procedure. If the City Attorney's comfortable with it, that would satisfy that. Clayton Johnson: It's just a matter of time and expense, that's ali.. don't think the platting will accomplish it. That's it. Conrad: Yeah, I wish we recorded what you said Clayton because I don't disagree with all the things you said. In fact, that's a negative way of saying that. I agree with a lot of what you just said. We could make a motion and I don't know if anybody's getting prepared to make a motion here. It's almost to the point where I'd like to reword almost every one of the conditions. Ellson: Or you could say review and clarify before you get there or something. Conrad: So somebody could make the motion that, do you know? Erhart: I'll give it a try. Conrad: Let me give you an alternative that might help. We could make a motion to basically accept the staff report as drafted but to have the staff review these points because the Planning Commission doesn't agree in it's entirety with the staff report. Erhart: I'm pretty much doing that. Ellson: Rather than reword them all. Conrad: Well yeah. I think rewording this, we can't do and I'm looking for an easy way of getting us out of here. Erhart: Let me summarize what I'm going to do and unless somebody objects, I'll make the motion. What I was going to do was to essentially do that for everything except for the items relating to the 40 automobiles for employees. The one on the equipment rental area, I was just going to leave out with the parking area for employees. The 40 parking spots for employees. The one on the rental agreement. To eliminate the rental equipment thing. Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 74 Conrad: So you don't mind it being out there? Erhart: I just. don't think that should be in here. I think it's something we ought, to work with as a City with the rental company. Clayton Johnson: I think you've already got ordinances. Conrad: See there's an outside display ordinance and see I don't know how they can do what they're doing right now and I think as long as we're a nice little community, we can let that happen but I don't believe it's legal and I haven't wanted to say anything but I don't know that we need it in here because I think it's under our control already and as long as no harm and nobody complaining, I'm comfortable but it's real tacky. Ahrens: I like it. Conrad: Do you? But that's not, boy if that's how they want to do it, that's okay. Erhart: The other one I was going to leave out here was the new additions or modifications to buildings. Leave out the new additions or modifications of building or uses because, if they want to do that, they have to come in for a permit anyway don't they? Krauss: Yes they do except that this thing keeps coming in incrementally and there's never a line drawn that says okay, figure out how it all works together and I guess that's what 'that was trying to get at. Conrad: It's whether Tim you want, basically they can come back with another problem just. like this and they won't but they potentially could and what Paul is saying is hey, I don't want, at least tinder their control. right now, Paul doesn't want to, Paul would like to have a bigger plan drawn up so be has an easier job which makes sense. But that's up to you. You're making the motion. Erhart: I can change it to what he's saying, involve Bloomberg properties. Clayton Johnson: Right. John Rice: ...The use is going to change because the Hardware store's going to move out so what are we supposed to do? Erhart: Well we're going to change it to Bloomberg properties. John Rice: That is Bloomberg's property. Herb $1oomberg: It's still retail. Clayton Johnson: It's still retail though. As tong as we come back with new retail, the only time we have a problem is if we come back with a restaurant. Erhart: What you're looking for is a motion to go to Council. That's what I'm trying to get to so the Council can go back and add it back in or Planning Commission Meeting ~ugust 15, 1990 - Page 75 change it but with that, I 'm going to leave pretty much everything else the same except for 8. I'll add in the contingency that if they can discover a metes and bounds method for approving. Otherwise I'm going to leave in the title of chain. Again, we aren't making a decision here. This is a recommendation. Ellson: Or just something that we want to have reviewed. Erhart: ...if the City Council says no, then you've got it. Krauss: We would sit. down and ask Mr. Rice to give copies of the easements to our City Attorney and see what he feels. Conrad: So have you done it? Have you made a motion? Erhart: I'm going to make a motion. Conrad: You're going to do it right now? Okay. Erhart: Is there anything else Ladd? You wanted to get out of here by midnight. Conrad: We don't have much time Erhart: Unless somebody else wants to. Conrad: No, no. Go ahead. Please go ahead. Erhart: Okay, I move that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of Site Plan Review ~90-7 and Preliminary Plat ¢90-14 subject to the following conditions. Before I got this far I was going to ask one more question. What was the argument for this architectural control? Krauss: Oh well, is it imperative? Well, your ordinances give yott the right to review building architecture and you've done it in the past. You've been doing it more and more as time goes on. The idea is not to be manipulative or to require changes. On the plan I noticed that there was a line of brick underneath the windows that ended at one of the doors and it's 3List like that's part of the building and it just didn't finish it and aesthetically it didn't seem appropriate to me and that's where that, it's subjective. Erhart: Okay, continuing with the motion. Leave item 1 as is. Item 2 as is with the following changes. The first paragraph as is. The second paragraph beginning with the parking area with room for 40, delete that paragraph. Next paragraph starting with no new food establishments, delete in the first sentence the words, the hotel and Dinner Theatre. The following paragraph beginning at the time the new addition, delete that paragraph. The following paragraph beginning with the owner will, leave as is. The paragraph starting with no new additions or modifications should include the word Bloomberg after the word involved. The following paragraph no change. The last paragraph, change that something to the effect that staff will review that one and determine who's responsibility it is to do that. Item number 3. Leave as is. 4, 5, 6 and 7 as is. 8 as PLanning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 76 is with the additional, if an acceptable meads for approving this, approving the objectives stated here can be done with the metes and bounds method, that that would be acceptable to the Planning Commission. Conrad: Good job. Krauss: Clarify one point on the sign plan. There was some desire to see, do you want that to be resolved at the City Council or do you want that to come back here? Because the way that's worded right now, it will come back to you. Wildermuth: All they're going to do is move the sign. What ! was going ct propose there was provide a revised sign plan for staff approval just like item 7. Conrad: Yeah. I see no reason that they have to come back here unless they're asking for variances. They wouldn't come on a variance. Krauss: Except. that this gets into an area where the ordinance says that multiple tenant buildings should have a sign plan and it's not terribly explicit. Ellson: Fine. We don't have a problem bringing it back to us, so let's bring it back to us· Ahrens: Yeah. Krauss: You might want to exercise some judgment on this one. Conrad: Okay. Ahrens: I'll second it. Conrad: Any discussion? Erhart moved, Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Revie~ ~90-7 and Preliminary Plat ¢90-14 subject to the following conditions: Revise architectural plans to carry face brick below the window line to the west end of the building. Demonstrate to staff that adequate trash storage facilities are being provided in an acceptable location. Exterior trash storage facilities shall be screened by a masonry wall designed to be compatible with the new construction. 2. Parking requirements: a. Permanent cross access and parking easements shall be filed over all properties that comprise of the Frontier Center/Bloomberg/ Dinner Theatre/Hotel complex. The easement shall involve the City in the chain of title so that rights cannot be unilaterally eliminated by property owners in the future. b. Deleted. PLanning Commission Meeting August 15, 1990 - Page 77 c. No new food establishments shall be considered over and above the current restaurant, anywhere in the Frontier Center complex. This condition will be enforced until an overall development plan described below has been prepared and accepted by the City. Deleted. e. The owner will ensure that no snow will be stored in the parking lot. As necessary, snow shall be removed from the effected area. No new additions or modifications to buildings or uses of any of the involved Bloomberg properties will be considered unless they are part of a coordinated development program that addresses the design, access and parking needs of the entire complex. g. No truck delivery parking will be allowed anywhere in the north parking lot of the Frontier Center between 11:30 a.m. and 1:30 on weekdays. h. Staff will review to determine who's responsibility it is to pave the driveway running between the north and south parking lots. 3. Revise parking plans in accordance with staff's recommendations and work with the City Fire Marshall to ensure that adequate turn radii are provided. 4. Revise utility plans as follows: a. A separate metered, privately owned and maintained water service shall be installed and connected to the existing 8 inch watermain under the proposed parking lot (see attachment). The proposed building facility shall disconnect and remain permanently disconnected from the existing water service extending from the building to the east. 5. Provide final site and building plans consistent with the recommendations of the City Fire Marshall and 8uilding Official. 6. Provide a revised sign plan for Planning Commission approval. 7. Provide detai].s of any proposed exterior lighting for staff approval. 8. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the site must be given final plat approval and the plat filed with all required easements unless the City staff and City Council determine that metes and bounds are acceptable. All voted in favor and the motion, carried unanimously. Planning Commission Hooting August 15, 1990 - Page 78 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Wildermuth moved, Erhart seconded to approve the Hinutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 1, 1990 as presented. All voted in favor except Ahrens who abstained and the motion- carried. Krauss: Could you think about, we'll call you up iT1 the following week about September 26th as a special meetin for the comprehensive plan. Conrad." Cai1 us up· Krauss: We will. I also should tell you that I got a call from the Metro Council last week. Guess who's got a problem with our population projections after having them for 6 months? conrad: Really? Ellson: Saying it's too high or too low? Krauss: Well they don't know because they're not going, to do any re-analysis until they have the census data in 2 years so they're going to assume that we're wrong. Ahrens: Too tow? Krauss: No, we're too high. Ahrens: We're projecting too high you think? Krauss: That's what they claim. Conrad: Well good job on all of the staff reports tonight. Probably some of the best analysis I've seen. Ahrens moved, Ellson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting ~as adjourned at 12:05 a.m.. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim