1990 09 19CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 19, 1990
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Ladd Conrad and Brian Batzli
MEMBERS ABSENT: Annette Ellson, Jim Wildermuth and Joan Ahrens
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director and Jo Ann Olsen, Senior
Planner
PUBLIC HEARING:
INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR A GRADING PROJECT TO EXCAVATE 60,000 CUBIC YARDS OF
MATERIAL LOCATED NORTH OF MCGLYNN DRIVE, JUST SOUTH OF HWY 5, SHAFER
CONTRACTING.
Jo Ann Oisen presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad
called the public hearing to order,
Krauss: If I could just point out. We did notify the Timberwood, we did
notify them as a matter of courtesy since they may be able to view this
from a distance and we haven't heard back from them.
Conrad: Anything that you'd like to?
Scott Spesiak: Well I'm Scott Spesiak with Sharer Contracting representing
the applicant. I don't have anything to 'add unless you have questions
about it.
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. Ali voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing Nas closed.
Erhart: I've got one thing here. On the last temporary excavation we came
up with this $30.00 per hour for staff time to do the inspections. I'm
concerned. I'm concerned we set a precedent with the 3eurissen thing and I
have a concern with that. Let me ask a question. When we issue building
permits, and see this applicant is required to pay I think a
building permit. When someone builds a house and we charge a building
permit, do we then additional charge them for the inspection time to go out
and inspect that construction at some hourly rate?
Krauss: No we don't. However, when you look at the building permit fees
for anything other than a single family home, a commercial development for
example that's fairly substantial, the building permit fees are quite large
and cover substantial amount of time.
Erhart: For commercial?
Krauss: For commercial, industrial type of thing.
Erhart: Why? Because you can get away with it or what? Are you providing
a service relative to the price?
Planning Commission Meeting
September 19, 1990 - Page 2
Krauss: Sure. I mean we have to staff up to have our experts on staff to
go out there and we need to coordinate with heating contractors. I mean
it's the whole works. We did not come up with that $30.00 an hour charge.
That's taken out of the Uniform Building Code for grading operations.
Erhart: Oh, you mean they actually recommend an hourly charge but not for
inspections for buildings?
Krauss: Well because the difference is we don't have a building to figure
in costs for the inspection. Zf there was a construction going on, we
would have that base and would have generated the cash to cover the
expenses.
Erhart: My concern with the thing is that it puts the City in a position
of arbitrarily deciding how much staff time gets charged to an applicant.
Then it sets you up for a situation where as the thing progresses, let's
say that our City doesn't get along with this particular applicant and one
thing leads to the other and then all of a sudden, well because this guy is
not maybe cooperating we send more people out and then he starts pointing
fingers at us. You're trying to burden me with all these additional costs
just to get back at me and we're setting ourself up for a real conflict.
have a concern and I just wanted to express it and see what some of the
other commissioners.
Conrad: Do you have a solution?
Erhart: Just make the initial, well one of the solutions is to be
consistent with the building permit. The other one of course is to figure
in the permit which you estimate it will cost to manage the thing.
Krauss: You could do that. I mean you can come up with an estimated cost
up front. I should tell you though that one of the things we're looking at
at a department bead level in response to the budget shortfall the City's
in right now, is the whole prospect of rather than looking at taxes as a
solution, is user fees. Now that surface water management fund sort of
perphiferally comes under that heading but more directly we found, we're
surveying a number of communities and we found that a large number of
communities charge permit application fees' for development applications.
But then they also bill staff time. They require an escrow and bill staff
time for 3o Ann's time on a project or something like that. Right now we
don't do that. That's all on the cuff.
Erhart: Yeah, I understand.
Krauss: This is a rather unique situation where the Uniform Building Code
gave us the right to do that $30.00 an hour charge and we're using it now.
The 3eurissen application I think it's fair to say presented us with
potentially significantly more inspection related problems or concerns or
issues than this application does. We frankly see only minimal need to
inspect this site. There are several reasons for that. The location is
different. We don't have the impact to residents. It is a MnDot
coordinated project and comes under their regulations and they will be over
seeing it and they have inspectors out as well so we think it's a little
bit different.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 19, 1990 - Page 3
Conrad: You bring up a good point. You know if you're a small contractor,
you kind of have to know what you're going to be assessed for. I hear your
point Tim. Paul's point, or counter point is there's nothing there to
assess. There's not a building going up with a value so the permit is,
there's nothing to establish a fee based on. I guess we should forecast or
project an anticipated cost to somebody. I think these are different
situations. I'm not uncomfortable at all doing what we're doing. I guess
the only thing I feel sensitive to is like, what are we telling the
applicant that they're going to be assessed?. We really haven't. We sort
of said $30.00 an hour. You know, 30 times what?
Erhart: Well Paul's got a good argument. One guy, to set a uniform rate
based on cubic yards or something like that is, maybe it's unfair on one
guy because he isn't a user and requires a lot of monitoring, will incur a
lot of city costs while the other guy who follows the rules like we know
you will, he deserves to not have to be charged as much so that's the other
side of the argument. I just wanted to bring it up as an issue. I'm not
uncomfortable with the way it is.
Conrad: It's a valid issue.
Krauss: I don't know if it enhances your comfort level at all Tim but we
feel, if we're going to get into this, the inspections on this right now
and possibly other ways of charging in the future, we believe it would be
encumbant upon us to provide accurate bills indicating what we did and when
and keep consistent time sheets much as the consultants do who bill us for
their time.
Erhart: Yeah, that wasn't what I was concerned about. What I'm concerned
about is this, for some reason you have an employee who just doesn't have a
lot to do this month and it's so easy to say, well maybe take another trip
out to 3eurissen. It adds up and the temptation is there when you do it
this way and it's going to happen. I'm not saying there's a better way.
Conrad: But how can we pin it down? I guess I'll follow up. How can we,
it's like we know the $30.00 an hour and we said we want, I said for
3eurissen, I wanted somebody out there, I don't care if it's daily to see
what's happening in that particular case until I was convinced that they
were doing the right thing. They should pay for that and convince the
inspector that they're doing the right thing and the sooner they do that,
the faster their fees stop. But again, projecting to an applicant what the
potential cost would be rather than saying $30.00 an hour, can we go beyond
that? Can we forecast what we expect over a period of time? Can we be
saying that this will be $30.00 an hour. We estimate 10 hours per week and
something like that. Is that appropriate Paul?
Krauss: Well, I wouldn't be surprised Mr. Chairman if we could,
particularly with a little more experience in this, develop estimates that
when, like a consultant when they're working with us. When they approach
that estimate and they haven't finished the job it's encumbant upon them to
explain why and get permission to proceed on further. We tried in the
3eurissen and in this application to undertake an analysis of what site
restoration costs were. Ballpark figures of what inspection costs were and
that's reflected in the letter of credit. $o certainly we're talking about
a fraction of what that letter of credit is or inspections and we have
Planning Commission Meeting
September 19, 1990 - Page 4
worked up a number. A ballpark number. Right now, given the fact that we
haven't done any of these yet, I'm a little bit relunctant to second guess
what the ceiling might be. But certainly with a little bit more experience
we could do that.
Scott Spesiak: Just as an applicant I guess I need to express our feelings
also in that we don't like to see something open ended. However, I think
it does behoove the applicant to perform according to the application
submitted and also the recommendation of staff before...guidelines that are
put on the approval. If the application does those, then the
inspections...shouldn't be a real problem. On the other hand, if you don't
operate according to the things you're going to perform that you said you
would, then you're open to... I think it would be hard to predict...what
that's going to amount to.
Emmings: In that regard we could, you know to help get a handle on that.
I suppose one thing you can use is the City's own experience with
individuals...proven themselves to be worthy of close inspection. And
maybe part of the application ought to be some references in the sense that
we've done work in these communities so we know who to call and check and
see how they've done in the past. If there's somebody we don't have
experience with in that regard.
Batzli: I think that becomes arbitrary though then. If we personally have
had experience with them and had problems, to set a rate based on what
other communities' experiences have been with that particular contractor,
it's almost like getting a black list.
Emmings: Well, it's not a black list.
Batzli: If you're going to set a rate on it.
Emmings: We're not going to say you can't mine here. We're just going to
say that based on your work and other people's experience with you, we're
suspicious. I wouldn't have any trouble with that.
Krauss: I hope it came across in the report that we have had, or the City
has had a relationship with Mr. Spesiak's firm in the past and it's been a
very good one and we don't anticipate any of the concerns that were raised
during the 3eurissen escapade that surfaced here. And we're much more
comfortable therefore with this proposal. But again, I don't know how that
would be a variable where we'd set a ceiling on what we might do.
Erhart: How did you come up with the $401.007
Olsen: It's right out of the Code in here. The UBC.
Krauss: Based on volume.
Erhart: Based on volume? So that's the number based on volume. I was
going to suggest that we just base it on volume but you're already doing
that. That's the one thing, to make the whole thing based on volume and
treat everybody the same.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 19, 1990 - Page 5
Emmings: I don't know if that's really fair. If I'm a good clean operator
and I do exactly what I say I'm going to do, I don't see why I should have
to pay.
Scott Spesiak: Pay for the person who isn't. Volume isn't solely
necessarily commensurate with problems.
Emmings: We want to punish the bad guys and reward the good guys don't
we?
Conrad: I thought so.
Erhart: My concern is, it's the nature of organization. There's $30.00 in
an hour, the temptation is that somebody's going to send a guy out there to
gain the revenues.
Krauss: Well you know, I've worked as a consultant and I can tell you from
experience that that often happens when you're a consultant because you
need to be billable. We're not a for profit enterprise. I mean there's
not that kind of pressure, at least there isn't right now.
Erhart-" There's an inherent nature in any organization to expand whether
it's government organization or private. To justify people. Economic
times as it is, to maintain people and it's one of those things that's
going to lend itself to abuse Ithink. I'm not saying I'm dead against it,
I 'm just saying I think it's going to lead that way.
Conrad: Let's watch and see what happens.
Emmings: I concur with the staff report on this.
Erhart: Everything else I agree with.
Batzli: I really like the staff report but. My only question 3o Ann, or
did you prepare it? Nas I thought we had a fancy title for our earth work
permits.
Olsen: We had mineral excavation.
8atzli: My only question was, in the earth work permit section of the Code
that we just passed, we have language that they have to apply for an earth
work permit. I don't really see us saying in here that we've given it to
them or they have to apply for it. I know you went through the analysis
but my question is just to the procedure of how and again see, I'm not
going to talk about this thing. I'm going to talk about procedures and
things. As to how we improve the earth work permits if there's an interim
use involved or something else, do we not then call an earth work permit?
Do we call it an interim use? Procedural question really.
Krauss: We've been calling it an interim use permit for earth work. It's
not a two track permit procedure. It's not like a site plan.
Satzli: But you did go through the conditional use or interim use criteria
as well plus the earth work permit criteria. $o it was really kind of like
you were two tracking two permits at once in one application even though
Planning Commission Meeting
September 19, 1990 - Page 6
you never really mentioned it.
Krauss: Nell you have two sets of standards.
Batzli: That's right. My only question, or problem with it is if our
ordinance says they're going to apply for an earth work permit but yet in
the conditions of approval we never say anything that we've given it to
them, just question as to whether should do that. I don~t know. I think
we should just take a look at the earth work permit. I have no problem
with this that this is how we should do it but I think we should somehow
get in there that approval of interim use/earth work permit or something
because I think they do, you did a nice job of analyzing the ordinance but
then we never really said we were giving them that permit.
Olsen: It's similar to like a conditional use for a fast food restaurant
where we go through the specific conditions.
Batzli: I guess I view the earth work permit as more of a wetland
alteration kind of process where you give them separate and that's kind of
how I expected them to see coming through here. And if we do it in one
shot like this, that's fine. But I don't know, the other commissioners
didn't seem to.
Krauss: We can also ask the City Attorney if he feels there should be in
the future two motions on that. We didn't interpret it that way but maybe
if you did, he might as well.
Conrad: Anybody care about what Brian is saying?
Emmings: Not a bit.
Batzli: That went without saying.
Erhart: I didn't understand it.
Emmings: Where is Sharer, Minnesota? That's the burning question.
Scott Spesiak: It always is. It's on Hwy 8 east of Lindstrom. Almost to
Taylors Falls. It's actually just off Hwy 8. There's a little sign there
that says that 180 people live there. I think that's the 1980 census.
Conrad: Paul, can you check with our attorney just to make sure we're
handling it properly. I guess, from a procedural standpoint, geez I don't
know. I really don't know.
Krauss: We can certainly ask Roger. By the way, I should tell you that we
were trying to cooperate with the contractor and with MnDot on this because
the earth is going to be moved for TH 5 and we were going to expedite or
propose expediting their request by getting it on the City Council meeting
on Monday. We could certainly find out the answer to that question between
now and then.
Conrad: Okay. Any more discussion? Is there a motion?
Planning Commission Meeting
September 19, 1990 - Page 7
Batzli: I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim
Use/Earth Work Permit ¢90-4 with the conditions outlined in the staff
report.
Emmings: Second.
Conrad: See, all the power goes to the guy making the motion.
Batzli moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Interim Use/Earth Work Permit #90-4 subject to the following
conditions:
The applicant shall provide the City with a letter of credit in the
amount of $38,150.00 to cover any road damage, maintenance of erosion
control measures and site restoration.
The applicant shall submit $401.00 grading permit fee as required by
the Uniform Building Code and all city and county staff time used to
monitor and inspect the operation shall be paid at a rate of $30.00 per
hour.
The applicant shall provide a Traffic Control Plan for staff approval
providing specifications on how truck hauling traffic will be
controlled, specifically during rush hour periods.
4. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permit requirements of
the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District.
5. The applicant shall make arrangements to cap the existing well in
accordance with all state, county and local requirements prior to
initiating grading operations.
6. The applicant shall supply the City with a mylar as-built survey
prepared by a professional engineer upon completion of excavation to
verify the grading plan has been performed in compliance with the
proposed plan.
7. Temporary settling basins shall be constructed during the grading
operations on an as needed basis or as requested by the City.
8. Topsoiling and disk mulch seeding shall be implemented immediately
following the completion of excavated areas.
Noise levels stemming from the operation are not to exceed MnPCA and
EPA regulations. If the city determines that there is a problem,
warranting sucy test shall be paid for by the applicant.
10. Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday
through Saturday and prohibited on national holidays. The the City
Engineer determines that traffic conflicts result due to rush hour
trafic flows, the hours of operation will be appropriately restricted.
The City will work with the County Sheriff to coordinate speed and
weight checks. If trucks are violating traffic laws, staff will
Planning Commission Meeting
September 19, 1990 - Page 8
require that the operation be shut down and will ask the City Council
to revoke the permit.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-409. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS OF THE WETLAND ORDINANCE REGULATING ACCESS THROUGH CLASS A AND
8 WETLANDS, (TYPES 2-8).
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad
called the public hearing to order.
Batzli moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
8atzli: What happened to the gravel?
Olsen: It was denied. They do have to remove it. In working with DNR,
we've given them now until I believe May. May 15th of next year because
the winter months will be better for them to remove it.
Batzli: And the DNR basically said that gravel is not a good way to go?
He had some expert at DNR telling him that.
Emmings: He came here.
Batzli: He came here? That's what I missed then. Okay.
Olsen: And he said that there was a...difference between gravel, in this
case between gravel and a boardwalk but that _they still preferred
boardwalk.
Emmings: In general they'd prefer it.
Batzli: I like it. I think it's good to clarify it because we did have
kind of an ambiguous part before. I would just clarify paragraph 6. There
would be a comma after the word level and change the word and/or so it
would read, above the ground level, or ordinary high water mark where open
water is present,.
Emmings: Did you know you stole his idea?
8atzli: Did I? I'm sorry. I retract it.
Olsen: So you're taking out or?
8atzli: I'd take out and and put in or.
01sen: So what happens when there's ground and water? Does that apply
then?
Erhart: Whichever is highest.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 19, 1990 - Page 9
Emmings: It's the ordinary high water mark I would think that will always,
wouldn't you always be using?
Olsen: Well the vegetation goes beyond that.
Emmings: Oh yeah. You're absolutely right..
Krauss: When you're giving them the option, they could pick the lower of
the two.
Batzli: Well mine doesn't work at all. I'll let Tim fix it then.
Erhart: It doesn't say whichever is the highest.
Krauss: That's right.
Erhart: The and sounds funny.
Batzli: I think it needs clarification is the problem. I think you're
trying to keep it 6 to 8 inches above no matter what it's going over is the
intent and that's what we need to get it to say. Yeah, whichever is
highest because you'd have to keep it at the same level.
Olsen: The thing would be going like this but you'd be going? By the time
you get to the water, you might be 6 feet?
Krauss: No. Why? I mean if it followed the ground elevation 6 feet above
that and when you entered over the water, you're 6 feet over the water
elevation. Or 6 inches rather.
Olsen: 8ut he's saying, whichever is highest.
Erhart: Well at any given point.
Krauss: That's the way I interpret it.
Olsen: So it should say 6 to 8 inches at any given point above the ground
level?
Krauss: Or wherever it's measured.
8atzli: Wherever measured, yeah. Did that help or are you confused?
Olsen: I'm confused...
Erhart: To me, I 3ust had a note that it didn't quite read right. I didn't
have any sure fire solution to it.
Batzli: Yeah. I didn't think about the case where you're going down a
slope.
Emmings: Well you could say 6 to 8 inches above the ordinary high water
mark and 6 to 8 inches above the ground when above the ordinary high water
mark.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 19, 1990 - Page 10
Erhart: At any point period.
Emmings= Does that make sense?
Batzli: I think that does.
Emmings: So it will be 6 to 8 inches above the ordinary water mark.
Erhart: Or ground level.
Emmings: And 6 to 8 inches above the ground level when.
Batzli: Higher than the ordinary high water mark.
Emmings: Or being installed above the ordinary high water mark. Does that
make sense?
Erhart: The most clear way to do it is to separate it into two sentences.
When installed above the ground.
Emmings: Not above the ground. Above the ordinary high water mark.
Olsen: Are we losing that that's still within a wetland?
Emmings: If the water's low you can be above the ground but below the
ordinary high water mark. I think you want to use the ordinary high, OHW
as your break point.
Batzli: I love drafting things by committee.
Emmings: No, it's horrible.
Conrad: It doesn't work.
Olsen: You can say, well have staff come back with another one.
Conrad: Whoever makes the motion has the opportunity.
Batzli: Let's skip over Steve. You work on something. Tim, have you got
anything?
Erhart: No, I didn't have a solution. My comment only was that it reads a
little awkward. I think the intent is there but.
conrad: Any other comments?
Emmings: Yeah. I don't understand the first sentence of Paragraph 7.
Olsen: I think that's where we're saying.
Emmings: It says access, vehicular access on fill through a wetland will
only be considered when the access must be for vehicles. You've already
said it's vehicular access.
Olsen: Right.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 19, 1990 - Page ll
Emmings: I think you said the thing twice there. I think what you're
really saying is access on, if you drop out vehicular and say access on
fill material through a wetland shall only be considered when the access
must be for vehicles. Or the other way around.
Olsen: Oh, okay. T see what you're saying.
'Emmings: Otherwise say vehicular access shall only be considered. No, I
like it better that way. 3ust drop vehicular. Then it says what I think
you want it to.
Conrad: Access on fill material?
Emmings: On fill as opposed to an elevated walkway.
Batzli: In other words, if you can put rocks in there, you can only do
that if it has to be for a vehicle.
Emmings: Otherwise you're saying vehicular access will only be allowed
when the access must be for vehicles. That makes no sense at all.
Erhart: Are you going to change that?
Emmings: I can write something here.
Erhart: Okay. Let me try one on the other one then while you're working
on that. Pedestrian access through a Class A wetland, walkway elevated 6
to 8 inches above the ground level or ordinary high water mark where open
water exists, measured at any point along the length of the boardwalk and
shall be a maximum width of 6 feet. Walkway elevated 6 to 8 inches above
the ground level or ordinary high water mark where open water exists
measured at any point along the length of the boardwalk and shall be a
maximum width of 6 feet.
Olsen: Do you need the open water?
Erhart: I took it out and then actually I put it back in.
Batzli: I don't know that that takes care of the one scenario where the
ground is above the ordinary water mark.
Emmings: I think the problem with the way you're saying it is when the
water level is below the OHW.
Batzli: Right. When the water level is down.
Emmings: Then you're above the ground.
Erhart: You're going to be above the ground.
Emmings: Yeah, but you want to be 6 to 8 inches above the ground when the
ground is there. You want to be 6 to 8 inches above the OHW even though
you're over ground.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 19, 1990 - Page 12
Erhart: Oh, oh, oh, oh yeah· Okay
Olsen: What if we put the walkway elevated 6 to 8 inches at amy given
point that occur above the ground level or ordinary.
Conrad: I really think staff can work the words out.
Batzli: I think you want to say, it'd have to be 6 to 8 inches above the
ordinary high water mark and 6 to 8 inches above the ground level when
installed above the ordinary high water mark· That's what you're trying to
get across.
Olsen: Right. But do we need to specify that that's only within wetland
above the ordinary high water mark or do you think that's clear?
Emmings: Sure it is because you're talking about access through a wetland.
Olsen: Okay.
Conrad: Can't the City Council read these Minutes.
Batzli: I think you want to emphasize that it's 6 to 8 inches above the
ordinary high water mark and a special case when you're above ground above
the ordinary high water mark·
Emmings: That will do it. Make a motion.
Batzli: I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Zoning
Ordinance Amendment amending Section 20-409 as the staff has in Section 6
and 7 except in paragraph 6 it will be rewritten to read that the dock or
walkway is elevated to 6 inches to 8 inches above the ordinary high water
mark and 6 to 8 inches above the ground level when above the ordinary high
water mark.
Erhart: When being installed in a wetlands.
Emmings: That's already there.
Batzli: When being installed above the ordinary high water mark and shall
be a maximum width of 6 feet. In paragraph 7, vehicular will go away. And
did you have another change Steve? That's the end of my motion.
Emmings: Second.
Batzli moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Section 20-409, General
Development Regulations of the Wetland Ordinance regulating access through
Class A and B wetlands amended to delete the word "vehicular" out of
paragraph 7 and with paragraph 6 reading as follows:
6. The dock or walkway is elevated 6 to 8 inches above the ordinary high
water mark and 6 to 8 inches above the ground level when above the ordinary
high water mark and shall be a maximum of 6 feet in width.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 19, 1990 - Page 13
Conrad: Would you be flexible enough to let staff to.
Batzli: I would certainly be flexible enough so that staff and work it
out.
Conrad: So the City Council can understand it or Don, you can explain it
to them. Okay. That's it folks.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 5, 1990 as presented.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Krauss: We approved the preliminary plat, well extension of plat approval
for Summit at Near Mountain. Lundgren had approval for that final phase
but isn't proceeding at this point but wants to in the future because of
the economy. There was a metes and bounds subdivision approved on the
south side of Lake Susan. I think we mentioned last time that the
ordinance provides that metes and bounds go directly to Council to expedite
them. This was a little unusual because of the access. It's the property
that's next to A1Klingelhutz' house and there was a concern that there are
4 homes on different lots now using a common access point. We wanted, on
the face of it, this was a reasonable request and what they're proposing to
do was using a separate driveway except for the last few feet of it where
it had a common entrance onto TH 101. It was a question, was that a
variance type situation. We believe that it wasn't and we discussed that
for a while and ultimately the Council approved that. There's not a
question that the project was in doubt but how it was approved. The
Frontier Retail Center came up for consideration. As with the Planning
Commission meeting, parking was again a consideration. We had tried to
follow up on some of the conditions of approval for that. We proposed
reinstating a couple of conditions and we proposed some changes in language
because of some things that have happened. We made it clear to the City
Council what was recommended by the Planning Commission and what was
recommended somewhat differently by the staff. Your recommendation came
through clear. The City Council basically, when all said and done, backed
up most of your, in fact virtually all of your recommendations. One that
we tried to reinstate had to do with the rental vehicles and the City
Council did what basically you did which was say it was an administrative
problem and we should take care of it independently of that. So the
project's been approved. We're not aware of the developer's timeframe but
he did indicate that he was under the gun to get work started on that and
we're waiting to hear back from him.
Conrad: Why is there a rub with Clayton Johnson?
Krauss: Why was there a rub?
Conrad: Yeah. Why is Clayton so up in arms about this one? Is there a
particular reason? Is that his style? Is that a concern that he just had
with this project because he certainly was not, he was hostile. I'm
curious why that was. Without getting real personal or anything like that~
What did...I'm trying to understand. Is there more than I can see on the
surface?
Planning Commission Meeting
September 19, 1990 - Page 14
Krauss: I don't know. Z really don't. Ne tried to conduct ourselves in a
professional manner. I hope we've succeeded. In that you can't always
give people what they want and how they react to it. I really don't know
what the issue is. You know one of the things that came up in a meeting
last night had to do with, there was joint meeting of the City Council and
HRA and one of the things that was discussed was the outlook for Market
Square shopping center and that seems to be a little bit on edge right now
and I don't know if that's entering into Clayton's outlook on things.
Conrad: Just to be upfront. Clayton called me and was concerned after he
spent his life before us for a couple hours, or whatever and then was
concerned that staff was making some contrary arguments to what, or
contrary recommendations to what we had suggested. I wanted to, which is
staff's perogative of course. Me can and I think in some cases, as long as
City Council knows what we said and what the reasons for staff
recommendations are, I think that's appropriate. I think that's a role
that they have to play. But to Clayton was concerned that the report
didn't reflect exactly what transpired that night and I'm probably bending
some of the words a little bit. I guess I brought in the staff report and
I just want to be real comfortable that when staff, and I asked Steve to
review it. I hadn't told him whether I thought it was good or bad. I just
wanted to know if he feels it's good communication going to City Council
and I think anybody else, I'd sure welcome to review this. I only have one
copy but I just want to make sure that when we make a recommendation, that
it's real clea¢ to City Council what we say and then what staff is
recommending that's different than what we say. Then they can take a good
look at it and I think that's the only thing that really I want to review a
little bit as a result of that particular application.
Krauss: Your point's well taken Mr. Chairman. Ne attempted to do that
through highlighting and striking and basically giving an analysis of why
we think something should be different from what the Planning Commission
recommended. Mr. 3ohnson had four points of contention as I recall that we
tried to work out before the City Council meeting. On two points he was
correct and there was an omission in the staff report in terms of
conditions that we had all agreed to should not apply to the Dinner Theatre
because they exercise no control over that. That was our mistake and we
readily agreed to change that. The two other points had to do with our
belief in our things sat. There was also some, you asked us to follow up
with them on getting easements and examining them. They were not forth
coming with those easements nor were they forth coming with your
alternative to platting.
Emmings: I haven't really looked at this yet Ladd but if nothing else, the
verbatim Planning Commission Minutes are attached.
Conrad: Yeah. Nell, I worry about that. Don really when you, how much
time do you get when you review a staff report versus the Minutes that are
attached? Are you really able to go through the Minutes and see what the
mumbo jumbo we sort of said for 2 hours?
Mayor Chmiel's comment could not be heard on the audio tape.
Conrad: Okay. I worry about that because and therefore I'd like to get as
much synopsis overview up front and I think Paul you do a pretty good job
Planning Commission Meeting
September 19, 1990 - Page 15
of that but I don't want to tip my hand whether I thought this was a good
or bad report. I want to see Steve's opinion and then we'll pass it around
and see what the others think.
Krauss: If you have any comment for us and wish us to revise our
procedures somewhat in the future, we'd be happy to.
Conrad: I have nothing right now.
Krauss: The last few things that were discussed, the CUP for the Cellular
tower was approved based upon your recommendations. Mr. Wanegrin gave us a
somewhat colorful rendition of his impression of the conditions of
approval. The Mayor gaveled him down a little bit.
Conrad: That's good
Krauss: I gather he's rather uncomfortable with them. They haven't
started any work and we haven't heard back from them since. The last
thing I wanted to update you on is the comprehensive plan. We are
continuing to work on completing the text. It's a rather time consuming
procedure. I just, in fact yesterday, completed the revised transportation
element which incorporates the Southwest Metro Transit Study that you
reviewed and the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. I'm
forwarding all that stuff to Mark and Mark is assembling the document for
us. We had called you a while ago with two dates for the public hearing.
October 10th was one and September 28th or something was the other. I did
check, well it's clear that we're not going to make the September one and
I'm beginning to suspect that we might not make the 10th either. For
several reasons and I'll get into that in a second. I did contact the
school district. The cafeteria which I believe was where the other
meetings have been handled, is available on the 10th and I checked because
I think the meeting date we may try to roll over to is the 24th and it is
available for that too. They tell me though that we have to be out of
there by 10:00 which has some appeal. But is that the way you conducted
the meetings in the past there? That there was a time deadline because
they said the janitors have to be out of there.
Batzli: Don, when we did the Eckankar meetings, was there a time limit
over there?
Mayor Chmiel: Not for those specific ones, no .... 10:00. I know in some
school districts, if it goes beyond the 10:00 timeframe, they charge so
much more.
Krauss: Maybe that's the case.
Conrad: Yeah. I would not close the public hearing if people still wanted
to talk so we could continue the public hearing later or the best thing is
to pay overtime or whatever we have to do, the janitors. I can't imagine
it lasting longer than 11:00 but 10:00, it may. I just might.
Krauss: Well I would propose, we're looking for off nights. Off regular
meeting nights so we could start a meeting possibly at 7:00. In terms of a
format, I anticipated getting the word out through the newspaper or mailing
list that Mark and I and possibly the City Engineer would be available at
Planning Commission Meeting
September 19, 1990 - Page 16
possibly 5:30 or 6:00 and we'd have the board set up so people could come
in and ask questions and get an understanding for what's happening. I
would work with the newspapers so the newspapers understood. Again
reiterated the process and told people what's changed since the last time
so they can see if their question's been resolved or not.
Conrad: So when you worked wLth the newspapers, you're going to show, they
could carry a map showing the final. They show a map?
Krauss: I'm hoping they can. It's tough for them to transcribe that to a
scale that they can print. I'll work with them on that. In fact I've got
one of the reporters coming in here tomorrow.
Batzli: Full page.
Krauss' Nell that's what it would take.
Batzli: So in black and white you'd be able to tell the different zones.
Krauss: They probably would ask us to pay for that. We could do that.
I'll try to find out what that will cost. We'll do that. Now, one of the
reasons for the delay, last time we met I gave you a copy of the memo that
was our response to the Metro Council. We've been doing follow up work
with that. I'm not sure if we had met. Yeah, we did with Rich Thompson
prior to the last meeting. I've been in contact with Rich and he has set
up a meeting here with about 5 or 6 Metro Council staff people next Monday
afternoon. What we hope comes out of that is a better understanding of
where everybody's coming from. What the issues are. What we've done and
how we've arrived at everything and then we're going to give them a tour of
the community because it's a safe bet that most of them haven't seen it.
The meeting with Mr. Thompson last week or 2 weeks ago went very
satisfactory in terms of his open mindedness in how this could proceed.
think that if we shoot for that October 24th date, we will at least have a
comfort of knowing that this meeting is behind us and that hopefully we've
gotten some, if not agreement, understanding from the Metro Council on
where we're coming from on this thing. Now I know we discussed that last
time and we're not waiting for them to say yeah or nay on our plan and I
don't think we have any intention of asking you to change that but I'd like
to get this meeting out of the way. Steve Keefe is also having a breakfast
meeting out here. The Chair of the Metro Council is coming out here next
week. The Mayor's involved with both of these meetings. Marcy Waritz, our
Council representative will be probably at both of these meetings as well.
Conrad: That sounds real good Paul. I'm impressed with all that activity.
Krauss: If we went to October 24th, does that meet your needs as well?
It's an alternate Wednesday night. Would you prefer, I can have Vicky give
a call around.
Conrad: Now that's MEA weekend. But MEA doesn't start until Thursday.
Krauss: Is that one of the conditions...
Conrad: Well I'm going to take some time off.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 19, 1990 - Page 17
Batzli: What better way to spend your time off. Relax.
Krauss: If that doesn't work let me know and, our agendaes are obviously
getting somewhat light. Now we've got some items in the pipeline but maybe
we can jungle a meeting or possibly even a cancel a regular meeting and
shift some stuff to a later one and just hold it because clearly we have to
have a dedicated meeting for the comprehensive plan.
Emmings: Or what's the regular meeting date preceeding that October
24th? October 17th. Maybe that regular meetinb could be the.
Conrad: Let me check on my schedule.
Krauss: I'll have Vicky contact everybody on the Planning Commission
tomorrow so we can check that out. And I think that does it for me. One
last thing. We had an item here from McGlynn's and I told you I'd try to
tell you in advance if we had any administrative site plan approval that
may be coming down the pipe. McGlynn's is adding employees at a rapid clip
and has run out of parking spaces and needs to expand their parking lot.
Emmings: Another one?
Olsen: They have room to do it.
Krauss: Except they have room to do it, yeah. I've worked with them and
we've sort of clapped out a plan for how they could get sufficient stalls
to get them through the winter simply by, it doesn't take a lot of grading
but it's an add on to some parking lot that they have now. I would be
requiring a landscaping plan for buffering from Timberwood and all that. I
think the parking lot expansion itself is fairly innocuous and falls within
the perview of administrative approval. You should be aware though however
that McGlynn is doing a box office business there and is going to be
advancing their construction schedule and expansions. They will also be
coming in probably in a meeting later in November for a site plan approval
for a fairly significant building expansion.
Emmings: Is this on their frozen stuff like this?
Krauss: Well apparently what this is for, as I understand it, and I don't
know if this was trade secret or not I'm giving away but they got a large
contract to supply breakfast pastries to 60~ of the Burger Kings in the
world and it's a new product and they need to expand to accommodate that.
Now the parking problem that they have is a problem they're experiencing
now with their staff without the expansion which is why I feel I can do
that under administrative approval. They will need a larger parking lot
for this building and that will all come down to your approval of the site
plan.
Emmings: Do you think we need to scale up our parking requirements for
these growing businesses?
Krauss: That's like so many things we do Steve. It falls into the
category of they're each so different that you can't guess. It really is
tough.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 19, 1990 - Page 18
Emmings: Who knows they're going to get a contract for 60~ of the Burger
Kings or something? I mean no, it's something like that that does it
probably.
Krauss: Even from business to business you know. When we worked with PMT,
Al. Iverson was in here last week talking about parking on the property next
door. Well, Al's had a very significant parking problem on his site which
we're trying to take care of with his new addition and that's because his
employment grew by leaps and bounds and he's got a medical products
assembly function where you tend to pack mor'e people in a building.
Emmings: Maybe what we have to do is say our parking requirements are.
going to remain the same but we also want to be sure that you've got some
land you can expand parking into should you need it. I mean maybe we have
to have some kind of a set, be able to show something to set aside to get
some more parking on there because, now it's come up 3 cases that I know of
so it must mean something's not working right.
Krauss: Well I don't know. I think by and large the parking standards
have worked fairly well. It's the exceptional ones that throw you and when
a business is growing as fast, I mean Tim can explain this phenomenum more
than I but when you're growing that fast, you don't have the capital to
expand facilities and you tend to get the people on and the product out and
you're cramming more and more into the site. It gets ahead of the
construction aspect of it.
Conrad: Okay. Anything else on that subject? Paul has a note to us.
Metro Council rural development standards. Tim, did you get a chance to
review that?
Erhart: Yeah, and I was real excited about it. I think we've finally
found something out of Met Council that they're seeing what's happened with
this 2 1/2 acre lot and I think they've got a move in the right direction
here and according to Paul, I guess this is already an adapted policy
change.
Conrad: So if we like the concept of this, what do we need to do?
Krauss: I think you need to put it on a work program and tell us to bring
back something to you that would bring that about. I mean it's clearly
going to require a change in the ordinance and may require a change to some
of our policies. I would want to speak to, this came from Carl Lurch who
I've never been quite clear as to his title but he's fairly high up in the
heirarchy at the Metro Council. I'd like to confirm some things with him
because this is, they are talking about rural development issues. Rural
area development issues and this policy is probably going to be refined in
that case but you may have read in the paper that Anoka County is basically
thumbing their nose at the Metro Council. They're also telling the Metro
Council that their policies are wrong because their policies, for them,
because the policies were designed in the interest of protecting farmland
and Anoka County was never known for it's farmland. But Anoka County,
you've got some of the communities up there who never anticipate developing
at suburban densities. They're perfectly content to continue developing
with hobby farms and that kind of thing and since they don't want any sewer
and theoretically don't want any roads, they can pretty much tell Metro
Planning Commission Meeting
September _~9, 1990- Page 19
Council they're going to do whatever they're going to do because they're
not asking the Metro Council for anything. So that's kind of thrown this
whole issue into the spotlight. Rural issues are also important to us here
because some of the ways they enforce these rural issues, or rural policies
frankly border on the absurd. We have a donut hole in the MUSA line in
southern Chanhassen surrounded on 4 sides by MUSA acreage yet when they're
looking at TH 212, there is a movement afoot by some of their staff people,
I think I might have related this to you, to have TH 212 be 4 lanes to
TH 41, throttle to 2 and then open up again when it gets to Chaska. Now
anything more absurb than that I guess I couldn't conceive of. They've
since relented on that position and now their new position is, okay we'll
buy that but you're going to stop 212 at TH 41 which will run all the
traffic through downtown Chaska. Now Chaska is basically saying over their
dead body. The alternative which is being proposed with the EIS for 212 is
that 212 run outside of Chaska west of the community where it can touch
down on the old highway and kind of get traffic and then run around the
community. I guess, and by the way, this has also been the bugaboo on
expanding TH 5.
Satzli: South of Chaska? Between the river and Chaska? Where would it
run?
Krauss: No, it would run north.
8atzli: Between the High School and downtown?
Krauss: Yes.
Batzli: Boy that would be wild. There's a lot of steep slopes right in
there.
Krauss: Well, it's already programmed to gQ through. I mean it's designed
to go through there. There's a way to do it. I'm not familiar with
exactly where it's route but there's been a similar hang-up on TH 5. The
reason why the construction program for TH 5 ends at CR 17 is because the
Metro Council said you're not going to build 4 lanes outside the MUSA line.
Now that is completely avoiding the fact that traffic from Victoria and
west and from Chaska is feeding onto TH 5 and there's plenty of cars on
that stretch of road. They put their blinders on and when they don't come
out to the community to see for themselves, they can kind of convince
themselves that that's the reality.
Emmings: So 4 lanes out to CR 17 and then become a gravel road.
8atzli: Stage coach only.
Krauss: To get back to Tim's issue. I guess I was real surprised to hear
Carl say that we were not bound to have 2 1/2 acre lots in the rural area.
When I querried him on it, I said well when did you guys change your mind
because in 1987, as I understood it. I wasn't here at the time but with
the Lake Ann Agreement, that you were adamant that that's what we have to
do.
Emmings: But don't we have to under that agreement, whether or not...
Planning Commission Heeling
September 19, 1990 - Page 20
Krauss: Well, I'm sure we would have to. The 1 in 10 is what they're
enforcing but if it's in violation of our contract, because there is
actually a contractual agreement, I'm sure we would have to have our
attorney contact their attorney and do all the usual attorney stuff and
figure out a way around it.
Emmings: That's called billing hours.
Erhart: You can get a release for that.
Krauss: Well we'd want to get some legitimate documentation.
conrad: Are you done?
Emmings: Yeah.
Conrad: ~e've been dragging this out.
Emmings: We can adjourn.
Krauss: So should we add that to the work schedule?
Erhart: Well I surely would.
Conrad: Steve, do you think we should add it to the work program?
Emmings: What's that?
Conrad: Do you think we should look at this issue further?
Emmings: Oh yeah. Absolutely.
Batzli: Yes.
Emmings: Nothing should get between, however. This isn't something we
have to do before the comprehensive plan and the comprehensive plan ought
to get. first priority in my opinion. I want that out of my life.
Conrad: Yeah. There is a schedule or outstanding activities staff has
distributed to us. An updated project list. Any comments?
Batzli: Hine was rezoning the BF to A-2. 3ust as it pertains to the
comprehensive plan, I still keep on I guess harpping on the fact that I
really don't want us to include in the. comprehensive plan that that area
down there is going to be something that we're going to change in a matter
of a month after we adopt it. Or thinking of changing it.
Krauss: I'll have to get you the exact language Brian because I wrote it
about a month or two ago but I wrote it in the context of...item of
discussion at the Planning Commission. They're concerned about
environmental sensitivity of the area and they'd like to look at approaches
for saving those features.
Erhart: That's what I remember too. Our discussions as noted in the text.
Planning Commission Heeling
September 19, 1990 - Page 21
Conrad: I like that item to be acted upon. The BF to A-2 or to just
discuss that area. I think that's, of the things that are down there, it's
real hard for me to prioritize. Some things take longer than others in
terms of staff time but that particular subject is a 9ood one. And we've
got it scheduled late fall.
Krauss: Getting later all the time.
Conrad: ~nything else?
Ernmings: Did they say what year?
Conrad: It does say 1990.
Batzli: I would like, and this is something I just noticed the other day
and it kind of irritated me was at Swings. Under their conditional use
permit, weren't they supposed to erect some fences and do some things for
safety of the kids using the miniature putt-putt and all that other good
stuff?
olsen: I don't recall that.
Batzli: Well I would like us to review that because I figure after 2 years
it's time they put up their fence if they're supposed to put one up.
Conrad' Yeah, speaking on those same terms, the rental group is certainly
adding to their rental equipment in their front yard.
Krauss: On 78th Street?
Conrad: Yeah. You know I really didn't mind when there was I or 2. It
was okay but now, they've just got a whole assortment there and Z don't
know. Are we getting any complaints from anybody?
Krauss: No, and I guess it's a little surprising. Do you want to give me
one?
Conrad: I guess I'd prefer to hear a complaint from the business
community.
Krauss: I think it's encumbent upon us to react and because of our
conversation about that, we'll held off but there has been an increase in
equipment here. I forget the gentleman's name...at the store. I talked to
him the other day and he said that more equipment was out there because of
the construction going on which used to be under the portico there but they
had to move it out because of construction. However, I've seen 2 trucks
offered for sale parked out there and there is a panel truck with a sign on
it sitting on the boulevard and that's dangerous for us to leave that there
because that leads to all sorts of other abuses on other sites as well.
Conrad: Do they know that that's not legal?
Krauss: I discussed it with them on the phone and he said he wasn't aware
of it up until now and he had been doing it for 4 years.
Planning Cornmission Heeting
September 19, 1990 - Page 22
Conrad: It's one of these cases where I just wish we could say, hey. It
is illegal and we're not making a big deal out of it now but you're realty
stretching your luck. It's getting close to tacky but I really wish
somebody in the business community would issue the complaint or call City
Hall. Not me and it's not really affecting me but boy, if I were somebody
in downtown, in the Chamber of Commerce.
Erhart: Well I think if it was a next door business guy who felt his
business was being adversely affected because they were using up the
parking lot. So far I've never gone in there when the parking lot's been
full, although it's slowly getting more and more. I think what you did at
the restaurant, that may come to a head.
Krauss: There was an interesting situation where the week after the
Planning Commission item or on Tuesday, which I've never seen before,
couldn't get into the parking lot.
Emmings moved, Baztli seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m..
submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim