1g. Minutes 1 -
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 27, 1990
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. . The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
' COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Workman, Councilwoman Dimler
and Councilman Johnson
' COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Boyt
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Gary Warren and Elliott Knetsch
' APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to
approve the agenda witfi the following additions: Mayor Chmiel wanted to add
' under Adminstrative Presentations by MnDot, turn lanes at Choctaw and Sandy Hook
for Cooperative Agreement. Under Council Presentations Councilman Johnson
wanted a follow-up on the dead trees along Kerber and Powers Blvd. ; Councilwoman
Dimler wanted to discuss a walking path on Minnewashta Parkway; and Councilman
' Workman wanted to address the National League of Cities conference. All voted
in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING SEPTEMBER 23-29 AS "VALUES WEEKTM.
Mayor Chmiel: This is a Resolution proclaiming September 23rd thru the 29th as
Values Week and I'd like to read this Resolution so everyone understands
basically what it is and why we're adopting this. It says, Whereas the City of
Chanhassen, State of Minnesota has heretofore adopted eight basic values as set
in Exhibit A attached hereto; and Whereas the said values have been adopted by
the remaining governmental entities within the geographic area of Independent
School District #112; and Whereas it is the desires of these communities to
collectively promote these values and to encourage their support through
establishment of values week; Now Therefore be it resolved by the City Council
of the City of Chanhassen, State of Minnesota as follows: (1) That the week of
September 23rd thru September 29th, 1990 is hereby declared as Values Week.
(2), that the citizens of the County of Carver are encouraged to partake of the
' activities scheduled during the Values Week, read, embrace and hopefully
implement these values in their work and their family life. Passed and adopted
by the City Council, City of Chanhassen this day of 1990. " Signed by the Mayor
and attested by City Clerk.
Resolution 190-102: Councilwoman Disler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
adopt the Resolution proclaiming September 23-29, 1990 as 'Values Week' for the
City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to
approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
a. Approve Development Contract for Dexter Magnetic Materials.
' 1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
f
1
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
b. Preliminary and Final Plat Approval to Subdivide a 103,000 sq. ft . parcel
into, two lots, 1010 Pleasant View Road, Fortier and Associates.
c. Approve Letter of Support to MnDot to conduct a speed study on West 82nd
Street.
e. Resolution #90-103: Approve Contract Amendment No. 2 for Public Works
' Auxiliary Storage Building.
h. Approval of Accounts.
' i. Approval of City Council Minutes dated August 13, 1990
j. Approve ACH Origination Agreement with the Chanhassen Bank.
1. Approve Plans and Specifications for Park Place Phase II (CLBP 5th)
Improvement Project 85-13B; Authorize Advertising for Bids.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
F. ACCEPT PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL; CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
Councilman Workman: It's the assessment roll that I have some concern.
Councilman Johnson: There's 3 different assessment rolls.
Councilman Workman: Well the assessment roll that I have a concern about is,
and the City Manager was going to be best able to answer this question.
' However, Jay you may. The parcels 25-30020 and 25-30010, anyway the City of
Chanhassen, HRA is being named in those and my continuing question with what the
status of the Crossroads Plaza and the Crossroads Bank and whether or not those
assessments become a part of the purchase price or have already done so or what
the liability of those assessments are to the HRA and/or the new owners.
Councilman Johnson: Todd Gerhardt got married yesterday. He'd be the best one
to, and he decided not to come to work today just because he got married
yesterday. No big deal.
Councilman Workman: Saturday he did.
Councilman Johnson: Saturday was it?
' Councilman Workman: Yeah, and I just wanted for the record to ask the question
and then we can, since staff is all out of town this week.
' Mayor Chmiel: Maybe Gary can address those in general, Tom might answer your
question.
' Gary Warren: It's my understanding that in general the surface agreements for
the property have special assessment write down as a part of that. The building
has to be built in order for that obviously to happen so that's the caveat as
far as the incentive for the property to be built on. There are various deals
that the HRA, City Council have negotiated on on each parcel and to know
2
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990 t '
specifically what exactly is in that contract we'll have to take a look at it. I
Councilman Workman: Right. That's the concern so we're talking about several
hundred thousand dollars and so I'd like to know. I
Gary Warren: I'll note that and we'll follow up on that.
Councilman Workman: Okay. I would move approval. '
Councilman Johnson: Second.
Resolution 4`90-104: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
accept the Preliminary Assessment Roll and call for a public hearing for the
following:
1. Downtown Redevelopment, Phase II, Project 86-11B.
2. North Side Parking Lot, Project 87-17.
3. Lake Drive, TH 101 to CSAH 17, Project 88-22.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
G. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WALKWAY PATH THROUGH A CLASS A '
WETLAND TO ACCESS A DOCK LOCATED AT 7016 SANDY HOOK CIRCLE, CHRIS ENGEL FOR THE
LOTUS LAKE BETTERMEN ASSOCIATION.
Councilman Johnson: I pulled 2(g) on general principle. The recommendation is
denial so I'll move denial of the Wetland Alteration Permit. We've had
circumstances in the past when we approved the Consent Agenda and the
recommendation was a denial and then the applicant came in and said his thing
was approved when it was actually denied so it's clear this is a denial and so
I'm moving denial. '
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to deny Wetland '
Alteration Permit Request 1189-1 to allow a 4' wide by 42" long crushed rock path
through the Class A wetland adjacent to Lotus Lake. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. '
K. ACKNOWLEDGE STATE ESTIMATED 1991 LEVY LIMIT FOR CHANHASSEN, REQUIRES
ESTABLISHING OFFICIAL PUBLIC HEARING DATES.
Councilman Workman: We're acknowledging State estimated 1991 levy limit for
Chanhassen which I don't know if this is based on. I guess I didn't number one
didn't want to miss the opportunity to say how once again silly this all is. 1
Councilman Johnson: It's not as silly as last year.
Councilman Workman: We could basically say 20 million dollars or any number and ,
it doesn't make any sense and that's State government-. Not doing for us like
we'd like them to do. However, the other minor point is that if we approve
December 3rd and 10th as official budget public hearing dates, December 3rd
realistically with the National League of Cities conference, we'd be out of
3
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
town. So maybe we can discuss this in the Council Presentations.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We can move that .
' Councilman Workman: So do you want to just hold that? Hold 2(k)?
Mayor Chmiel: Why don't we. We'll put 2(k) under Council Presentations.
' Everyone in agreement?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes.
VISITORS PRESENTATIONS: None.
PUBLIC HEARING: STORM WATER UTILITY DISTRICT; ADOPT STORM WATER UTILITY
' ORDINANCE.
PUBLIC PRESENT:
' NAME ADDRESS..
Tim Erhart 775 West 96th Street
Don Patton Lake Susan Hills Partnership
Gayle Degler Lyman Blvd.
Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd.
Roman Roos 10341 Heidi Lane
Conrad Fiskness 8033 Cheyenne Avenue
Tim Bloudek 1171 Homestead Lane
Mike Klingelhutz r 8601 Great Plains Blvd.
II Clark Horn 7608 Erie
Gary Warren: As Council's aware, we've been working since March to look at the
II funding scenario for trying to address the challenges that face the City as far
as meeting water quality issues. Trying to keep up with the development in the
City as far as development proposals and also providing, be ahead of the game as
II far as acquisition of parcels of property for consolidating storm water
retention ponds and things of this nature. Also recognizing some of the
upcoming capital expenditures that we are aware of from the various watershed
districts and as mandated by State Statute for complying with the Chapter 509
II requirements for adopting a local watershed management plan. As a result of
this effort and through several workshops, as you're aware and with public
information meeting to receive input from the community and separate
I questionnaire that was mailed out, we have fined tuned the document which is in
front of the Council for public hearing tonight which basically presents storm
water utility concept proposal for funding the anticipated financial plans here
I before the City which we're looking at for the next 5 years. Some of the
briefly the highlights of the capital improvement program that are major
elements would be the identification of wetlands and wetland mapping which is
about a $55,000.00 element. The local surface water management plan that the
II City needs to do in compliance with the State Statute's about a $135,000.00
item. Water quality plan, about $72,000.00 and we have a backlog which we've
estimated a backlog of construction for storm sewer improvements of about
1 $150,000.00 and future demands which we estimate at about $400,000.00. All
total it's about a 1.7 million dollar program and as was identified through the
4
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990 1
preparation of the document, the current general operating fund of the City is
not capable of financing a program of that magnitude without having other
programs be shorted and the utility district concept which has been accepted now
by several communities in the area, has been a concept that is the most direct
way of acquiring funds to deal and to dedicate them specifically to the purpose
for which they're required. Namely a storm water management. So the document
which has been prepared reflects this. The ordinance which is also in tonight's
packet for adoption reflects the utility rates which would be conincident with
the adoption of the utility program. So we have placed the proper notices in
the newspaper for hearing and this is the public hearing to address public input
in that regard. I
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there any discussion from the audience? Anyone wishing
to address this specific item? Please state your name and address.
Tim Erhart : I'm Tim Erhart, 775 West 96th Street, Chanhassen. Honorable Mayor
and Council, I had the opportunity to get the proposal and for the first time I
feel a little bit like Eric Rivkin coming up here. So I hope I don't look that
way I guess and I don't want to ramble on and on but this is an issue that I
think it's important and it affects a lot of people here. I note that the
survey that went out only received a 4% return so I don't know how valuable that
should be. I don't remember getting it and most the people I talked to don't
remember seeing it . I think first I'd like to address the issue a little bit
about the philosophy of government and perhaps defend the proposal with that.
I've been on the Planning Commission for almost 4 years and as I sit in here I'm
always amazed at how many times we see people, almost every meeting come in and
want their government to do something for them. Solve another problem and it
goes on and on and I know Paul and Gary and the Council as well start getting a
feeling that everybody wants them to solve everybody's problems in the city and
so you're expected to respond to that and I think given your situation and at
least get staff's situation probably respond with an equivalent proposal if I
was faced with all these people that wanted everything to be solved for them.
The problem I have with that philosophy is that it, and with this proposal is
that it takes away I think a lot of the emphasis on the individuals to solve
problems and puts it on the city. In the past we've solved water problems
through assessments and looking at specific cases and taking money out of the
general fund only when the individuals or a collection of small individuals
dealing directly with the problem weren't able to solve the problem. People
wonder then why taxes keep going up and up and up and up despite all the
politicians saying that they're keeping the same. It 's because, part of the
problem is on us, the taxpayers as a whole, we keep wanting the government to
solve all the problems. It's just not practical. You know there's only a line
between us and what they're trying to get rid of eastern Europe and Sweden. You
know where do we draw our line? There's some things we can't solve. So that's
my little speech on philosophy. The other one, I have a little more philosophy
and that's control. Again, I watched for 4 years we slowly have tried to
control everything we do. I relate to specifically wetlands in that I've been
involved in the city when we've written and expanded on some of the most
stringent wetland protection ordinances in all the Twin Cities and in fact,
correct me if I'm wrong Paul, I think we're looked at as a model case in some of
the other cities. Of course what happens when we write these ordinances? Ue
tend to get more restrictive in our ordinances and some people, in fact most
people don't know about it and they do things that they never expect that are
5 '
•
II .
' City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
against the law and then some of them get caught and it 's all sad for us who try
to, who love wetlands because then we expect to go back and ask them to fix it.
Well, it's pretty difficult for someone to go back and repair a wetland. Put it 1
back to like it was and so the tendency has been to let's police it more. As
' I've been in meetings and I see this proposal, we're spending energy and money
on policing. Okay, we're going to spend $55,000.00 on a mapping of wetlands so
that we know when someone is or isn't. And we're going to go out and twice a
1 year go and inspect every wetland so that we can see if anybody is doing
something. I just don't think we can afford that kind of policing and not only
that, I don't think people want people in their backyards twice a year
' inspecting wetlands. And I see this whole thing sort of as the drug war in that
we're all against drugs and we're all for wetlands but we haven't been able to
police the drug situation and get people to stop using drugs by throwing them in
' jail and I think the wetlands thing is as much education as is it trying to go
and spend another $75,000.00 to police it and add more people. You know it's
part of a free society is that some people are going to make mistakes. We're
going to lose a little wetland here. Something's going to get damaged and we
deal with it at the time. Okay, I don't think we want to-live in a society
where we go out and police every wetland and everything every citizen does and
try to avoid every mistake. That's not realistic so. Let me address the
' proposal itself. Some of the concerns I have. Yes, the objective is to raise
more money. We call this thing a utility. The way I see it, it's because we
don't want to use those words tax increase. I think that stems all the way, for
the reasons I just stated, all the way from the federal government to our good
city of Chanhassen. I don't think this is a utility at all. It's a tax on
something that we have to deal with. Those things that we have to deal with
collectively and I don't have a problem with that and I'd be more than happy to
' put my money in to solve water drainage problems and wetland problems we have to
solve collectively. Well let's call it what it is. It's a tax increase and
what concerns me most about this, it's a duplication of a tax we already have.
' It 's a duplication of the adminstration costs that we have associated with real
estate tax. That 's what it is. It 's a duplication of real estate tax and we
already pay for the adminstration of that. The tax really isn't based on water
drainage. It 's based on the type of real estate because you really can't
measure, you really can't accurately measure drainage. You have things like
credits for retained runoff. You've got credits for low income. Are we going
to be in the business in our adminstration to decide who's got low income in
this city? I think we're stretching a little bit beyond what we want to tackle
here. You've got credits for conservation program. People like me have to go
to every down at the ASCS to file for it to get a credit. Some more waste of
time and more waste of your time. More administration costs. All these credits
just get decided by a staff committee. I don't know about that. We have
appeals to the Council. Sounds like a real estate tax to me. We have a revised
•
billing system. We have 10% penalties and if we can't collect, we add it to
your real estate tax. If you read the document so it's a real estate tax. How
many people are we going to hire to administrate this thing? I look at the
numbers and I'm sure you have and you can draw your own conclusions. It's more
than 1. Document suggests that the rates are fixed for 5 years yet when I reach
page 13, it states otherwise. I won't read it but it sure doesn't read that on
that page. Document says it's fair. I think it's unfair. I think it's unfair
to the lot owners who have reimbursed the developers who have gone in and put
' proper drainage system in according to the engineering department's
recommendations and our policies. It's unfair to people who have gravel
6
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
driveways as opposed to asphalt driveways. Quite frankly, if you choose to I
elect this kind of a system, I think the example's pointed out in the document
of the cities where they put a flat rate on individual homeowners makes a lot
more sense than trying to measure runoff which I don't believe you can do.
Lastly, I'd like to deal with specifically my case and a few of the others in
the room here and that's dealing with agricultural property. I heard one fellow
called me this morning and was wondering if they were going to pay for the clean
out of his agricultural draining system since that now would be included in the
water runoff problem. I won't pose that question here but I think there's a lot
behind the question. On page 3, which I will read, basically it states. A
quarterly fee is typically charged against all developed parcels. It says to me
that then typically fees are not charged against agricultural or undeveloped
parcels. Later on on page 5 it says, we've established a $.50 per acre per
quarter fee for agricultural land and it sounds to me like it's an arbitrary
figure the way it 's stated. For me that fee would be $240.00 a year. It 's not
unlike other people that have agricultural land in the city. I find it hard to
believe that I should be paying $240.00 a year to solve a problem that's
associated as the document says, with developed areas and people in the
developed areas are paying approximately $20.00 a year. Lastly, I'd like to
just remind the Council that in 1987 I was involved in passing an ordinance that
precluded the development of agricultural property in the city of Chanhassen in
order to preserve that land until such time the MUSA line was extended and sewer
and water can serve them. Essentially we've taken away any potential for
economic gain until that time and I find it would be totally unfair that at this
time that we would try to assess those landowners who can't develop now because
of a taking in the ordinance change, a utility fund associated with development .
So I thank you for my comments on that and ask that you consider those ideas and
requests. '
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Tim. Is there anyone else that would like to address the
issue? As I mentioned, this is a public hearing. This is your opportunity to
come forward and express your opinions.
Don Patton: My name is Don Patton. Did the planning for the Lake Susan
development. The reason that I guess I'm opposing it, you're really taxing the
Lake Susan Hill people twice. In 1987 when we put the development together,
worked the PUD through staff and Council, we and if you'll look at what I've got
in my hand, we had Hickock do a water runoff plan which showed the ponding. I
know that Gary has got a copy of it and it's been a master document for what has
been done in Lake Susan. Sizing the ponds again affecting the water quality and
the quantities of water. Runoff. I don't see why, we paid for it once. It's
been implemented. Why the people in Lake Susan would have to pay for it again.
So I would ask you to oppose or at least omit the people that have already paid
for it in the price of their house and the development we put together from
paying for it again. Thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
Gayle Degler: I'm Gayle Degler and we live at Lyman Blvd. We're tht dairy
farmers in Chanhassen along with my folks on CR 17. I guess I have to be
against this concept , or when you call it a utility, whatever because first of
all rainfall runoff, that's a natural event. We make it sound like this runoff
is all negative. Without the runoff we wouldn't have our lakes, our streams and
7
. City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
any of this other stuff. We need the runoff. What we don't want and what we're
trying to control is the man made runoff. Your streets. Your blacktops. Your
parking lots. Your big buildings. The man made runoff is what we're trying to
control and that obviously does need control. Like Mr. Patton said, some areas
' of the city are already doing their job controlling it and I don't agree with
this double jeopardy in that way. Utility concept has been mentioned in a lot
of the literature and in the paper and it makes it sound like other cities have
' already adopted this. Well, making a few phone calls Fridley, it's all storm
sewer utility. They're charging storm sewer. Fridley is liberal enough, they
don't even charge vacant land and undeveloped land. They will charge them once
it's again being used but if it's vacant at the time or if it 's undeveloped,
' they don't get any charge. Shakopee, agricultural land, no charge. Storm
sewer. Again, storm sewer. Bloomington. They don't have much in the line of
agricultural land obviously but the land that they do have, it's only charged on
' the percentage that uses the storm sewer. All these other cities have a utility
concept but storm sewer utility. And I think the City of Chanhassen obviously
has some storm sewer and it does need maintenance. That 's different than
' charging a flat rate. The shot gun approach of charging everybody some
grandiose idea. Storm sewer, obviously we need. It's hard to justify charging
ag land. These prices get passed on. If I have a company, a business and
' somebody charges me extra taxes, that just gets passed on in my product. In
agricultural, I don't set my prices and it's hard for me to pass that on.
Obviously we farm more land than we own so I'm going to be paying for the next
person's land that I'm renting. That is going to be paid by the person farming
' the land and me as a farmer, I'm going to have to somehow justify that but I
can't add it onto the produce that I'm trying to sell. I'd like the opportunity
to compete with the dairy farmer in Chaska which is a mile away from my place.
' He doesn't have to put up with that . He's got sewer and water going right
through his property. We'd like to be on an equal basis. I think agricultural
land obviously doesn't need. We do maybe need a utility for storm sewer but not
this general broad base type approach. Thank you.
' Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else?
' Al Klingelhutz: I'm Al Klingelhutz. I live in Chanhassen, Minnesota. 8600
Great Plains Blvd. . Environmentally I think I'm as concerned as anybody in this
room but after reading through this thing here and seeing the costs involved, it
' looks to me like a good 60: to 70% of it would be for consulting fees,
administration and collecting fees. I've read there's a $300,000.00 backlog in
storm sewer arrangements in the city. I guess since day one when I was on the
Council and Mayor, anytime a developer came in he had to come up with a storm
' sewer plan. Put in ponds. Put in the storm sewer. All these things on his own
and they were all charged against the person that bought the lot. I think this
is what Mr. Patton was referring to saying that these people would be put in a
double jeopardy. They already paid for it once and would have to pay for it
again. I'm also a little bit concerned that the last legislative session came
up with a ruling that the soil and water conservation district in each county
would be the lead agency in controlling storm runoff water. I'm wondering if
11
there's been any connection with this plan and soil and water up to this point
in the saving of a lot of consultant fees. Slapping of wetlands and these
things. I'm also a little concerned about people who already had storm water
11 assessments hearings. Places that were put in prior to developer's having to do
this work and I know there's areas right in the old part of Chanhassen that have
8
r
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
•
had a couple storm sewer assessments because there was no storm sewer put in at
the time of development. Are these people going to have to pay for somebody
else's storm sewer or are they going to be eliminated from paying again? I
really feel that if the Council is thinking about passing an ordinance like ,
this, there should be a lot more input and a lot of checking with other units of
government that do have some control over these things. Like the Soil and
Water Conservation District Extension Committee. Carver County. Watershed
districts. They all have a little finger in each one of these things. I was up
to a State Health Board meeting last week from Wednesday until rriday evening
and there was one whole conference on storm water runoff. So there's a lot of
different departments that are concerned about it and I think before we run off
and pass an ordinance like this, rather than have a lot of overlapping, there
should be a lot more networking done with the other organizations that have been
doing some work on this also. Thank you. '
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Al. Is there anyone else?
Roman Roos: Good evening. I'm Roman Roos. I live at 10341 Heidi Lane. I can't 1
really address what 's already been addressed. I think it 's been well presented
to Council but I guess I have a real problem about being hit twice and I'm
speaking as a private citizen at this point in time. A good case example would
be Bluff Creek Road. It's a road that connects Pioneer Trail down to TH 212.
That road was put in. Curbs and gutters. B612 curbs and gutters. Storm sewer
running all the way down to control the surface runoff on Bluff Creek which is a
paved road now. We're grateful to have that . My assessment charge is about
$3,600.00 for that road. That road was assessed back to the individual abutting
property owners on Hesse Farm and the two farms running along Bluff Creek. We
sustained the full cost of that short of government funding some grant aid
dollars that we received. We were willing to do that. That road is used by the
majority of people coming from Shakopee to Chanhassen via a shortcut up Bluff
Creek Road. I guess I don't have a problem paying my fair share but I have a
real problem when I get hit a second time as a private citizen. As a developer
in the• City of Chanhassen, case in point would be, there's not a project in the
last 4 years I would assume that have not come under the control of the city
engineering. Gary Warren and his staff. They've done an admirable job but it's
a thing called sewer costs. Okay? Storm sewer. I'm in the process right now
of getting hit on a storm sewer, second phase on a 4 acre parcel in the Chan
Lakes Business Park. It's going to hit me some $57,000.00. Now you're going to
tell me on that 4 acres, besides paying for the full cost of my prorata share of
that storm sewer, I also have to now pay a surface useage charge. I can't
believe it. I just think it 's totally unfair both to the private citizen and to
the developer. Thank you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Roman. Anyone else? '
Conrad Fiskness: I'm Conrad Fiskness. I'm President of the Riley-Purgatory-
Bluff Creek Watershed District and I'm a resident of Chanhassen living on 8033
Cheyenne Avenue in Chanhassen Estates as well. It's rather interesting having
seen the articles in the paper and listen to the discussion here tonight, the
issue of water is one that I've heard in many different forums just in this
year. It 's an issue which we're going to hear a lot more of and there's going
to be a lot more struggles and there's a lot of effort to get involved in,
especially in terms of control of water resource, not only in this state but in
9
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
the whole nation. Water is going to be a major problem whether you're in State
or County or City or whatever have you. I've had my own tangles with the Met
Council on this subject already and I'm expecting a few more. As a
representative of the Watershed District, quite frankly we as a board have not
' had an opportunity to really see what you folks are proposing. I did have a
copy of a newspaper article which I had at our last meeting and we talked
briefly about it. Obviously that didn't have information in detail so we didn't
' really get into any indepth discussion. On the basis of what knowledge we do
have of these types of utilties, we are assuming that what you would be doing
and our discussion I guess did have some assumptions like this. One is it, the
' design of what you are proposing probably would go beyond the watershed
district's activities in terms of water management and we would not be expecting
that what you're doing would be a duplication of watershed activities that have
' already taken place and it would be, at least my assumption that what you're
looking at is I guess what it 's referred to in the trade as a detailed interior
system design. If that is correct. Then we would basically, I guess I'm here
to say then that whatever you choose to do, and if you do choose to go ahead,
' that the watershed district wants to make it clear that any information that we
have, any work that we have done. Anything that 's in our file, we would be
certainly not only willing but we feel both obligated and eager to 'share
whatever work we have done that our files are obviously available. They are
public property anyway but I just want you to be aware that we would make those
available to you and offer whatever expertise and assistance that we can should
the City of Chanhassen choose to do this.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Conrad. Is there anyone else?
' Tim Bloudek: Good evening. I'm Tim Bloudek, 1171 Homestead Lane and I must
admit I'm not very well educated on this whole proposal other than the fact that
there are a few points that are a little bit of concern to me. I'd like to ask
you a question if I could. Somebody stated that communities have adopted this
type of utility plan. What communities are there? Are those that adopted that
plan? •
' Mayor Chmiel: Gary, would you like to address that?
Gary Warren: Most recently the City of Eagan has done it. The City of
' Roseville. The City of St. Louis Park. Plymouth. Shakopee. St. Paul.
Councilman Johnson: Those are the local ones. Throughout the country there's
others. Seattle has had one for about 5 years now.
Tim Bloudek: Okay. A couple of people that had addressed or had contacted some
of these other cities talked about the rural areas, that they were exempt a few
' other things. I live in a what I guess would be called a rural residential area
and so far I don't see any benefits to utilities that the City provides. We
have no city water. No city sewer. About the only thing we do have is
underground electrical utilities and telephone. That's about it. So I really
derive very little benefit from city services other than we do have fire
protection but it's pumper trucks and that type of thing which means my
' insurances are higher and that type. So I'm not real excited about additional
taxes. Also I see one of the items for capital expenditures would be the
backlog of construction projects and future construction projects of which I
' 10
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990 1
assume I won't have any benefit again but again I would be paying a tax I
probably, and I agree with whoever stated before, this is a tax. It's another
form of tax so I would prefer to call it that. I don't see any benefit nor
would my neighbors see a benefit yet we would be paying a higher assessment or
tax than anyone else that would live within the city that would have access to
storm sewer and that type of thing so I guess I'd just like to be on record as
saying I'm opposed to some type of special taxation and I'd just as soon see
that lumped into the real estate taxes which is what I think somebody else
brought that up also. That it is a form of real estate tax. Why should we
duplicate again the expenditure of adminstrating that? Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Tim. Is there anyone else?
Mike Klingelhutz: Mike Klingelhutz, 8601 Great Plains Blvd. . I have a copy of
the plan here and I had a chance to look at it quite extensively. It 's going to
generate a lot of money and a lot of money is going to be spent on consulting
hydrologists and it looks like they're going to try and ease the burden on that
engineering and adminstrative department but I don't think that the way they're
spending the money isn't going to really help to do much for our already
identified problems in the lakes like Lake Susan. I don't think that they went
about this and thought of their objectives before they made, they came up with a
utility concept . I'd like to see them look more at, you know create a list of
objectives and then see if enacting a storm water utility meets or helps to meet
those objectives. Objectives like keeping Eurasian Milfoil out of lakes.
Keeping susceptible winter kill lakes from dying out every other year.
Educating the people on non-point pollution. Stuff like that . I'd like to see
a list of objectives just there is one or I'd like to see one made before this
is enacted. Thank you. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
Clark Horn: Clark Horn, 7608 Erie Avenue. I think what you're talking about
considering here is a long standing policy in the city of Chanhassen. I think
whenever you do that you have to take a careful look at what you're changing and
why things were put in place the way they were. This method of assessing storm
water runoff has been in place probably since before Al was on the City Council
and it 's worked in the past and I think the gentleman is right. You're talking
about another tax. You're talking about administering it and you're only
looking at one aspect of this thing. What comes next? Street assessments?
Will those be put on a basis like this? I think you've taken one aspect out of
this and you're looking at it . You really have to study the whole philosophy
and assessment policy. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Clark. Anyone else? If not, can I have a motion to
close the public hearing?
Councilwoman Dialer moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was '
closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Jay, do you want to start off? .
Councilman Johnson: I've been one of the original ,
people pushing for this in
11 '
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
I that there's a lot of things going on in this city in storm water that needs
some central coordination. We have Lake Susan Hills doing their storm water
plan. Saddlebrook doing their's. This next development doing their's and they
look at a microcosm. They look at only their development and what's happening
' within their development . Not what's happening within the whole city. We need
to be able to pull all these plans and the developments will continue doing
these plans and they'll continue paying for their storm water. I like all the
shaking heads but we have to have it. The developers will continue paying to
' work a storm water plan but now with this, we'll be able to integrate it into a
city storm water plan. Not just a site specific storm water plan. It's
something that the watershed district wants us to do. The State wants us to do
and eventually we're going to have to do it anyway. Whether we take it out of
property taxes, which many people things a regressive tax. Or whatever. A lot
of people, the higher priced house ends up paying a lot more than lower priced
' house for the same utility. People say we don't have a storm water utility.
Well what is everything out there? We have a storm water utility. We just
don't have operating fees like we do for our water utility or electric utility
' or sewer utility. We have fees for those. We pay for maintenance of them.
There's no fees to pay for maintenance of our storm water facility at this time.
Chan Pond out here is filling up with sediment from a storm water drain that was
' put in under a development that was supposed to do it right and it didn't go
right and now we're going to have to dredge out that pond eventually. Building
a new delta in there. There's no money to do that in the budget . We could do
it on a general property taxes but then again we're charging more because of the
' way property taxes are in this, the higher price of your house, the more you
pay. So the guy with a $200,000.00 pays 4 times as much as I do for the exact
same service where his house probably doesn't contribute to the storm water
' system any more than mine. That's why I like the flater rate personally than,
it's closer to people representative to what they're getting. I'm not too sure
I'm too wild about 50 cents an acre on the agricultural land. That's a little
much for the large agricultural tracts. But agricultural also does contribute
to storm water and to the pollution going into Lake Susan. Non-point source, as
it has been brought out tonight , we need more money to address that . The State
says you have to address non-point source pollution. Where's the money State?
' We have to address it but there ain't no money from the State to tell us. They
just tell us we have to address it but we have to get the money somewhere to
address non-point source pollution. Dairy farms, they have pollution. The cows
aren't all potty trained. They have a high 80D coming off and then the
modern, I'm not sure about our local dairy farm here, whether they have all the
control systems that they have to put on the modern farms. The new dairy farms
with the settling tanks and everything else for the cows for the milking barn.
I like the list of objectives. We've heard a lot of objectives that our staff
wants as far as, I just don't see it presented here. I think there is a list .
We can come up with a list but I think, there's another misconception I kept
hearing tonight was we're going to use this to build storm sewers in
developments or, that's not the purpose of this. When somebody makes a
development, they build their own storm sewer for that development. It becomes
part of the city utility just like they put in sewers. They put in the
watermains. The whole bit. They pay for that when they make their development.
But then after those utilities go in, there's no more fees for use of those
utilities. The storm water utility. That's the story of my comments.
Mayor Chmiel: That's about it. `
1 12
1
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
Councilwoman Dimler: Can I go next?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Be my guest. '
Councilwoman Dimler: I happened to save my agenda from the City Council meeting
on May 9th and I don't know why we didn't have the Minutes from that because at
that point I guess I'd like to clarify that I was not one of the ones that
wanted in any way to pursue this. I really don't know where it came from but it
was presented to us at the time and so my comments at that time were, that this
is a tax. We have to make sure that everyone knows that we're increasing taxes
here but I was willing to study it more carefully only with the following
conditions and that was that we address water quality and not just ways to move
water along. I see nothing in this final report that addresses water quality.
The quality of the runoff. We're not saying anything about fertilizing lawns.
Educating the public as to that running off into our lakes. We're not saying
anything about the present condition of our lakes. We're not going to use that
money to clean them up. Even if you get the purest water to run in from now on,
our lakes still need to be cleaned up. It just is not going to take care of
itself. Also I wanted to find ways to educate the public as to find ways to
conserve water. That would be sanitary. Okay. Anyway, and I think some of the
points that have been made here tonight , I didn't want that we increase
personnel and I think the report indicates that we would be increasing personnel
to monitor and manage. I see it as an adminstrative headache. I see more work
for the Council. Perhaps to the point where everyone would be coming in for
adjustments and we would need another Board of Adjustments just to handle
everyone's concerns. I think it's hard to correlate the fees to the benefits
and although I see credits and exemptions that are allowed for special cases, it
is up to the property owner to justify the fee adjustment. I think it's hard
enough for the engineers to find the benefit and much less for the property
owner to come in and prove the benefit. So my intention would be to vote
against this.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Tom? 1
Councilman Workman: I don't know, we're graced with a lot of big voices from
the community tonight . It's big if Al Klingelhutz comes out. I'm interested in
what Father Barry has to say about this. I think a lot of the goals that we're
trying to accomplish in this plan, I don't know that I'm ready to vote against
it tonight or for it . It's obvious to me that there's a lot of different things
that we need to still shake out. I see Gary writing over there franticly but
there's a lot of really good comments from everyone. It really would seem to me
that a lot of this really came out of, and Gary you can tell me if I'm wrong,
out of the Frontier Trail update where there was an argument about well,
actually the storm water system that they had on that beat up old road was
actually adequate and they had already done it so they didn't want to be
assessed again so Council was kind of concerned about where that money was going
to be coming from and then potentially how many more Frontier Trails would we
have in the future where we'd have to assess people, which I think is probably
the number one thing Council least likes to do is assess people. Am I sort of
correct? '
Gary Warren: I would say Frontier Trail is a classic example of the challenges
13 ,
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
that we're faced as far as funding improvements of this nature but I think it
would be a wrong impression to imply that it was because of Frontier Trail that
we said that we needed a district . We have been thinking all along based on the I
' request that we get for fighting Eurasian Water Milfoil, wetland mapping and the
other things to come up with a funding source to address the things that we saw
coming. The water quality plan that we had in the program here is one element .
' The state mandated 509 local plan that Mr. Fiskness referenced that we're going
to have to do. Those really have been things that we've been watching the
Statutes and see them coming and since they're big ticket items said, well this
is a funding source that directly approaches the money for those particular
11 improvements. So Frontier Trail is a classic example.
Councilwoman (limier: Could I just interrupt here? The people on Frontier Trail
are still being assessed. They were assessed once and they're being assessed
again with the redoing improvement . Are you saying that in the future we could
use that money to not assess people as we do their road improvements and storm
' water improvements?
Councilman Workman: Just the storm water portion.
ICouncilwoman [limier: But you would do it along with the road right?
Gary Warren: Typically that's the way we do it . The real interest , and it 's a
' very important distinction. Some of the comments that we heard tonight are the
fact that the utility fund in no way, shape or form is intended to pre-empt any
developer from paying his fair share for the construction of improvements. It
does provide the city a little more discretion, flexibility to deal with some of
' the more difficult problems. If you imagine trying to go back into Carver
Beach, which is very delinquent in storm sewer. Having very little of it and we
deal with it almost every week in trying to work out drainage issues with
particular property owners. To try to assess a project of that magnitude, it
will just be a nightmare and so it provides I think more flexibility to the City
to try to implement some necessary projects that can have very significant water
quality impacts when you look at the relation say to Lotus Lake.
Councilwoman Dimler: So at that point you would make the decision to use it for
that particular, use the fund for that particular project? It's at your
discretion?
Gary Warren: It would be brought to the Council on a particular basis like we
do with any other improvement project to lay up funding proposals and similar to
Carver Beach. I'm sorry, to Frontier Trail, where we said we have street
improvements and we have storm sewer improvements and here's what we think is
reasonable for city general obligation participation. Here's what we think is
' reasonable from a special assessment standpoint. So we would follow those
guidelines pretty similarly.
Councilman Workman: So there's the dilemma I guess. We have the dilemma of
wanting, we've had many discussions here on Lake Lucy and it's uncleanliness. I
don't know. I guess a lot of this is what we're talking about yet we're not
' really specifically talking about it. As Mike Klingelhutz mentioned, some of
the objectives, the things that we can really point to and say this is what we
want to do or this is where we're going to start or this is a wish list of
14
I
•
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990 1
things that we want to do with the $1.7 million over the next 5 years would I
maybe give us, who have simpler minds an idea about exactly what we're going to
do. So I guess that 's why I say I'm not ready to vote against it but I'm not
ready to vote for it perhaps because I'd like to learn a little bit more about
some of these concepts. I hear reoccuring theme of taxation and it's a tax.
Call it a tax and that makes me very nervous. There's something of a slippery
slope there. I would definitely like to see a sunset clause in this to say That
in 5 years it will end unless Council approves to carry it out for another 5
years or however that would work to give the Council's in the future, in 1995 an
opportunity to re-evaluate the process a little easier. That's really all I had
for now.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Some of the things that are contained in there too
indicate what those annual rates can be reviewed on a yearly kind of basis as
well. I too get a little hesitant. Number one, tax as you've already said.
I don't want this to be a sort of fund raiser for the City. I don't see where
we should be the ones to come up with the amount of dollars. I have some real
concerns about it. One of the things too, even in that May memo that we had or
Council agenda. It was indicated in there that Eagan City Council's expecting
to adopt a storm water utility district. Have they done that as yet?
Gary Warren: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: They did? Okay.
Gary Warren: And a water quality management plan.
Councilwoman Dimler: They have a plan. That's what I wanted. '
Gary Warren: We do have a budgeted plan element in this.
Mayor Chmiel: Have we reviewed their proposal to see a comparison to what our's
is?
Gary Warren: We at this time were not provided with a copy of it so I haven't '
specifically gone through it, no.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I'm not in a position right now to say let's can it . '
I guess I'm in a position to say let's look at this thing a little further.
Let 's study it a little further. Let's look and see what these total figures
really mean. I'd like to see maybe something from Mr. Degler's area to see what
assessment costs would be for him. I'd like to know what it'd be for
Klingelhutz' . Some residential individual units. Some of the commercial
properties and under some of these land uses, as I say, we're covering parks.
Some broad spectrum. Does that also include the City of Chanhassen?
Gary Warren: Yes sir.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'd like to see a few other things brought into proper
perspectus before I think we should even consider adopting this at this time.
Gary Warren: The specific ordinance itself, because that was a separate '
revision here to the report and it's contained in the Council packet, does
15 '
I
• City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
provide up to an 80% credit. I think Tim Erhart referenced this earlier for the
agricultural property and undeveloped property if they can document that they
have an implemented soil conservation service program so we were trying to
address the public. Put the concerns that were presented to staff here
throughout the development process here. The agricultural and undeveloped
parcels represent about Ak of the total revenue package that is currently shown
in the document. The ordinance also in contrast to the document itself, when we
' looked at the ordinance, I didn't feel comfortable with locking rates for 3 to 5
or the proposal so we set the ordinance up to have the fees and the annual
budget reviewed on an annual basis with the City's annual budgetary program
because I think that there are needs out there. There are studies that have to
be done to more specifically identify them and the proposal that has been put
together has been put together with a lot of thought and review of our current
land use but until we get into some of the specifics and are able to study this
' system a little bit more, there needs to be that flexibility to annually take a
look at this program as it develops to see that it isn't an albatrose so to
speak and it's effectively addressing the interest of the city.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. As I see our growth going and constantly population counts
coming up, I guess I would like to try to adhere to the practice of not hiring
' someone just to study or to take over this particular aspect of what we're
proposing here. If, and some calculations were made too and I think Al made the
statement that 60: of that would be for fee of staff rather than put back into
the proper use and that 's another thing that sort of disturbs me a little
bit . So with that I would.
Councilwoman Dimler: Could I just ask?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can you address, were you planning to hire some new people
to administer and monitor?
Gary Warren: Actually we have a need prior to this funding. In fact the
engineering department had been looking to acquire a storm water drainage
engineer and a portion of his salary would be funded out of this fund. There are
some additional adminstrative costs just for implementing the program of about
' $12,000.00 because we will be adding several parcels onto our utility building
and such but that's pretty nominal. So that wasn't going to take any staff
addition on the part of the utility adminstration end of it but storm water
drainage engineer is a person that's specialty we're looking to establish here
to help us with a view of the proposals from the developers as well as to get
our handle on a comprehensive nature of this whole system.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so part of his salary would come out of this. Where
would the rest come from?
' Mayor Chmiel: The budget.
Councilman Johnson: Developers.
Councilwoman Dimler: So we're increasing the budget?
' 16
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990 1
Gary Warren: It'd be a combination of probably the Adminstrative Trust Fund.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess one of my concerns with the budget shortfall that
we'd be cutting the budget and not increasing it . I think we need to look at
that real carefully. Also, getting back to Mr. Erhart's concern. You know he
testified to the fact that yes we can get credits and yes but it takes him a day
off of work. It takes everybody a day off of work and to go down to some
authority and to prove your point and I know what kind of headache that is.
Even though we're making conditions available for them to do it, it is just,
it's a headache for the public to go through.
Councilman Workman: But we don't deny that there are storm water, I mean we're
going to have to pay for some of this somehow, someway though. We all
understand that and.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well I guess I don't because I thought if the developer ,
pays and then the people get assessed so they paid once. If you improve it,
they pay again through assessments so they're paying and we're not improving the
quality of the runoff. That's my main point. If we were doing that , I could
see some of this but we're not.
Gary Warren: The statement is accurate that developers pay to install storm '
sewer systems and retention ponds and such when the developments are first
installed. But that's it. After that the maintenance of wood skimmer basins
which go through abuse through frequent freeze and thaw cycles. The removal of
sediments out of these retention basins that, if you're going to have them
working right , you've got to be committed to removing the sediments. Removal of
sediments out of the City's catch basin inlets. We talk about getting a handle
on our actual quality, the degregation of the lakes and where we are in that
element. Those things aren't funded.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, where are those things beind paid for right now? 11 Out of what fund?
Gary Warren: Right now it 's being done through a combination of the public
works staff. From primarily the street department which would be out of the ,
general fund and at this point in time staff, there's not enough staff to
address those specific repairs except on basically an emergency basis. We've
got 4 men in the street department. ,
Councilwoman Dimler: So you're increasing staff there as well?
Gary Warren: We wouldn't be increasing staff at this time with this proposal ,
but certainly is an element of the program that is a necessary part of the
puzzle. It 's the on-going maintenance that's really being sacrificed at this
point in time.
Councilman Johnson: As each of these developments put in a lot of small little
ponds, as we have in the past, and now we're talking about doing a
comprehensive, is it lower maintenance to have a more comrepehensive system with
some larger facilities and integrated facilities versus? I know some of the
facilities you've got to go through people's yards. You can only get in there
in the winter with your big trucks. You have to have the ground frozen and
stuff like that.
17
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
Gary Warren: There's economy of scale, there's no question about it but there's
also another important element and that is the water quality ability of a larger
' pond is much more significant than smaller ponds. You can take a large pond and
get enough capacity so that you have good retention time and your ability to
settle out solids and allow for the volatization of the nutrients, you can do a
lot better job of treating the water. There's no question about that. And Near
' Mountain is maybe a good example. You're eluding to our access challenges in
our ponds up in that area. The larger pond's to be ahead of development to
' acquire property so that we can have these larger facilities instead of running
around with 10 small ones. I think there are definitely some economies to be •
had.
Councilwoman Dimler: But the developers still pays for the pond that's in the
development contract?
Gary Warren: Right . This does not preclude the developer paying.
Councilwoman Dimler: So we're not using this money to make.
Councilman Workman: I'd move to table.
Councilman Johnson: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It 's been moved and seconded. Any more discussion? Mike, you
wanted to make a point. I'll give you a quick minute.
Mike Klingelhutz: I just have one comment. Regarding the agricultural land.
For us farmers to comply with ASCS requirements and gather the credit , if this
is enacted, it's going to cost us several thousand dollars in new equipment .
We're basically going to have to retool. No till planter. No till drill. I
mean that stuff's not cheap.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. We understand that. Okay, thanks.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Could I ask a question here? I would vote in favor of the
tabling under one condition and that would be that when I approved the
' preliminary report , I had asked that these concerns be addressed and yet the
final report came back without that. Now if we were concerned that Eagan had
done such a good job, why wasn't there a goal as to improving water quality that
Eagan had? You know that should have already been in the final report .
Mayor Chmiel: There were some of your questions that you had. . .
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't want to keep studying it and putting more money
into the study if we aren't going to see these purposes clearly stated.
' Gary Warren: Just so I understand, the 5 year capital improvements program
which I've addressed the water quality plan and monetary programs as a part of
that is not what you're looking for.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, because in the article here that was in the paper,
Eagan clearly said that the whole system is for water quality management not
18
I
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
just runoff and we're not addressing that . I
Councilman Johnson: It's in there.
Gary Warren: Page 10 of the report we have $72,000.00 budgeted for water
•
quality.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah but you're not saying specifically how you're going
to do it . That 's the difference.
Gary Warren: Well the scoping those documents obviously takes time and effort
as well. We have attempted here to establish the goals and objectives. The key I
elements of the program where we saw expenditures necessary but the refinement
of those programs similar to, we're not doing Chapter 509 plan either which is
$135,000.00 estimate. Those would be things that will be funded and developed
as a result of these programs.
Councilwoman Dimler: Could you get a copy of the Eagan?
Gary Warren: We certainly will do that.
Mayor Chmiel: What I don't want to do is spend one heck of a lot more dollars
on this particular proposal either. We do have a budgetary shortfall and I
don't want to spend any more dollars than is absolutely necessary or keep. . .
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table adopting the '
storm water utility ordinance for further study. All voted in .favor and the
motion carried unanimously.
ENFORCEMENT OF WATER SURFACE USEAGE ORDINANCE AND JET SKI UPDATE.
Mayor Chmiel: Being that Scott Harr is not able to be here this evening because ,
he had some car problems in Hutchinson. His car broke down and unfortunately he
was coming home from vacation. That's my story. Maybe Gary can address this
just briefly.
Gary Warren: I'll paraphrase, if I can be allowed, his August 8, 1990 update to
the City Manager. Basically Mr. Harr addresses the response, to just update the
Council on actions that have been taken in enforcing these regulations on jet
skis. The following actions have been taken. One, he's met with the Carver
County Sheriff's Department, Water Patrol Division to request aggressive
enforcement of the Jet Ski regulations. Two, he's met 'with State of Minnesota
DNR Conservation officers assigned to the area requesting their assistance in
the enforcement of the regulations. Three, he's met with the Park and Rec
Department here to retain their assistance in educating gate attendants as to
the applicable laws and how to respond to witnessed violations. And four,
educational efforts have been initiated through the local newspapers and he has
offered any assistance to the Sheriff's Department and the DNR as far as our
CSO's assisting. However, he's qualified that from a liability standpoint it
didn't seem prudent to have our CSO's on a solo basis actually being in
watercraft and enforcing it so. He's received positive responses and he is
bringing this up on an upcoming Public Safety Commission meeting.
19 '
1 City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishing to address this at this
particular time? Any discussion from Council?
Councilman Workman: So is it successful so far?
Jacie Hurd: I can tell you. It's been reasonably successful. . . The first
weekend after our meeting, both the DNR and the Sheriff were out on the lake
' which was wonderful. The unfortunate part is that a lot of the weekend, the
weather was fairly terrible. The good news is they were there. The bad news is
nobody else was there. But you know. . .
' Mayor Chmiel: Why don't you come up to the microphone and please indicate your
name.
' Jacie Hurd: My name is Jacie Hurd and I live at 6645 Horseshore. I'd also, we
had asked in our original petition that some sort of education, flyer or
something be sent citywide and we'd still like to push for that before next
' year. Maybe sometime toward the end of the winter, early spring.
Mayor Chmiel: I agree to a certain point with that but I think the main access
to that area is to hand it out to the people going in with those specifics
because I find that every time I've checked it out, the people using Jet Skis on
that lake are not from Chanhassen. I've done it several different times and I
don't see the sense in sending out throughout the city but I do see giving them
' directly at the access point.
Jacie Hurd: Well that'd be alright too. Just if we can, I think if we can get
' a head start on the season next year and start it early when the problem is
really more acute certainly than it is now.
Mayor Chmiel: Hand it to them and say, these are the rules. This is what the
requirements are on this lake. You have to adhere to it.
Jacie Hurd: And I think also, to further that, if again not only the Jet Skis
' out there but some motorboats are insane.
Mayor Chmiel: Right .
' Jacie Hurd: Thank you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think there's any action that's required on that
particular item.
SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR EXPANSION OF THE PARKING AREA WEST TO LOTUS GARDEN
CENTER, 18930 WEST 78TH STREET, REDMOND PRODUCTS.
Mayor Chmiel: Item 5 has been requested to be removed by Redmond. It will be
coming back on a later agenda.
I
' 20
•
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A LIBRARY/ANNEX/RESEARCH CENTER,
EXPANSION OF THE EDUCATION CENTER AND A RETIREMENT COMPLEX, NORTH OF WEST 78TH
STREET AND EAST OF GREAT PLAINS BLVD., ST. HUBERT'S CHURCH. '
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the applicants are requesting approval to construct an
expansion of the St. Hubert 's Church facility. The plan calls for construction
of new relocated classroom space, an interconnected senior housing component
offering 24 apartments with attached underground parking and some internal
renovation and reallocation of space around the church is envisioned as well.
We believe the concept is a fairly innovative one that would combine the church,
housing and school into a community 'setting clustered around an open courtyard
area. Due to the mix of uses being proposed, the need to rezone some of the
underlying parcels which currently have a mix of zoning, and the need to work
with a site that 's located in an older part of the community that really was
never developed in conjunction or in coordination with the City ordinances that
exist today, staff is recommending that a PUD approach be utilized since it
offers increased flexibility for the church plus increased control for the City
over what is actually built on the site. In general we believe the plan is well
designed and note that at the present time only concept plan approval is being
requested. Under the PUD program a development comes through first for concept
review where any kind of gross problems are indicated and whether or not the
City Council would act favorably upon the formal PUD request is indicated.
Formal plan submittals, if this thing stays on track, would be reviewed before
the Planning Commission and the City Council late September, early October. We
believe that the plan is architecturally attractive and creative. A couple of
boards have been prepared. The architect I believe is present tonight and can
describe this further. We believe the architecture fits in rather well and
compliments and in fact improves a lot of respects the existing building. It 's
fairly low scale consistent with the fact that this is located in a single
family neighborhood and we think the design, while this is a large facility, the
design attempts to make it as unobtrusive as possible. A new access point would
be provided for school buses on West 78th Street. That is indicated on the plan
as the horseshoe shaped access. There will also be a new access on Frontier
Trail for the underground parking lot and for a few surface parking stalls.
Parking was one of the major issues for staff in working with church officials
on this program. The new apartments, the plan's been revised by the way. The
new apartments will be provided. with 1 stall for each unit underground. Before
we were short 1 or 2 stalls. The plan's been revised to accommodate that and
there will be some new surface parking proposed for visitors as well. While we
need to work out some of the final details, we're also looking at the
possibility of constructing some additional, and you'll have to bear with me
because. . .of constructing some bump outs sort of what you see on the Lake
Calhoun Parkway. The kind of thing along Frontier Trail. Hopefully that can be
accommodated without impacting any of the trees and it would provide some on
street parking without blocking the street. We're going to work with the
applicant and the City Engineering department to see if that's going to be
feasible. We believe it probably is. One of the advantages though to this type
of development is that the senior housing generally requires a much lower
parking demand than normal market rate housing. Many of the people who will be
living there will either have 1 car or no cars. There will be some benefit in
that they can interact with the church and the school without having to utilize r
a car. We also note that while we acknowledge that the church itself has a
parking shortfall during services, that this development won't make it any worse
21 11
11 ' City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
'
and indeed there are several projects around the community that are probably
improved on that with the reconstruction of parking lots the City's been
involved with on neighboring properties. Issues regarding drainage remain to be
worked out. We do have the concern for how the project would drain into the
' existing storm sewer system. We've asked the developer or the church in this
case, to provide us with additional detailed information developed by an
engineer so that we can work out those details before final submittal. We also
are looking for final landscaping and tree preservation details. The Planning
Commission reviewed this item on August 1st. They recommended it's approval
asking that more effort be put into recreational provisions of the plan and
' asking that refinements be made to the parking as they are possible and as I've
already indicated, there have been some refinements to that. With that we are
recommending approval of the PUD concept plan and really have an expectation
that should you approve it tonight, we could work with the applicant in
' producing a plan for formal submittal. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Paul. One of the things that I noted through here is
' that it 's purely concept plan yet the parking availability for handicapped be
there and also the accessibility into that building. I know that there's an
elevator proposed for that as well. I just want to make sure that those aspects
' are all covered.
Paul Krauss: Yes sir. As you noted, there is an elevator that will go down to
the parking garage and will serve the senior apartments. I believe other
portions of the building will be ramped and the architect can provide additional
detail.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is the applicant wishing to address anything on what Paul
has or has not said? Father Barry, do you want to?
' Father Barry: . . .addressed at the Planning Commission. We have addressed the
. .parking lot and there has been concern about safety and that would be handled
by blocking to the entrances if they so desired. I have a letter here which
may, from the Principal, saying that it's adequate and safety. . . He's been the
' Principal for 2 years and been using it for 15 years without incident but if the
Commission and Council would ask that we. . .traffic out by sawhorses or pylons or
some type. . . Paul, I'll give that letter from the Principal to you later.
' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address the
particular concept?
Eugene Burke: Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers. My name is Eugene Burke. I live at
1892 Lincoln Avenue in St. Paul. I'm a clinical psychologist licensed by the
State of Minnesota. I'm the President of Primary Executive Consultants, a firm
' that offers psychological consultation to business and organizations and
government units and I'm the President elect of the upper Midwest division of
the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy. It's the organization
for licensed and professional family therapists. I rise to address the issue of
the proximity of housing for the elderly and children on a playground.
I noticed in the hearing on August 1st that somebody mentioned some concern that
the older folks may not like the noise that would be generated by the
youngsters. The research that I'm familiar with with the elderly would simply
contradict that hands down. It's well known that the elderly feel, as do young
1 22
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
people, powerless and sometimes useless and so they have a great deal in common '•
and they find the community of souls with each other. Older people feel more
vital when they're around children or even animals for that matter. Anything
that's alive and vital and young. I predict that if the older people are in
those apartments during their recess times, they'd be at the windows watching
and being able to predict and getting to know children and perhaps finding their
names and finding it quite interesting to themselves. I mean after all,
children aren't on the playgound for hours at a time and there's plenty of time
during the day if they want to take naps, they can rearrange their schedules and
I'm sure that's what they would do. Both theoretically and practically
speaking, there are lots of reasons to support such a project. There's also
theological reasons that Father Barry can address more competently than I but
the idea of a whole community being visualized for the remainder of the
community is a sign of the presence of working of good values. Where the old
and the young and the middle aged and everybody can be responded to and their
needs be incorporated into a living and working community. Eric Erickson, an
analyst who developed a comprehensive theory of personality development suggests
that for both young people and older people, at the beginning and the end of the
life cycle and development of their personality, when they successfully
negotiate those periods, hopefulness is the quality of their life so the young
people and old people can generate in each other hopefulness. For us older
adults, generativity is a need and I think this is what's happened tonight in
the concern being expressed by people for their community. For the wetlands.
For the problems of water runoff and how to solve this equitably. These people
rose and are exercising their generativity. Their life giving qualities.
They're interested in living things and the living community and so too here I
think this project is also allows the older people some generativity. The
ability to work with and offer their services for and feel useful for. I'd like
to see in the best of all possible worlds that some use would be made of this
close proximity. That is the older people can do tutoring for the youngsters.
Can be playground monitors or even become involved in other ways with the lives
of those children and feel like they're offering a worthwhile service so I would
like to be able to put to rest anybody's concern that the proximity of this
project would have any detrimental affect at all on the older people. I think
quite the contrary. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else?
Keith Kupcho: My name is Keith Kupcho. I live at 7723 Frontier Trail directly
across the street from the convent and church property. I heard this evening
that some revisions have been made to accommodate parking on the property which
was a concern of mine after reading the Planning Commission report. I have not
heard what those changes are, only that they'll be made. It was an objection, a
high priority objection of mine that parking be a consideration or be examined
more closely because in my estimation the amount of parking that was going to be
available in the plan presented at the Planning Commission was going to be
totally inadequate for the future. I heard the word vision used a number of
times at that Planning Commission meeting and yet it seemed that the present was
the only thing being addressed. 18 stalls for 24 apartments doesn't at all
appear adequate to me. If you want to look at the maximum. . .at age 55 many of
them would have automobiles. 18 stalls for 48 people is wholly inadequate. Now
if you were to expand the parking ramp underneath the building to include the
space under the school building and gain that space as proposed with the plan, I
23 1
II 'City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
think that's a viable alternative. Access to that underground ramp however is a
concern of mine. It's on a residential street. Residential neighborhood. You
are also proposing a building that because of that underground garage would have
to go up an additional 4 feet so now we're talking 2 1/2 story building in a
1 residential neighborhood and apparently the building is set back somewhat but
nonetheless it is an apartment building in a residential neighborhood. At some
point in the past , I can't recall where I read it or heard it. It was a few
' years ago. 4 or 5 years ago perhaps. A City Council member indicated that
there should be a point in Chanhassen's growth where the commercial district of
the city is clearly defined and that it not encroach into the residential
' portion of the city. As far as I am concerned, an apartment house is a
commercial property. Who owns it is not an issue. Or is it perhaps that
because of who would own it , that a zoning, is given special consideration? I'm
a member of the parish of St. Hubert's but I'm a resident. I am a homeowner
that bought a house in a residential neighborhood across from a school and from
a parish. At this point in time I see no reason why special consideration
should be given to a plan that would put an apartment house across the street
' from my house. There is the issue of additional parking besides that for the
residents. What about the guests, the friends, the relatives that would be
coming to visit these people of a more mature age? What about their children
' and even grandchildren? Do they not drive automobiles? Will they not be
visiting these people? From what I have read of the transcript of the Planning
Commission meeting, that's not addressed except for saying we could make
Frontier Trail look like Minnehaha Parkway with indents or outdents, whatever
you call those. Not a very feasible or rational alternative to providing
parking. Now we've got parking on the street . My children use the street .
Other young children use the street so now we've got parked vehicles on a street
' that they can run through and there could be consequences. On street parking is
not a rationale alternative. Not at all. Another item that I saw on the plan,
and I'm assuming it's still there, is a loading dock that exits onto Frontier
Trail. Is there not a loading dock there? The plan I saw had one. Somewhere
on the east side of the building?
Paul Krauss: A deck.
Keith Kupcho: It 's not there anymore. Good. But if it is there, now we've got
larger vehicles wanting to use Frontier Trail to gain access to the school for
' unloading and loading or the apartment building. And the plan by the way that I
was looking at was one that was published in the Hunter some time ago. I don't
have the date on it . The other issue has to do with lighting. If there is a
parking lot as proposed that exits onto Frontier Trail, that lot must be lit and
I'm assuming, I would hope. Hope? I would expect that that parking lot would
be well lit because we are dealing with people in the more advanced stage, a
mature age which means then that that light is broadcast into our neighborhood
' and into our residential areas. Much like you would see at Kenny's and that
whole development area there. We didn't move into that house, we didn't
purchase it with the idea of living across from a flourescent lit parking lot.
' I think there are alternatives to this concept plan. I think the idea is great.
It's a nice idea. Combining elderly and children with the religious community..
I think however that the concept and the building is the wrong size and the
wrong place on the wrong sized property. The inclusion of all three facets of
the construction. The addition to the church and remodeling in there. The
addition to the school and an apartment building is just not appropriate for
I 24
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
this location. There are alternatives and they were mentioned at the Planning `'
Commission meeting. There is additional property available in the future and
could be made available probably in the present that would provide at grade
underground parking to the north of the current parking lot and a facility up
there. That would provide then ample room for a. new school, albeit perhaps one
story so it would maintain the semetry of the existing building. Provide ample
playground space for children where they would not have to use a parking lot and
_yet _the whole concept would be unified as a community of the church, of the
children and of those closer to retirement age. The concept would still be
intact. It's just a different arrangement and better use of space and perhaps
less costly. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Father Barry: Can't let that go unanswered. We respect Mr. Kupcho's
observations but we must respond that this study has been going on for some 3
years and the plans were presented to the whole community for a period of
beginning 2 years ago with a plat plan which incorporated basically what we have
now. It included surveys of our parishioners. Four in number for the last 2
years. Recently it included a survey after a weekend presentation of the
drawings which you see here where commentary was invited from the entire
community. I find no commentary from Hr. Kupcho and perhaps he was absent for a
period of 2 months from the church meetings on weekends, I'm not sure but that
was presented fully to community. With regard to being a 2 1/2 story
building, I think that's inaccurate. If you ask the architect it does not
measure to 2 1/2 storis. The two buildings that are there now existing, the
two houses are 2 story buildings. The white house and the convent are both 2
stories. As regards to parking, I think you misread it. There are 24 stalls
underneath. Surveyed by me of the first people's intending to live in the
housing development indicate there would be a total of 18 cars. That's where
the number probably came from. No loading dock was ever on any plan as far as
I'm concerned. I would have objected myself to that. The parking lot to the
north, this small parking lot became a reality when we went underground and it
is provided for visitors and if there should be need for other visitors and
children to come to the retirement home, we have that large parking area not too
far away from where the retirement home would be and would be accessible. It'd
be close by parking. Children and so forth would find no problem I think if
there was no parking generally on the street. I mean to indicate to the
Schroeders who are here too that we resisted in expanding parking too close to
their home. They will find on the commission presentation that they were
talking about a barrier and I immediately resisted. I said the Schroeder family
would not want a barrier but that was a concept mistake on my part. I
immediately thought of a barrier vertical. They were talking about lawn barrier
and lawn is no barrier to me as we frequently discussed. So when I objected
saying that the Schroeders would not want a barrier, I did not mean they didn't
want space and I explained that immediately. They would want space and I
constantly have been hassling the architect about making more lawn space there
rather than more parking area. As regards to lighting, I think parking lighting
that would be required there would not be that bright that it would disturb the
Kupcho's who are removed from that parking space. They are not directly across
the street from it. They are down the street. In fact there's another house
across the street before you come to their street. Had I known again that this
objection from some neighbors would have occurred, I would have had other
25 1
' City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
neighbors from directly across the street who welcome this project and find it
no problem. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Jacqueline Schroeder: I am Jacqueline Schroeder. I live at 7720 Frontier
Trail. My house is right across from the retirement complex. In the first
' Planning Commission notes, I read through them, it was assumed that our house
and our property would be acquired. In it there was mentioning of a year. My
family has not agreed to sell our house. We have given the church possible
' first rights. We didn't say they have the absolute right to buy the house and
according to this plan, as far as I understand it, it includes our property as
being coming within the year. That if they pressured 'us, we would move within
' the year. This plan needs this house supposedly for it's parking or extra. If
they cannot have this house, it was never agreed to be given to them. If they
don't get this house, you cannot complete a half plan. In order for you to
accept this plan, they have to have everything together. They can't sell well
' in the future we're going to get this. They don't know what the future is going
to bring. Neither do I but in order to complete or pass a plan, they have to
have all the components ready. If you cannot secure all the components, you are
' falling back on your plan and your idea. This could affect the vote. It could
affect how people view this plan. So unless they have all their items together.
Unless they have everything set up ready to go and can guarantee this for you.
Not just possibilities. You cannot look at possibilities because possibilities
change. I would ask you not to vote for this plan on the fact that they don't
have everything they need. It is not been given full and complete support by
the parish. There's been arguments by several families. They don't have our
' house which is part of their idea. I'd like to talk about the parking issue.
If they're parking on Frontier Trail, eventually they're going to need our land
supposedly. They don't have it. It is not written in stone they're going to
get it . This has not been finalized and if it's not been finalized, they cannot
assume. As soon as you take into assuming, anything can be proposed and
anything can be passed. I cannot drive legally unless I have a license. I've
not completed all the steps. In order for this plan to be legally accepted, all
' the steps must be met. That's all I'm asking. I'd just like to address the
issue of the playground. I was a student of St. Hubert's for 8 years. My 5th
thru 8th grades we played on the parking lot. It was fine for a while. You got
' used to playing on the parking lot. It was okay but the parking lot, there's
not much to do. In the wintertime there's snow and it's hard and you can't play
football for fear of people getting tackled. They do play it. People do get
hurt . Kickball and volleyball get a little boring after 4 years. 4 or 5 years.
We are not allowed to play on the grass. We are told that we couldn't do that
because it would ruin the grounds and I'd just like to say that half of the fun
that we had was when we were allowed to go onto the little kids side and play on
' the swings. Play on the structures. The parking lot is not a place for kids to
play. It is not safe and it is not fun. I'd like to also address the issue of
the building height . In the commission notes, it was never answered in the
first one how tall this building was going to be. The question was asked. 5
feet? 10 feet? It was never directly answered. They never said exactly how
tall this building is going to be. I would like just to know how tall this
building is going to be. It was never answered. I feel this is a question that
needs to be answered and I have a right to have it answered.
1 26
I
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990 11
Mayor Chmiel: Jacqueline, if we could we'll answer that for you right now. I
Paul, could you?
Paul Krauss: 26 feet. I
Mayor Chmiel: 26.
Jacqueline Schroeder: Okay, but how would that be? How much?
Paul Krauss: 26.
Councilman Johnson: To the top of the pyramid or what?
Paul Krauss: The flat roof section is 26. The pyramids are lower. I think
they're on the single story. The architect is here, might be able to expand on
that .
Richard Lundahl: The pyramid is lower. . .and the atrium is lower than that. '
It's about 18. The maximum height of the school and the retirement building is
26 feet . That is not 2 1/2 stories.
Jacqueline Schroeder: Can you give me an estimate of how tall, I mean how many
stories is it? Is a story 10 feet? I don't know.
Richard Lundahl: A story can be 12 feet . 1
Jacqueline Schroeder: Okay, so it 's 2 feet then? Over. It's 2 feet over.
Okay, thank you. I'd like to address about the survey in church. It was given
a 15 minute, maybe 20 minute proposal. It was given during the homely time. No
great depth was directed towards any issue in specific so questions were hard to
generate. Okay? The questions were allowed to be written on a survey that was
answered, how to rate the needs of each one. They listed the school. The
retirement complex. The atrium and so forth. It was not a great enough
presentation to fully understand what was going on. I feel if people would have
known more in depth about what was going on, they might have raised some more
important questions.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor? I think we're getting into internal church
matters that are probably not pertinent to the city.
Mayor Chmiel: I would agree with that particular position. The discussions
within the church, of which I also go to St. Hubert's, is a discussionary thing
there. I don't know if that's necessary for us to have that aspect of it.
Jacqueline Schroeder: Okay. I'd also like to address the issue of the barrier. 1
Father mentioned it. We have been discussing this. We have been having many
talks. I don't recall any talks. I don't recall being involved in this and I
feel that he gets up here and that it has been a we. It was not a we. It was a
him. He assumed. He assumed the land. He assumed what was going to happen and
that is not right. He cannot go through this plan unless it is not assumed. If
it is agreed upon, and everything falls-into place, that is a different story.
But if things are just assumed, it cannot be let getting away with. Thank you.
27 1
I
City' Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Jackie. Is there anyone else?
Father Barry: I'm sorry Kathy, you are right. I did not talk to you. I talked 1
a lot with your parents and when I said we, I was talking about Planning j
Commission, Mr. Krauss, the architect, Facilities Committee of the parish. And
you are correct, we adults do overlook youngsters and that 's a fault. I didn't
think of consulting Kathy but a history is necessary here. Kathy Schroeder,
Mrs. Schroeder knows already 4 years ago when we talked about the dearth of
priests and I presented to the community that one day perhaps there would have
to be an adminstrator and a priest coming in to serve and administrator living
' there. That perhaps if their property became available, I could envision an
adminstrator there. At that time they were sharing with me that they were
looking at properties possibly elsewhere. Am I correct Kathy? Yeah, I know.
So at that time I said if you ever move, can we have first right? And as
recently as 2 years ago when we presented the plan, again Larry asked me when do
we have to move. That 's her husand. I said as long as you are happy here I
will never pressure you to move. I will say that solemnly here before this
group. Mr. Krauss, when we talked about planning and further development down
the line, did you not point out various properties in the back that we ought to
be interested in?
Paul Krauss: Yes.
Father Barry: And my response was I will not pressure any of those people as
long as they are happy in their home. Mr. Klingelhutz and some others here
present may have been on the facilities committee and the finance committee when
the Schlenk property came up and we were urged not to put monies into the
Schlenk property across the street because it did not well serve our purposes
and we didn't need it for cemetary and we didn't want our people to go across
the street . And the facilities committee concluded that it would not be good
even to think of parking across there because people would park on the street
before they'd park that far away for church. At that time they again urged me
that I ought to be getting to approach some of the neighbors for future
expansion about their homes. I resisted. I said I will not pressure our
' neighbors. Anyone can testify to that fact . The one year bit, that came from
somebody from the crew that was saying, even if within the year you need to get
that property and I said if it becomes available, we will. It will demand some
further financing. We went into all of that. So Kathy, did she leave? You
tell Kathy.
Kathy Schroeder: Jackie.
Father Barry: Jackie, I'm sorry. You're Kathy. You can tell her that we
never, never said that, your parcel of land was never included at all in the
plat plan. Never. Everytime it came up they asked about that parcel because it
cuts out the complete square. Never, never was it in the plan. It is not in
the plan now. Never has been conceived to be a part of this plan. Only along
' with future development, further parking lots if we continue to grow. The
Schuptra family only this year. Last year I was urged to look at the Schuptra
property. Blanche is here this evening. It was not more than a month ago when
I first approached you Blanche because I have resisted even talking to Blanche
or Ewald about their home. Resisted. Rebuffed every effort. Mr. Krauss can
tell you that and the architect. I don't want to talk about it . These people
' 28
1
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990 f
are comfortable. We will not push them. When Blanche indicated she would be I
one of the first to move into the retirement complex, then I said when you move
if your property is available, would you give us a first chance to purchase it.
Is that not right? And that's been a month ago. Never before. Never. I
consider myself a better pastor than putting people out their homes and I have
resisted the community that have said to me, if you go to them and say we need
your property. What do you want for it , they may think about selling it . I
said I will not do that until they make an overture. So I'm very sorry Kathy.
You can ask your mother. We didn't consult you and when I was talking about we,
I was talking about Planning Commission, architect , Facilities Committee.
Talking about putting a parking lot, first all external parking. 24 parking
spaces. I resisted that and said I don't care what the cost. Much cheaper the
architect will tell you if you do it outside. I said it will be better for the
seniors to be underground. I don't care how much it costs but we will not go
that close to the Schroeder house. We are space people and I certainly don't
want any hard feelings between any neighbor over this. I would, rather than
have the neighbors of Blanche and the Schroeders. Blanche wants the retirement
home and is ready next year to move in. The Schroeders are living there and
wondering about this building. Rather than have them break feelings, I'd almost
want to give up on it . It's too happy a community. I would assure Jackie who
is been loved by Blanche that you would find other Blanches over there and that
house will not be that ugly next to your home. And Blanche would be living
right on the other side of you in the first lower apartment. Blanche and Ewald
and I never, never, never thought of pressuring your family. The only thing I
ever said. If you ever move, may we have first rights. Some of the Commission
wanted me to get that in writing, it went that far. We think you ought to get
that in writing. I said no. There word and my word is contract enough for me.
I will not do it. That's all I can respond to that. And I'm sorry.
Kathy Schroeder: I'm Kathy Schroeder. I'm Jackie's mother. I live at 7720
Frontier Trail next door. My daughter read the Planning Commission Minutes of
August 1st and where she received the impression that we were being pressued to
move. On the bottom of page 6 and onto page 7 and perhaps Father was misquoted
and that can happen. We'll certainly give everybody the benefit of the doubt .
It says, had we pressured them they would have looked for other housing. One,
we have not been pressured. Two, she read this statement . She took it for what
it was. The way it appears. She drew her conclusions. She's old enough to
draw conclusions and speak for herself and defend what she wants to say. I do
have one question about space barriers, separation and I think we can work it
out with Father. I think there should be some separation between the parking
lot and our house. I don't want a wooded wall, a brick wall but I think
shrubbery, trees, flowers, something like that that everyone can enjoy and yet
does serve as a clean barrier rather than a hard barrier.. Reading in the notes
about the parking on the outside, I understand that has been changed. I do have
some concerns about parking on the street and some parking lot type situations
and I'm sure it can be worked out but if Wednesday's night you cannot get down
Frontier Trail. If a fire truck had to make it through, they never would. I
look at it as a safety issue rather than a people pressure issue. I worry about
the kids coming to CCO classes and a car trying to get through. I've tried it
and it's not safe for the kids. That is my main concern. It isn't an everyday
occurrence and I don't know if we need to change directional flow maybe. Make
it one way at some point for a couple blocks. I don't know if that would solve
the problem but I think it's an issue that needs to be addressed because the
29
11
City' Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
street isn't, the complex is it's not mine. It's the city's street and that's
all.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
Ken Giesen: I'm Ken Giesen. I've been in the parish for 20 years. 8 of my 11
children graduated from St. Hubert's. I don't recall, the last one graduated 9
' years ago so I'm speaking somewhat ancient but my point is that I don't recall
my children ever really complaining a great deal about the playground facilities
as they currently exist . Or as they existed in the past. I'm also the chairman
of the Pastoral Council at St . Hubert 's and I can only speak to one thing. I
apologize to this Council. We've got a procedure, at least the people that were
concerned here could have come to our Council. They're open meetings. There's
never been anybody come to the Pastoral Council with objections to the current
1 building plans. There's been some rumors as of Sunday but no one's ever come to
the Council to my knowledge. No one's brought it up to a council member. There
are 10 of us. As to the situation concerning Jackie, the only thing I can
' attest to there is that when a discussion was held concerning the Schroeder
property at a Pastoral Council meeting, and I'll be darn if I know which one it
was but it probably was some Council meeting since April, one of the Council
' members suggested that if this property was going to be available in a year and
it was first right of refusal, we ought to take some action on it. I can attest
to the fact that Father Barry definitely said he would not do that . He didn't
think it was Christian. That was too businesslike. Thank you.
' Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? If seeing and hearing none, I'll bring it
back to the Council. Jay?
Councilman Johnson: What percent impervious surface do we have here? I didn't
see that anyplace. Maybe I missed it. I don't know. Usually that's one of the
big things we see on PUD's is percent impervious surface. This has got to be
really high.
Councilwoman Dimler: 72% I think it was.
Paul Krauss: Yeah, we did work it out. I think it was I believe 72:.
Councilman Johnson: What 's the normal standard?
Paul Krauss: Well in the PUD district there is no standard.
' Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Standard for an apartment building.
Paul Krauss: So like an R-16 zoning or something like that?
' Councilman Johnson: Yeah.
Paul Krauss: 50%.
Councilman Johnson: Office? Well, what is the school area? School. Church.
I mean we have a school, church and apartment building.
Paul Krauss: Institutional office. It 's 65%.
30
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
Councilman Johnson: Okay, and we're a bit over that. If you believe people are
going to park in the parking lot on the west side and walk around to the
classrooms, go over here to the apartments and look at where they park. They
park on Kerber Blvd. because it's closer to their house and their door on the
other side of their garage. People are going to be parking all over Frontier
Trail. When anybody has to go into the classrooms there, or go to visit , human
nature. I've seen it several places. Human nature says you park the easiest ,
closest spot . You see people driving around the Target parking lot for 15
minutes trying to find the best spot that will save them 50 feet of walking
which would have only taken 30 seconds in the first place. That's human nature.
I almost wish there was some way we could flip flop this and put everything over
where the parking lot is and maybe move some more parking over there or
something. Rearrange it to where they have parking on both sides of the
building or something. '
Richard Lundahl: Excuse me. The school entrance is right on the main parking
lot . There is a school entrance right on a main parking lot. '
Councilman Johnson: Well there's also a big entrance labeled people coming in
off of, that comes right into the classrooms. If I'm going to visit my son's
classroom, I'm not parking 200 yards away when I can park 50 feet away.
Father Barry: Are you talking about that horseshoe driveway?
Councilman Johnson: No. I'm talking about the sidewalk marked people on the
drawings that comes right into the last classroom. A little lobby right next to
the last classroom. '
Father Barry: Okay, that's a double entrance to the school from that side.
That's also the senior citizens but that will not be a general entrance into the
school. The entrance into the schools are the bus drop offs and the other
entrance where the parking lot for after school activities: When they. . .school
building will be closed off for security reasons.
Councilman Johnson: There's nothing drawn on these drawings showing that that 1
lobby has any. There's doors all over the place but there's no walls. No
doors.
Father Barry: That will be restricted area for students that they can't get
into but it also will be an access area and this exit area for students.
Councilman Johnson: Those doors will be unlocked during the school day?
Father Barry: I don't know. Ask the architect.
Councilman Johnson: I don't know. Sometimes during the day it's hard to get in
there. I tried to get in one day to talk to the principal and the entire, every
door was locked. Fortunately people get out but no firemen could possibly get
in there if there was an emergency inside there without breaking down the doors.
Father Barry: That must have been an off day because those doors. . .open all the
time.
31 1
' City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
Councilman Workman: They saw you coming Jay.
Councilman Johnson: They saw me coming.
' Richard Lundahl: Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Dick
Lundahl. I'm the principle of Lundahl Architects and I'd just like to answer
some of those questions. Number one, you've got to have two exits out of a
' building and we've got them. You know. We've got them. What are you talking
about?
' Councilman Johnson: This is an entrance into the building. That's a simple
question. Is that an entrance that's labeled there with an arrow pointed?
Richard Lundahl: Of course it is. That 's also an exit.
Councilman Johnson: Okay. Then people are going to park on Frontier Trail to
go to the school.
' Richard Lundahl: Why would they do that?
Councilman Johnson: Because it's easier. Why do they park on Kerber Blvd.?
Richard Lundahl: People are going to come to the school on the bus. Kids are -
going to come on the bus.
Councilman Johnson: I'm talking the parents.
' Richard Lundahl: Well the parents can park out here. They can also park right
there.
Mayor Chmiel: Jay, the real main entrance going into that school. I drop my
granddaughter off there, is right from that parking lot .
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Right there at the principal's office and
everything. I agree.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't see the use. I think that 's going to be used for the
living community basically.
Councilman Johnson: Well he says where there's door to go through to get to the
living community and there's no doors to go through to go through to get to
classrooms. What I'm trying to emphasize, I think anybody who's saying there
won't be any parking on Frontier Trail, just go look at West Village Heights
Apartments. They've got parking spots. They're empty but to people, it's
' closer to park on the street and walk across the grass to get into your house.
They do it . And they're going to do it here.
Richard Lundahl: Can you not put no parking signs on that street?
Councilman Johnson: Oh yeah.
Richard Lundahl: Couldn't you?
32
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
Councilman Johnson: We sure could.
Mayor Chmiel: We could also make a request to the owners of that property.
Gave those people the opportunity to park on their own properties within rather
than on the street .
Richard Lundahl: , Anyway, I'm available as a resource person to tell you what '
the entrances and exits. Where they are. Just ask me.
Councilman Johnson: I did. '
Richard Lundahl: I told you too didn't I?
Councilman Johnson: Had to drag it out of you. We're going to have to accept '
one thing that this sets a precedence that all religious communities here can
have housing facilities within their property. And that 's an accepted principle
here in the city now that whether you be Lutheran, Catholic, Methodist, Baptist
or Eckankar, that this is an acceptable standard that we bring apartments into
your property. I think it's a great idea. I think the kids, you know everybody
talked about the elderly having some benefits from having the kids around. I
think the kids will have a lot of benefits from having the elderly around. I
see in this world too many kids that are never exposed to the elderly people and
they have no respect for the elderly because they're not exposed to them. I
grew up with my grandmother living with us and that was one of the great
benefits of my childhood. I see too many kids who see their grandparents once
every 5 years and stuff like that . I think for some of these unfortunate kids
that might live and their grandparents are in Florida, or whatever, having some
adoptive grandparents almost here in the apartments would be great for the kids.
I do really like this concept . I do see some minor problems. Parking on
Frontier and a lot of extra traffic on Frontier. If I was building an apartment
building, I'm not sure if I'd want to build it on there. I'd probably rather
have it closer to Great Plains if there was someway to switch it around and use
Great Plains that's already a more heavily traveled and wider street. I don't
see any real practical way of doing that either. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Anything else Jay?
Councilman Johnson: No. I think that 's the main questions. Oh, was that, it
looks like glass pyramids or whatever in the atrium. There's a lot of talk,
will that be lighted at night at all? I would assume that's dimly lit emergency
lighting or whatever.
Richard Lundahl: That's correct. When there's functions on, I'm sure it will
be lit . It probably wouldn't be lit at all.. .but if it were, it'd. . . '
Councilman Johnson: Probably more of a glow than a shine.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Councilman Johnson: Turn it over to one of the catholics now.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
33 '
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
Councilwoman Dimler: I have just a few questions too that have been brought up
tonight. One was that Paul indicated that there were more visitor stalls. This
plan shows 4. Is there an increase to the 4 or are you saying 4 is the
increase?
Paul Krauss: No, there are 4 but they've been reconfigured. We had an issue
with the way they were originally laid out. That there was one parking stall
that was virtually in the Frontier Trail right-of-way. The current plan
remedies some of that. It doesn't provide us any additional visitor parking.
We were hoping to get additional visitor parking with modifications to Frontier
Trail and those have not been illustrated yet .
' Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I have to agree with several of the residents who
have indicated that Frontier Trail sometimes is so parked full on both sides
' that it 's hard for one way traffic to get through, much less two way traffic so
I think that is a concern. Is a safety concern. I'd hate to see that situation
be amplified. I think that maybe we shouldn't count on parking on Frontier
' Trail. That we should come up with on site parking.
Paul Krauss: Clearly Councilwoman Dimler that would be preferable if we had the
options. I guess the way we envisioned though the parking on Frontier is that
' you would have additional paved areas so the cars are now parking in the
right-of-way would actually be pulled out of it freeing up the travel surfaces
of the street.
Councilwoman Dimler: Suppose we implement that, who's going to pay for those
curb cuts and curbing?
' Paul Krauss: The usual procedure for that , and I would defer to the City
Engineer but that's an improvement for a public street but it's benefitting a
private property and I would assume that the cost of it would be defrayed back
to the church.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you have an estimate on it?
Gary Warren: No. There's just a concept presented and I think we've
entertained looking further into that as an alternative. I agree with the
concerns as far as Frontier Trail's limited capacity right now and the impact of
the parking.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. One more question on the lighting. I guess I'm not
11 real familiar with where the lighting is going to be for this parking lot. How
will that affect the Schroeder property?
' Paul Krauss: That clearly is the property with the most potential for being
impacted because of it 's proximity. What we ask, in fact it was because of a
concern I believe you had raised when we adjusted the parking ordinance is we
put in a requirement that parking, lot lighting, contribute no more than half a
foot candle to property line. We only allow shielded fixtures on property so
that nobody's looking at bare bulbs. We would ask the same thing of this
project that we ask or any other developer. That they give us a lighting plan
that shows conformance to City ordinances. Some care needs to be taken in
siting the lights near the Schroeder's home and in landscaping the buffer area
' 34
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1.990
between the home and the church site.
Mayor Chmiel: What you're saying basically is that the light be contained on
the property and that no relective bounce comes back onto the adjacent property.
Paul Krauss: Exactly. I mean we may well have to go with low scale bollard
type lighting or something. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I do have a concern about the amount of impervious
surface. I mentioned that also. I don't know what can be done about that
because we're looking for more parking and the other concern I had too is that
Jay said the precedent that we're setting for other churches. I'm not sure that
we've ever discussed that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is that it?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. '
Mayor Chmiel: Thomas.
Councilman Workman: I think we have a few problems with this but none I don't '
think cannot be worked out. The Frontier Trail, every time I go down Frontier
Trail heading north I think I go through that stop sign there. Behind the big
tree. Yeah, I'm a catholic and I'm a member of this community and I guess I'd
like to get one thing clear that was perhaps implied that because I am a member
of that community, I might have a problem separating my City Council duties with
my church loyalties. I do take exception to that and that's all I'm going to
say about that . I purposedly didn't show up at the Planning Commission meeting
so as to not sway a Planning Commission member. I don't often get to Planning
Commission meetings anyway and as soon as I'd walk in they'd say gee, I wonder
why Tom's here. And so as to not elay that onto the 7 Planning Commission
members, I stay away preferring to read the exciting Minutes. Simply because I
didn't want it to appear as though I was trying to put extra pressure on the
situation here, which is an obviously pressure situation. We do have a concern
about the houses and I don't know if I heard in the audience kind of a
reconciliation taking place or not. I hope we can work something out there
because that is a concern. The proximity of the house. Frontier Trail and the
parking situation I think can be remedied by a curb cut or something therein or
no parking signs. I think those curb cuts get a little expensive. Jay, you
made a suggestion about we are now opening the flood gates for every chuck in
town to build apartment buildings. I think you're wrong somewhat in that this
is a retirement community. I don't know if this center is going to have strict
enforcement of how old you precisely have to be but if any other church in the
community, Protestant, Eckankar or other would promote the taking care of or
housing of elderly, I think I would agree with it no matter who it is. It's a
housing situation that I think St. Hubert's is probably filling a need for. I
am not real clear on the lighting. I know that to be a very serious concern of
some of the neighbors and should be addressed. The parking situation on the
other side Jay, as far as the east side I think is something that can be handled
very easily. I grew up down in Chaska. Have I told you that before?
Councilman Johnson: And you drove up here twice a week to go to. . .
35 '
i
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
I Councilman Workman: That's right . I've lived in this area longer than any of
you.
Councilwoman Dimler: Not me.
Councilman Workman: I grew up down there with Guardian Angels and the
' playground was a parking lot and I don't know if that's a plus or a minus. It's
kind of what you grow up with. I grew up without a community center, sidewalks
and I played on a parking lot for a playground and I'm still A-okay right?
' Councilman Johnson: How many miles did you walk to school through the snow?
Councilman Workman: So I think we, the biggest concern I have is for the
'
neighbors and I trust that the parish and Father Barry are taking care of that
the best that they can humanly possible. I have all sorts of feelings about the
entire renovation here as a parish member which I won't bore everybody with. As
' I mentioned before, I think some of these issues within the church need to be
handled within the church community and not here and that's something completely
separate from my city council duties and I think other church community members
that belong to different churches would take exception to we maybe using this as
an opportunity to promote wrongly this situation. I see it as a good, or a
feasible PUD and the problems that are there, not to belittle the house
obviously and the lighting and everything else. I think we can work with and
' hopefully we can do that so. That's all I have.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. As the elder of the Council, I'm eligible to go into
that house. That's termed as double nickles but as I've looked at the concept,
and no sense in reiterating everything that everyone has said. It 'd be just
another thing to say. The only real concern I have is the accessibility for
that handicap. That it be there. And I see some of the area too as far as the
parking lot and playground. The school I went to which was a grade school,
Catholic grade school. I think we were probably a little more affluent with
dollars because we didn't have tar, we had cement. The white background. But
' that was the place to play and that was the only place to play. I don't see
that as some of the problems. With the barriers going in and out. To eliminate
that access. To eliminate any problems with the children, I think that's
probably a good idea because there's a lot of concerns for the children that go
' there. I don't see it as a problem with the adults who are going to live in
that particular center. I think for that hour and a half, if you had grandkids
like I do, you'd just thoroughly enjoy having them for 3 or 4 hours and 5 and
' spoil them rotten and send them home. I think the same kind of thing would take
place at this particular center. So other than that, I guess I don't see this
as a problem with the PUD concept. There are some things that will have to be
worked out . I guess that will conclude my basic discussion.
1
Councilman Workman: I would move approval of the concept plan.
' Councilman Johnson: I'll second that .
Mayor Chmiel: It 's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion?
Councilman Johnson: The only discussion would be that, or for me, is that of
the process. And to reiterate what we said 40 minutes ago or whatever when we
36
I
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
started this, is that this is the very first step in the city process. Well,
beyond the Planning Commission meeting but all we're doing is looking at the
concept. Because we approve the concept does not mean that they can pull a
building permit tomorrow and start building this. There's a lot more steps and
a lot more work to go through. The lighting issues and all the issues we
brought up tonight and have been brought up by the audience, will have to be
looked at. '
Councilwoman Dimler: With that , could you clarify if there will be any more
public hearings? ,
Paul Krauss: Yes ma'am there will be a public hearing held at the Planning
Commission. I don't have a date for that yet because it's really contingent on
when we get plans submitted but we will re-notify the folks within 500 feet and
if anybody didn't get a notice from us, if they give me their name and address,
I'd be happy to send them one.
Councilwoman Dimler: I think during the summer a lot of people were gone and
couldn't make the first one.
Mayor Chmiel: My other point I'd just like to make is if there are some real '
concerns that you have within the parish and itself, my suggestion is to go to
the Church Pastoral Council and express your views at that particular time.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the concept
plan of a Planned Unit Development for the construction of a Libary/Annex/
Research Center and expansion of the education center and a retirement living
center for St. Hubert's church. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR A GRADING PROJECT TO EXCAVATE 100,000 CUBIC YARDS OF '
MATERIAL. LOCATED AT 1500 PIONEER TRAIL, BRUCE JEURISSEN.
Paul Krauss: First thing is a point of clarification. When this request was
initially presented to the City, we were talking about approximately 100,000
yards of material. During the course of plan development , after the notice was
published, it turned out that the ultimate number of yards proposed to be
removed from this site is 190,000 of clay soil. The Planning Commission may
recall that approximately 20,000 yards of material was removed from this site
last spring. There's a fair bit of history to this and it's explained in detail
in your packet but in summary what had happened was staff and the engineering
department had issued a permit to basically correct the culvert situation that
had been washed out I believe in the super storm in 1987. It was renewed
several times. You know there may have been some error on the part of the staff ,
people who were involved with that who are no longer with the City. That should
have been authorized by the City Council but it wasn't. Staff attempted to honor
that permit and material was removed this spring. Upon our concluding that more
than that had been removed from the site, we asked that the operation be 11
terminated. There was a good bit of wrangling where some of our stop work
orders were run over. Ultimately work did stop on this site. It's left in it's
present state today which is fairly rough and unfinished. The applicants were
also aware that at the same time we were going through this we were in the
process of adopting a new earth work ordinance that grew out of the goon Valley
37
1
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
issue but soon encompassed a lot of other issues. They were given copies of
this new ordinance and were working with it and basically are making their
application under the new ordinance. As such, they're the first major earth
' work permit that you're reviewing under the new Code. The current request is
substantially larger than the original and does trip the new IUP permit . And
I guess to be frank, there's a lot of aspects of this application that gives
staff some serious pause. The number of trucks that would be moving, is huge.
' We're talking about 10,000 truck loads out and 10,000 empty trucks coming back.
There's also the question of purpose. You know the report or the applicant 's
submittal indicates substensively that this is to improve agricultural use of
' the property. The property in question is for the most part under cultivation
right now. The real aspect of it and what it really boils down to is that the
material's being sold to the Flying Cloud landfill. That's not necessarily good
' or bad, it's just different and to be frank about it, that's exactly what the
use is for. There's also some indications that the grading operation would
improve agricultural use of the property. I'm not a farmer. I grew up in
Brooklyn so it's a little hard for me to take a shot at that but as I say, as a
farm, this field is being cultivated now. Also there's a potential for ultimate
development of this property for low .density single family. Presumably
flattening some of the grades on this site could make that more feasible.
' Conceptually we've approved a preliminary plat prior to the 1987 change in the
ordinance for low density, 2 1/2 acre lots and this is one of the properties
that you may recall this spring you granted an extension. They were to come in
' with a firm preliminary and final plat when the TH 212 corridor was officially
mapped. Upon request the City Council gave this owner and two others an
extension until the final EIS is completed for TH 212. This plan does not, or
the grading plan does not necessarily correlate to that concept that the City
•
reviewed 3 years ago. That concept really didn't take into account TH 212 which
does bisect the property.
' Councilman Johnson: Does this plan?
Paul Krauss: This plan is really drawn in a vaccum as far as that goes
Commissioner Johnson. It's not, there's no attempt to correlate it to that '87
plan.
Councilman Johnson: Highway 212. Correlate to Highway 212.
1 Paul Krauss: Highway 212 is sort of a world onto itself. You know taking fill
down isn't going to hurt that plan at all. What TH 212 really really did is
' messed up the ability to subdivide the property. There's a number of other
concerns with this as well. There's the environmental concerns we have.
There's concerns with maintenance and•keeping clean of area roads serving this
thing. There's concerns over noise impacts of trucking. At the same time, we
have to recognize that this request is largely in compliance with the new
grading ordinance. That grading ordinance, as you will recall, was not designed
to halt all excavation, mining activity in the city. When we were working with
' Moon Valley initially at the 'outset, there was a clear purpose that we not stop
these things entirely but rather put the city in a position where you can
exercise a good deal of control over it. Hopefullly minimizing the impacts and
' minimizing the damages from it and of course requiring a solid restoration plan.
This proposal is being brought in compliance with that new ordinance. There is
an extensive erosion control plan. Top soil is being saved on site for
1 38
I
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
respreading out. The planning staff has added a number of conditions that we
hope address all of the issues that we could conceive of. We're asking that
letters of credit be posted. We're working with the County Engineering office
to ensure that Pioneer Trail is maintained in good condition. We will be
working with the County Sheriff's department to make sure that the road is
patrolled. That loads are trapped. That speed limits are adhered to. That
weight limits are not exceeded. We've been working with the Watershed District
and the Soil Conservation Service to minimize erosion. We've had this thing
phased so that individual sites will be completed. In fact the phasing program
is broken out there that each phase will be completed and restored before you go
onto the next . Under the Uniform Building Code we would anticipate monitoring
this site on a daily basis with the cost of that monitoring being charged back
to the developer. To the applicant. With those conditions that are fairly
detailed, we are recommending that this be approved. We took this before the
Planning Commission, I think it was 2 weeks ago. We've accelerated the process
here because of some request by the City Council. The Planning Commission
expressed substantial reservations with the past practices on this property.
However, they also recommended it's approval. They did change a couple of
conditions and one of them is quite important . That is that the grading
ordinance allows you to establish hours of operation with an eye towards
minimizing impact on residential properties. The original proposal conformed
with the guidelines established in the ordinance that grading activities be
allowed Monday thru Saturday I believe 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. . The Planning
Commission recommended that Saturday hauling be eliminated since there are a
number of residences in the area and that is when the residences are occuppied.
The condition's been changed accordingly. The Planning Commission also
requested that the existing problems on the site be put right before grading
activity start. We've added that as a condition as well. With that we hope
we've covered all our bases on this. This is a very complex and comprehensive
proposal. I'd also say that this will set a precedent for how we view these
things in the future. With that we are recommending it 's approval with the list
of conditions outlined in the staff report.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Paul. Does the applicant wish to say something at this '
time?
Loren Habbegger: Members of the Council and staff, my name is Loren Habbegger '
and I'm representing Wanegrin Incorporated and Mr. Jeurissen who currently owns
the property. Looking over what the Planning Commission had approved, I have
several things here to be brought up that I feel may be excessive in what
they're looking for on this particular project. You've got 13 items on the
letter that I received here yesterday that were outlined that the Planning
Commission had approved. I have several of these that I would just like to go
over. As far as bringing this site back to the condition that staff is looking
for here, we feel there'd be no problem with that whatsoever. There are some
things here that were passed forward by the Planning Commission that we do feel
that should be looked at and possibly for future when you people consider these
things again that you can look at it from a perspective that you don't
overburden a person that's trying to do some excavating and bring a site up to a
development situation. Now the site is an agricultural aspect right now. What
we're basically doing is we're improving the agricultural aspect of it with a
future plan for a subdivision of 2 1/2 acres and I guess basically what we feel
here is, it 's an improvement to the property and will generate tax dollars. I
39
1
City. Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
And as the property is a grandfathered situation, it falls within the bounds of
future planning. I would like to just bring up a few points here that were
passed by the Planning Commission that I would like to express opinion here by
Mr. Wanegrin and Mr. Jeurissen. Number one is the letter of credit that they ;t
were looking at. They were looking at a letter of credit of $30,000.00 be
submitted for this situation. Upon discussion here with Mr. Jeurissen and also
with Wanegrin Incorporated which will be assuming all responsibilities on this
' project, we feel that a liability and insurance surety bond would specifically
take care of this situation. The amounts of, now the watershed district I have
met with about 3 times. The watershed district is going to ask for a similar
situation in conjunction with the city so probably this bond can be drafted
' accordingly with the watershed. I met with Mr. Bob Obermeyer last week and
Mr. Obermeyer felt that the situation could be worked out. By the way, they
have a September 5th meeting which all the criteria that will be reviewed, and
it has been reviewed by you, the watershed does have some things to add to it
that we will oblige to.
Mayor Chmiel: Mr. Habbegger, if I could just interject on that particular one.
I think as far as the City's concerned and as the watershed requires that as
another portion and that 's additional bonding that would have to be taken. A
letter of credit as to what I say. I'm not so sure that $30,000.00 is even
' enough. I look at it from another aspect of utilizing the roads within and of
course this is a county road but some of the areas that I have real concern is
within the city too. I don't think $30,000.00 would even touch it . So I'm
' looking, and I just want you to know where I'm coming from right now.
Loren Habbegger: Right but I guess what we're looking at here is the liability
insurance situation and the bond which performs the same situation.
' Mayor Chmiel: It doesn't perform the same thing as a letter of credit to a
bank. It does not.
' Loren Habbegger: Well I guess I'm coming from Wanegrin's standpoint here that
they feel this is excessive.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm coming from the City's standpoint.
Loren Habbegger: Okay. I guess maybe we'll have to try to work that out then
' if at all possible. So what you're basically saying is that you'll need a
letter of credit of $30,000.00?
' Mayor Chmiel: No, I'm thinking possibly more than that but I'll bring it up in
discussion.
Loren Habbegger: Okay, you do realize that this site here does have to be
brought back to an agricultural situation.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes I do. I was there today and I reviewed the entirety of the
' property.
Loren Habbegger: Right . I guess that can be worked out by staff here and with
' your attorney and Wanegrin's attorney which I'll be working with also. The
second part here, preparation of "as-built" grading plans preparing
40
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
demonstrations with compliance with approved plans on a phased basis. I feel I
we've met that specification as far as we're doing it in a segmented plan and
I guess that "as-built". Number one, this site is, we're putting it back to an
agricultural status with a future development situation in mind. The as-built
at that time when we do put it into a development situation, we feel that this
situation can be sufficed. But at this time we feel that we're just doing a
grading situation to improve the site for future development and back to
agricultural. Do you see any problem?
Councilman Johnson: You still have to have a surveyor certify that what you've
got when you're through.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the reason why we went with that is because we want to
know on a phase by phase basis that what the resulting grade after they're
finished with that phase is exactly what we committed to or what they agreed to
on their plan. Short of getting them to have a surveyor going out there to give
us an as-built grading plan, we would have to do it with our staff time and our
expense which we didn't feel the City should be liable for. I'd also note that
when this applicant was pulling material off in the spring, we had a very
fundamental dispute over how much material was taken off the site. We had
concluded that far in excess of what we had permitted had been removed. They
prepared an as built grading plan that indicated that we were right and then
they produced a nother one that said that the first one was wrong and that was
one of the points of contention. We want a formal survey done on each phase. '
Loren Habbegger: I guess as to the amount of material that was taken off this
site, there was an engineering firm involved with BFI who is doing the analysis
on the site and there was a letter that was sent to staff here regarding what
was taken off the site. The projections at first were higher than we had
anticipated as what had been hauled and in final analysis it was depleted as far
as it was a smaller amount. '
Gary Warren: That 's exactly the point Mr. Mayor and the confusion that resulted
in trying to get the site staked for our inspection and the difficulties that
resulted from that have led to this recommendation.
Mayor Chmiel: I noticed all the specific violations that had occurred. The
issuance of the first excavation permit. I guess my understanding of an
excavation permit and a grading permit is one of two different, at least in my
own mind Paul.
Paul Krauss: If I could Mr. Mayor. The new ordinance that was adopted and it
was put under Section 7, Building Regulations, is entitled an ordinance amending
Chapter 7 and Chapter 20 pertaining to excavating, mining, filling and grading.
It 's intended to be an all inclusive ordinance. We at different times refer to
it as an excavation or mining ordinance but it actually refers to any movement
of earth.
Mayor Chmiel: I would like to have us probably look at that and come up with
definitions on what is what.
Paul Krauss: Yes sir. '
41 '
1
11 , City. Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
Councilman Johnson: It 'd be earth work. That 's the definition in the
ordinance. This is earth work.
Paul Krauss: It 's not in the zoning ordinance so it 's rather difficult to
locate. Down at the bottom. !
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, as long as we've got a second here where we're
' talking about this condition of getting the as-builts, I'd like to have a
surveyor's, a signed survey of what 's there today. I mean I took the aerial
photographs today and overlaid it with what they gave us and it didn't exactly
agree. The aerial photographs were shot one year ago May. There's some trees
' missing. The tree line they say is one place, extends right into where they're
excavating according to their drawings so I want, before anything starts, a
condition I was going to talk about later is that we get an actual surveyor to
' sign off on a set of prints showing what the as is conditions are before we
start excavating and then at the end of each phase, resurvey it . I notice the
standard procedure at landfills and the engineering firm I used to work for, one
of our big clients was Anoka County landfill and we went out there and surveyed
for them about monthly. Went out and saw exactly where they were on building
their ski hill, or whatever that landfill is out there. It's going to be the
highest point in Anoka County when they're through. I'll get to that when, but
as long as we were talking about it .
Mayor Chmiel: One of my pet peeves Jay, as I'-m just mentioning to Gary, is that
' there is not a PE signing off on these. And I do want them certified by a PE.
Loren Habbegger: Okay, we'll have to bring that up here at probably another
meeting here but I guess the thing is, I'm bringing out some points here and
' we're just trying to rectify what you people are looking at .
Mayor Chmiel: Sure, go ahead.
' Loren Habbegger: The other aspect of the thing here is you've got a noise
analysis and other testing if required. Number one, when this project started,
we did meet with the Sheriff's department and the Sheriff's department was made
aware of the trucks hauling to and from the landfill, and in the meantime we
were also hauling out of Chaska which we did work with the Sheriff's department
on that. Chaska City Police. The Highway Patrol. Hennepin County and as far
' as meeting all standards of the truck's noise levels, I don't see that there's
any problem here whatsoever because the Sheriff's department would be enforcing
this. As a matter of fact, in the time period hauling out of Chaska, and what
1 we hauled out of here, we were stopped 18 times for weight checks and different
situations and we met all criteria as far as safety features on the trucks and
noise levels so I don't feel that that poses a problem and should be deciphered
by the Sheriff's department which you'll have the Eden Prairie Police Department
also involved. The Highway Patrol and Hennepin County going across from this
point .
' Councilman Johnson: They never issued any citations?
Loren Habbegger: No. There was a speeding ticket I believe that was issued and
I believe that's all that was.
42
•
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
Councilman Johnson: I observed that one. I
Loren Habbegger: And at the point , I don't think, it has gone before. . .
Councilman Johnson: He was also dumping as he went. I wasn't sure whether he '
was pulling you over for the speeding or the dumping of dirt as you went down
the road.
Loren Habbegger: Well that can happen. I was following a truck the other day
with the same situation on Flying Cloud hill.
Councilwoman Dimler: There's a State law against that .
Loren Habbegger: The State has been watching us.
Mayor Chmiel: Mud flaps covering the tops if they're too excessively filled.
Loren Habbegger: Right. What we're trying to do is number one, BFI business '
does not want the trucks to be overloaded. The other aspect is, I'm meeting
with the Sheriff's department, Eden Prairie and also Hennepin County Sheriff's
department and Highway Patrol. We offer for them to use the BFI scale which is
a certified scale to weigh any trucks that come in so I feel we can resolve any
problem that overload or any road restrictions as far as overloaded on the
county roads are damaged.
Mayor Chmiel: Hopefully full stops at stop signs and not rolling stops as
they've been doing and I've observed that several times.
Loren Habbegger: We'll make a notation to the drivers. And also I did talk to
the Sheriff's department, the Chief in operations regarding this that they
enforce and watch and they did keep tabs on these drivers. So I guess the thing
is, what I'm saying here is, the Sheriff's department I feel can handle this
situation in conjunction with Eden Prairie and I don't feel you have to have a
special police added for this particular situation. It was handled quite well
for the amount of yardage that we did move through Carver County from Chaska, as
I told you the last time at the last Planning Commission meeting. That we moved
in excess of 120,000 yards in 45 days.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess you're probably right in that particular aspect but the
concerns I have, the amount of violations that they did to the City. Moving
just the amount of yards that they're moving out of the City of Chanhassen and
more so than what they've indicated, I think sometimes warrants to have some of
these additional things contained within.
Loren Habbegger: I can see your concern Mr. Mayor but I guess what I'm trying ,
to work this thing out here in an orderly fashion and that's what I'm here for
tonight.
Councilman Johnson: So you're looking at item number 3 there. Noise levels '
stemming from the operations are not to exceed Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency and EPA regulations?
Loren Habbegger: Right . I feel they can meet all specifications because your.
43
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
Councilman Johnson: You don't have any problem with that condition? You meet
it?
Loren Habbegger: We meet it , right .
Councilman Johnson: So we're just going to leave the condition in there.
Loren Habbegger: I guess, not that you call somebody in, a testing company and
start testing on these things when you've already.
Mayor Chmiel: We have a budget to live with too.
Loren Habbegger: I understand that . The other aspect here, I'm just moving
here fairly abruptly, is the trucks do meet all the standards here. The other
situation is, as far as your inspections on site, if we can control the
situation I feel that we don't have to have a thorough inspection situation with
a man from your department on the site at all times. We did move through the
first part of it with success until we got to the point where the permit was a
problem. What do you feel on that Gary? Do you feel you're going to need .a
man? I just guess if you could take spot checks situations, there will be a
foreman on site there. Not that we accumulate a lot of costs in inspection fees
which we're not trying to. We're trying to make this a budget situation and
move it forward.
' Councilman Workman: Are we keeping a man on site full time?
Gary Warren: We have a condition that any staff would be compensated for their
efforts in keeping a handle on this. I guess to address it specifically, we do
' this similar to any contractor. When it comes down to the level of credibility
and degree of comfort that we have and to be honest, we're starting out with
this process in a little bit more conservative mode because of the previous .
' start on this project so I would say that we're going to have people out there
initially probably on a daily basis until we hit a comfort level that what 's
happening and going on is satisfactory and that we feel good about it and if
things go along well, we get cooperation and things make sense to us then, our
people have plenty of other things to do.
Loren Habbegger: I guess this is what I'm looking at .
Gary Warren: We're not going to just plug somebody in there just to run up the
tab, no.
' Loren Habbegger: We did start out on a successful basis until this permit
situation got in the entanglement here but I guess what I'm saying is if we can
avoid excess inspection, we'll try to remain within your guidelines like we did.
' Gary Warren: We always avoid excesses in city government. We will respond
directly to the quality and cooperation that we get from your contractor.
Loren Habbegger: The other aspect here is on the elevations here.
Mr. Obermeyer, we're working with him on the floodplain situation with the creek
' and everything and you will be getting a letter from him regarding that
September 5th meeting which all issues will be addressed here. I guess the
' 44
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
other thing is number 9, the hauling out on the agricultural road here. What we
basically did on the agricultural road is we set up a sanded driveway. We feel
that that will control the dust going out onto Pioneer Trail and I don't feel
that from our standpoint that we had much of a problem dragging too much mud out
onto the road. We did cover that in a fairly clean manner.
Gary Warren: I guess I would tend to disagree. We did have carry over onto
Pioneer Trail with the inclemant weather and that's, the sand serves a purpose
to a certain extent but the rock road construction access, the large rock, clear
rock is really what does the job.
Loren Habbegger: I feel we can work that out as far as with your staff as far
as in the engineering department on keeping the road clean.
Gary Warren: If you agree with us, then there's no problem.
Loren Habbegger: Okay. Just coming here tonight , I was coming from Chaska, I
just ran across the same situation where they're coming out of a wet area. It's
hard to keep mud off the road. As far as, okay the other point here I guess
that I want to bring out is, as far as complying with you people on this permit,
we will give us our fullest cooperation here to get the thing rolling again here
and how long a period do you think that it 's going to take you here to, we want
to try and get this permit moved along if we can. Hopefully by that September
5th meeting with the Watershed.
Paul Krauss: Well Mr. Mayor, there's some things that the developer or the
applicant would be obligated to do. If Councilman Johnson's request for an as
is plan is put into a condition, that would have to be prepared. We would need
to contact the County Engineer and patrol the road and as you suggested this
morning, possibly videotape the road to make sure we document what 's out there
now. We could probably do our part of it by the time the watershed district
meets. As long as they fulfill their obligations, that's probably a reasonable
deadline.
Loren Habbegger: Upon meeting with Mr. Obermeyer here he felt that the
specifications we'd have to him here this week, that the watershed would have no
problem with this particular project so basically he has assured me that the
permit will be moved forward and I guess I did go to the Watershed several times
here regarding this matter to move it along.
Mayor Chmiel: How much clay are you going to take out of Phase 3 and Phase 4 '
and Phase 5?
Loren Habbegger: I'll tell you. I don't have that spec sheet here with me at
this time. The packet as you know is quite extensive. I'm sure that I can get
that to engineering as far as what.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like that. I'd like to know that.
Loren Habbegger: Dave Sime can get you that with no problem as far as what we'd
be taking out . Oh, the other situation here I guess I forgot to bring up here
is we feel that we would want to work on Saturdays. We did work in Chaska on
Saturdays and you can accomplish quite a bit of work with less traffic and I
45 '
1
• City •Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
don't feel like we'd present a problem.
Mayor Chmiel: Well it presents us with a problem basically I guess with
Saturdays is that we have all our residents within the community. Secondly, we
' don't have staff available on Saturdays to do any checking so I would much
prefer that we keep it to a 5 day work week.
Loren Habbegger: Could you consider a Saturday situation? What we're trying to
do here is move this project along in a 75 day working period if we can do it .
If not sooner and it depends upon inclement weather what we might run into but I
' guess what we're looking at here if we can, maybe you can have a staff person on
a Saturday observe the situation on Saturdays and give us a chance here to work
on Saturdays if we can. It would greatly help the project.
' Councilman Johnson: You're going to complete all 5 phases in 75 days?
Loren Habbegger: That's what we're planning on doing.
' Councilman Johnson: You have to restore each phase before you go to the next?
Loren Habbegger: It will be all done. As a matter of fact, we're in
' application right now with Carver County for a permit, actually west of Chaska
which we feel we'll have in hand here in conjunction with this, completion of
this work here. I guess what I'm saying is, can you give us the Saturdays.
What we need.
Mayor Chmiel: It's up to the rest of the Council. I'm sort of sticking to the
5 day work week only because of the fact that even if we did put someone on and
pick up that tab, it's rather expensive as well. But I'll throw it open to the
rest of the Council. Tom?
' Councilman Workman: Do you want me to give my general comments?
Councilman Johnson: Saturday work week.
Councilman Workman: Well I think it 's pro and con. If they have Saturdays,
they get done earlier and we did a little bit of manipulating for Rosemount's
extended or quicken schedule so they could get some things done. I'd prefer
they didn't work on Saturday. I'd prefer they weren't there Monday thru Friday.
I don't know. It 's a horse apiece. If they can get it done quicker by working
some Saturdays, then they won't be there.
Loren Habbegger: I guess what, I'm going to just bring a point up here right
now. I feel that if we could have moved forward here, we'd be out of your hair
already and you wouldn't even have us around. We'd have been gone. Now take
for example in Chaska, which I brought up at the Planning Commission meeting,
they've already got the building up that we excavated for. It will be occupied
in a short period of time so I guess time is of the essence here. We're not
' here to drag this thing out. We want to get it done and hopefully we'll back in
the area again next time we do apply that we won't have any problems with you
people.
1 46
r
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990 1
Councilwoman Dimler: As far as working on Saturday, are there any neighbors I
here that would like to address that? No? Okay. I think that hiring somebody
for Saturday, would we be saying that a City Council or say staff person has to
be there on Saturday?
Loren Habbegger: I guess we don't feel that we need somebody '
� omebody there but you
know, if it would make
you comfortable, let's review the thing and you've got
the right to shut the thing down at any time.
Councilwoman Dimler: Are we talking about an increased rate per hour on a
Saturday?
Mayor Chmiel: How about if we conditioned it and said that if we receive
complaints from neighbors or residents within the community, that we would cut
out Saturdays?
Councilwoman Dimler: We would still have to have somebody that's willing to
work on Saturday.
Mayor Chmiel: That would be at their cost , not ours.
Loren Habbegger: Gary, how much review time do you think you'll need on a
Saturday? For everything to be the way it should be. Do you feel you'd need an
extensive amount of time?
Gary Warren: The problem is, if you're going to bring a person in on a
Saturday, you're not
going to just bring him in for a half hour. A guy comes in
for a half day.
Loren Habbegger: Let me feel out this. Do you feel it's that important on a
Saturday that you have somebody there if you can review it on a Monday from
Friday?
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, this is not meant to influence your decision on whether
or not there's Saturday hours at all but one of the problems you have with an
operation such as this in an area such as this is we notify within 500 feet of
the site and we don't have the signs that you authorized yet in place so the
only notice that went out is within 500 feet and when you're talking about farm
country, you're not talking about a lot of people. We did give some thought to
trying to notify people up and down Pioneer. We did not do that but we were
aware that there were a series of complaints about noise and traffic safety and
other things that we experienced last spring from this and related operations.
I did ask Scott Harr to do some background check on that and he did indicate
that there were a number of complaints raised and there's a short memo in the
packet to that regard. There may be nobody here tonight representing the
neighborhood but we know they're out there because we've gotten their complaints
and I've received the calls. Gary's received the calls and Scott has as well.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess thinking too, if you're going to use Bluff Creek
Drive, is that the one you're proposing to use?
Loren Habbegger: Pioneer Trail. t
47 1
r
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
Mayor Chmiel: Straight across into Eden Prairie. To Eden Prairie landfill.
Councilwoman Dimler: But you've got 125 truckloads per day.
' Loren Habbegger: There are 15 trucks that would be hauling on this job. I
guess what I'm saying here, if you take that route, which I do regularly because
I run it across going to TH 169, you've got trucks. That's a lateral situation
' as far as trucks hauling on Saturdays. I follow them all the time. You've got
industry along there that has trucks that use that route. I feel that this is
not that great of a problem. You're going to have calls no matter what. I can
imagine that Eden Prairie gets calls on trucks going through that area. Chaska
may get calls. No matter what you do you're.
Councilwoman Dimler: My other question is, can you work once the weather gets,
you're proposing to work through December anyway aren't you?
Loren Habbegger: What we're trying to do is if we can get into the site and go
ahead with the landfill and they'll let us move the project along, we will be
probably done before December if we can move aggressively.
Councilwoman Dimler: But you're getting into the possibility of bad weather.
Loren Habbegger: Well, the problem you do have some fall rains which occur in
September and October.
Councilwoman Dimler: And that restricts you from working?
Loren Habbegger: Well sometimes on a site like that, which is clay, it 's hard
to get in and out of so you can't do it . Let 's put it that way.
Mayor Chmiel: I'll agree. With 4 wheel drive had a little problem today.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess if we've got a staff member that's willing and
they're willing to pay, I guess I wouldn't oppose Saturday.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to have a stipulation though. In the event there are
complaints by the residents, that it stop. It ceases at that time.
Councilman Johnson: What about reduced trucks? They're doing 15 trucks hauling
on weekdays.
Loren Habbegger: I guess that's the purpose of this project is to move it on
Saturdays and get as much work done as we can possibly do. That's it.
Councilman Johnson: I know I got in the middle of your trucks when you were
hauling in Chaska on Saturday because I had to go to visit somebody in Eden
Prairie and you were the only trucks out there and you were just boom, boom,
boom.
Loren Habbegger: Well Saturdays, there was a matter of fact there was a number
of other trucks that were hauling in that area too. There's 3 projects that
were going in that area.
48
I
City Council Meeting - August 27", 1990 II
Councilman Johnson: The Saturday I was there every truck went to where you went
and it was your trucks. I mean they all had your name on the side.
Loren Habbegger: Well I guess I'm not arguing who's trucks they were.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilwoman Dimler: Are you going to start at 7:00 on Saturday like every
other day?
Loren Habbegger: That's what we would do, yes. I
Mayor Chmiel: 7:00 to 6:00?
Loren Habbegger: 7:00 to 6:00 and possibly shorter hours.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'd like to sleep in on Saturday.
Mayor Chmiel: In short order. Any other discussions?
Councilman Johnson: Did you have any other? 1
Loren Habbegger: I guess I've tried to cover here what I can cover here. If we
can move this thing along.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anybody wanting to address this? It's your opportunity.
Councilman Johnson: I wish we had gone further out on the notices on this. A
few years back, 3-4 years back we had made kind of the general policy under 2
city planners ago I guess. Back under Barb that down in the south area we
wouldn't use the 500 feet. We'd use something larger than 500 feet because it's
only reasonable. 500 feet, you may not get off the property.
Loren Habbegger: Can I just bring up one point? What stops any hauler from
coming down Pioneer Trail to Chaska and going through your area? It's just that
simple.
Councilman Johnson: Well we have no control over any of the haulers.
Mayor Chmiel: We can't control Chaska or anyone else but we can control what
happens within the city of Chanhassen.
Loren Habbegger: I understand that but I guess what I'm saying is the 500 feet
level, I don't feel that we're going to have any problems with anybody in that
immediate area because it's such a distance and then once you're out on the
road, I don't feel there's that big of a problem. We're not going to be
disturbing a neighborhood or anything like that. It 's all agricultural.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. The one intersection of TH 101 is one of my real concerns. ,
Loren Habbegger: It's a rough situation and.
Mayor Chmiel: It 's a bad intersection.
49
I
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
Loren Habbegger: I was down at the State the other day and I was trying to get
somebody to give me some answers on when they're going to improve that. I go
there every morning. . .car running into the side of you but that 's the only way
we have to go and they just have to play in an orderly fashion here. We did
pull signs on that TH 101 situation at . . .so that when people came over that
hill, Gary had requested that and I think our signage can help alleviate some of
the dangers.
Councilman Johnson: Your grandchildren will be asking the same question.
Loren Habbegger: Hopefully it will be corrected by then.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Tom. Any questions?
Councilman Workman: No. I wanted to know, we do have signs going for the north
and south on TH 101 then? Either side?
Gary Warren: That's what we would intend to have.
' Councilman Workman: Okay, are we going to have those coming out of the site
also?
' Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Workman: Because I don't know, if there's a loaded semi-trailer
full of clay shifting gears going across TH 101 there, it is going to,
somebody's going to die. Jay, I like your engineer survey idea. That 's
potentially something that could hold this thing up as something that we're
going to approve this thing and require of them so it's an outside survey. I
' know Wanegrin did their own basically and we're looking for an outside?
Councilman Johnson: You guys had your own surveyor do this?
Loren Habbegger: The engineering was done internally. ' Wanegrin does a lot of
engineering internally. This is just a prep situation.
' Gary Warren: There are discrepancies between the as built information and
that 's got to be resolved.
Councilman Workman: I guess I'd like to see that. The only other thing. I
guess I've heard the word, this is going to set a precedence. I get the
sneaking suspicion that while the Council and Planning Commission and everybody
involved including staff, if they had their druthers, this thing wouldn't go
because it would appear as though, Loren that we're not gaining a whole lot here
and I don't know what you're getting per load on the per clay out there at 8FI
but I'm sure it 's worth your while to do it .
Loren Habbegger: I think what we're basically looking at here, number one.
What you people should look at , there's going to be excavating done throughout
Chanhassen no matter what happens. The other part is, we're looking at a
development plan for this property. Not agricultural, it will be residential
and I think with the taxes that this will generate, it far exceeds, the benefits
•
50
1
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
far exceed what you're looking at . I
Councilman Johnson: Many years away. I mean we're talking a long time before
we have sewer and water down here. '
Loren Habbegger: We won't have sewer and water. This is defined for 2 1/2 acre
tracts. ,
Councilman Workman: Well the cost for city plows to get out there and plow that
will shoot any recognizable gain. Homes aren't necessarily a profit to the city
as industrial is and improving it for agricultural, you know that's not
necessarily a gain to the city. But anyway, if this in fact is a precedence and
maybe this has been a good test for us in the city and we need to maybe further
look at our ordinance to see what we can do. What if this mound was a mound of
earth that we all held in high esteem? What if this was Near Mountain. The
mountain out on Near Mountain and they wanted to take this down. Would they
have the right to do that? It sounds like they might . So somewhere we're
missing, and I think all the comissioners and the Council, we're all concerned
that number one, we're not getting anything but the aesthetics is what we're
going to get and we're going to be left without them. And so maybe we need to
further refine what we think, because Loren's right . There's going to be ,
pillaging going on much like Edina and I know they prepped that property and it
didn't matter to me that they did that around Southdale but maybe to somebody
sometime it did and maybe we need to look at this very quickly because if it
starts to happen, who knows where the next landfill's going to pop up and
they're going to need a whole bunch of clay and we're going to be convenient
also. And so we should learn from this and say what are we going to do or how
are we going to be able to get by with restricting things in the future that
might be to our advantage but we're not going to have any control over being
able to do it . That's what I've learned from this. One, I've learned that we
can't really stop them. We should put the appropriate constraints to protect
the environment and safety and everything else like that but if this were an
important 200,000 here, we maybe couldn't stop it.
Paul Krauss: I think that point's real well taken. You know again, the '
ordinance wasn't designed to stop this stuff. It was designed to get a handle
on it. While it is precedence setting though, one of the things that's
different out here than would be different at Near Mountain is the ordinance
devotes a lot of attention to protecting wetlands and established tree cover and
natural vistas and on and on and on. None of those things really applied here.
We just had some hilly cornfields so there was nothing intrinsicly worth while
saving on it. If there had been, we probably would have taken a different tact
with it. I guess the real test of this is if somebody tries to do a Near
Mountain, whether or not this ordinance would stand up and I think we should
look at it in that light. When we have a lot of excavating, for example on Lake
Susan Hills 4th Addition, they're pulling 80,000 yards of material off of that
but they're pulling the material off in conjunction with an approved subdivision
plan. They are building what they approved. Hauling off the site is incidental
in that case to building homes. In this case, the cart's in front of the horse.
Councilman Workman: But then on the other hand I don't blame Wanegrin or Loren.
They're being market driven here and there's money in them thar hills you know
and so as long as that 's true, they're going to be doing that to make a living
51 1
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
and a wage and everything else. But that 's not ours to worry about so much as
what is the overall impact going to be in various spots as they pop up around
the city and that's all I had to say. Thanks.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I wanted to ask, I'm concerned about the
restoration of the site and I'm not real sure that I understand exactly what can
controls we have in place except that you're requiring restoration of one phase
' to be completed before the next phase begins. Am I to assume from that that
after each phase there has to be a new permit?
Paul Krauss: No ma'am but there would have to be approval by the City Engineer
that they've completed the restoration of a phase which means they have to pull
the black dirt back out . Spread it. They have to plant ground cover. They
have to maintain erosion control until that ground cover takes.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, but the permit is a blanket permit . They could
feasibly go on. I mean we don't have any control over that.
Paul Krauss: The control is placed in the hands of the City Engineer. He is in
a position to say you've completed or you haven't completed the first phase or
whatever. What we're also saying is that staff is going to be in a position to
say you've violated the permit. We're going to stop work and we're going to put
you in front of the Council.
' Councilwoman Dimler: But we've done that before.
Paul Krauss: Yeah. Well that 's true but we were successful ultimately. It
' took a while.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm just thinking with the background and the history that
what other control do we have if they decide not to be in compliance with what
the City Engineer says?
Paul Krauss: That's when we shut them down. I mean there was a lot of
discussion and disagreement as to what they were or were not authorized to do
under the original permit . We felt very sure about it and our City Attorney
felt very sure about it but they apparently disagreed. There can be no question
here what the conditions are. What they're entering ,into and what they're
' giving us a letter of credit for. It's fully been laid out for everybody and we
intend to watch it like a hawk.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, that brings to the question, do you feel the
$30,000.00 is adequate?
' Paul Krauss: We discussed this, the City Engineer and I discussed this after
the Planning Commission suggested a higher dollar figure. I guess frankly I
wouldn't object if more money were placed. aside. Gary and I felt that given the
phased basis of this thing, that the $30,000.00 should be enough to cover it .
' Since we can shut it down at any given time but if we had a little more comfort
in the thing, I wouldn't have a problem with that.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, thank you. That's all the questions I had.
52
•
•
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990 1
Gary Warren: If I could just pick up on one of Ursula's comments. I think it I
is important that , from my perspective, since I'm supposed to be the gentleman
authorizing the next phase, there definitely will be a letter issued from my
office before any subsequent phases start so that there's no question that we're
satisfied that one phase is done and you're authorized to go the next step
because I can envision a Saturday if you will, if you're working a Saturday, you
finish up the yardage on Phase 1. You've got the trucks rolling. You want to
go to the next phase. That 's not going to happen. You're going to have to pull
up.
Councilwoman Dimler: That was my question. What kind of control do we have?
Mayor Chmiel: I guess the thing that I want to make sure you understand that if
any of these conditions are violated, the City will shut you down. Period.
There's no questions. I don't want to play anymore games because of what I've
read through here and I just want you to convey that back to the people who are
going to be doing this.
Loren Habbeger: I think Mr. Mayor, if you look at Mr. Wanegrin's track record,
Mr. Wanegrin has done an extensive amount of work in the metropolitan area. He's
did an extensive amount for Naegele on 494. A lot of work in Bloomington,
Minneapolis. If you check his reputation as far as doing what he says going to
do, he does the job and I mean you can check it out . I think the thing is, we
got off to a bad foot on the permit here that was misconstrued and it should not
have ever have happened because we didn't intend it that way.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I go through all the violations starting August of 1988.
Spring of 1989. January of 1990. February of '90. February 14, 1990. May of
'90 and a lot of these things are things that had been 'discussed and not really
adhered to and I think that I just want you to understand where we're coming
from. I don't want this to be a consistent happening within the City. ,
Loren Habbeger: I think of the specifics of the original permit that was issued
would have been there, we wouldn't even be talking about this right now.
Mayor Chmiel: That might very well be true. Might very well be true.
Loren Habbeger: And there was a misunderstanding but I'm trying to rectify it
here now and getting the job done.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Jay? '
Councilman Johnson: I just basically went upstairs this evening and after
going out to the site and looking around and it didn't look like what the
existing conditions drawing is and it didn't look to me to be what the site was,
I went and pulled the 1989 aerial photographs of the area. It is a little
different. That's why I'm saying I think we need a registered survey of the
area before we start to know what our existing conditions are. There's no way
this drawing called Attachment #3, Sheet 5 of 6 is existing conditions. These
conditions may be 4 or 5 years old conditions. May be from the 1970 maps of the
area. I don't know where it's from but definitely in July 2nd of 1990, Phase 1
had been completed and it's not shown on here. What appears to be the black
dirt stockpile from Phase 1 was put almost on the edge of the creek. We have
53
I
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
almost a sheer bluff up there eroding away into the creek. There's no way
you're going to get erosion control across in there. There's a group of trees
here they seem to be circling that don't exist . I'm not sure why they're
leaving this little hill there and seem to be working too close to that creek.
I've got some real concerns as to when we're through why we have this steep
embankment here next to what are shown as 4 trees. Those 4 trees are not there.
Loren Habbeger: Can I just bring up a point 'here?
Councilman Johnson: Yeah.
' Loren Habbeger: Okay. Number one, the black dirt that was stockpiled there was
requested by the Watershed. As a matter of fact it's what is being requested
again. That we put a berm along there to keep erosion from going into the creek
and divert it into a slit area.
Councilman Johnson: Well that's not a berm. I mean I'm talking a pyramid
shaped, 20 foot tall pile of black dirt that you can't even walk up the side of.
That 's not a berm.
Loren Habbeger: That 's part of the excavating but as far as along the creek
' there, it was requested by the Watershed to build a berm along the creek area.
Councilman Johnson: Are you talking about this berm here?
' Loren Habbeger: Right. Now you do have some excavating there.
Mayor Chmiel: Phase 2 that they hauled off.
' Loren Habbeger: That 's not done. Granted what you're looking at but I guess.
' Councilman Johnson: Well one thing, in this area where there's an extremely
steep slope, this sounds like a good time to put some control on that slope.
We're going to have some heavy equipment out there. That seems to be a slope
that we ought to eliminate and make more gradual and this is a watershed person
' or somebody should look at that. It's where it shows there's 4 trees. There's
actually 4 dead stumps in that area. There's no leaves on those trees and
haven't been for years. Yeah, right there. Whether that should be taken and
' made a more gradual slope that won't be eroding into Bluff Creek over the years.
Loren Habbeger: I think if you look at your plan there, and Gary can probably
' talk to Dave on that, the plan there is to, the elevation there will be smoothed
out . I mean it's not going to stay.
Councilman Johnson: Not on your final grading.
Loren Habbeger: Well I'm saying the trees that were cut down there. There were
trees that were cut down that were dead. The Watershed and the ONR gave
permission to cut down.
Councilman Johnson: That's fine. I've got no problem but it shows you as having
trees here for some, they're not there. If we're worried about those trees, I
was just out there. There's no trees in there worth saving. There's some
54
1
•
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990 1
stumps and stuff. It would help the creek out at that location. At this I
location where it shows the trees in the southwest corner, they extend further
than that according to the aerial photographs into the area to be inside of the
erosion control fence so we have to relook, that's why I want the surveyors.
Make sure we're not taking out any trees. Also, the erosion control along Bluff
Creek and along that access road. We need an erosion control all along that
access road. We're already filling in that wetland with erosion as you drive in
there. There's several tons of silt already into that wetland from Phase 1.
That probably should be hauled out of the wetland. The wetland restored that 's
already been damaged and new erosion control put into that area along the road
accessing this. I mean that's already damage already done by Phase 1. '
Loren Habbeger: I think that this can be resolved by your engineering
department just telling. . .
Councilman Johnson: Put conditions in here.
Loren Habbeger: That's fine. I guess that should be resolved engineering wise.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe Gary can address that.
Gary Warren: Well I'm as concerned as Jay is that we have an accurate base that
we're starting from here. This drawing doesn't even document what the basis is
for the information so I guess I would say that we want to have these concerns
addressed that Jay has brought up here so we're starting from the proper ground
zero.
Loren Habbeger: Gary, I think if we can just meet, I think all these things can
be resolved from an engineering standpoint and just put specifics on it and
we'll get it done.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? If hearing none: Oh yeah, that
letter of credit issue. I'd like to see that doubled. I really would. From
$30,000.00 to $60,000.00.
Councilman Johnson: Do we have any kind of cost estimate to base that on? Did
we ever put together a cost estimate to base the $30,000.00 on? If the
$30,000.00 is swagged, than $60,000.00 is a good of a swag. But usually we have
so many feet of pipe and so much of this and so much of this and here's your
letter of credit .
Councilman Workman: Well staff estimated what it would take to replace if
you're restoring one phase right?
Gary Warren: We basically estimated what it would cost to maintain the erosion '
control fencing and to restore the largest phase if we were left with that
exposed. What could be done perhaps is if give me some comments about what do
you want to protect against aside from that, we can modify that number
accordingly but that was our approach is to say if we had to restore the site
and stabilize it, what did we need. Plus also if we were left holding the bag
for inspection costs that were invoiced.
55
11 City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
Councilman Johnson: You took all these items here and came up with an estimate
11 of what you thought it would cost right?
Gary Warren: Right .
Mayor Chmiel: $30,000.00 for each of those specific phases is what you're
saying?
Gary Warren: $30,000.00 that needs to be kept in force for the duration of the
work that's out there and as is typical with any of our developments and the
City Attorney's office has often advised a bond is not acceptable to us because
in order to get the bond to pay off it takes a lot of time and effort and money.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. A letter of credit is the way to go.
II . Councilman Workman: I guess if the $30,000.00 is based on something I would.
Mayor Chmiel: I still sort of feel a little uncomfortable with that on each of
those phases. If one phase goes by the wayside, I don't think $30,000.00 and
I'm not questioning your judgment but I still feel $30,000.00 is not going to.
Gary Warren: Why don't we, at your discretion, we'll take another look at our
numbers and see if it needs to be adjusted. If you want to give me that
discretion. It won't go any lower than $30,000.00.
Mayor Chmiel: Right .
Councilman Johnson: The thing about this site over a Moon Valley or something
site is if they abandon the site, basically we take the black dirt there and
spread it back out and seed it . It's not real expensive.
' Gary Warren: There is a vegetative issue here and I would expect the Watershed
District is addressing it as well but we're getting out of a planting season if
we're going to have the last phases exposed in December, you aren't going to get
any grass to grow so you're talking about using erosion control blanket or some.
Loren Habbeger: Right and that's all being reviewed.
Gary Warren: So that's a little extra money obviously that we'll address in our
revised estimated.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, so modify condition 1.
Mayor Chmiel: Are you making all of those modifications to what we had
suggested?
Councilman Johnson: I'm trying.
Councilwoman Dimler: It will be in the Minutes right?
Mayor Chmiel: It should be.
Gary Warren: Between Paul and I we'll.
56
1
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
Councilman Johnson: Submit a letter of credit , a minimum of $30,000.00. An
exact amount to be determined by the City Engineer's revised cost estimate.
Something of that nature.
Mayor Chmiel: Saturdays we indicated. We'd have someone on site. In the event
there are complaints.
Councilman Workman: We would potentially not have somebody on site on
Saturdays. What happens Monday thru Friday could direct whether or not somebody
would be there Saturday.
Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor if I could. I guess concerning Saturdays, I would just
qualify it that providing city can provide inspection. If we have a problem
staffwise getting somebody out there, I guess it 's going to be difficult. Also,
if we have to pay overtime for that person to be out there, that those costs are
going to be covered. If we're comfortable that things are going fine, I mean
we're not looking to have somebody out there Saturday if everything is working
fine. I think we're all agreeable to that but we're going to be conservative as
we start out .
Councilman Workman: It could also be triggered by neighborhood complaints? ,
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. For that Saturday.
Councilman Johnson: I tell you, once you get comfortable and you start a
routine of not going out on Saturday, that's when you better go out on Saturday.
I used to go out to plants on second shift when they're not used to seeing
people in an inspector mode on second shift and people acted a lot different
when they're not used to seeing people. This one place they had the visitors
where a supervisor's uniform when they went into the plant.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We won't go back to the CIA.
Councilwoman Oimler: Okay. Jay, did you want to put something in there about
the wetlands or. . .a condition about your concern about what's already been done
to the wetland?
Councilman Johnson: Ah yes. A couple conditions actually. We've got '
something on number 4 about Saturdays. We've got that figured out. Under
number 7, I think we need to add in number 7 that an existing condition survey
be made prior to starting signed by a registered surveyor and maybe here the as
builts can either be by a professional engineer or surveyor. Usually it's a
surveyor that does that type of work.
Councilman Workman: Does Wanegrin have. ,
Loren Habbeger: I guess what we were trying to do in this thing, we don't feel
it's that complicated of a situation here. Your staff can review the thing and
look at it . I mean you're making a large project out of this thing which like I
said here before, we'd have been done by now and thing would have been over with
if we had. '
Mayor Chmiel: That's just the discussion this evening right?
57 '
•City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
Councilman Johnson: All we're saying is we don't believe the drawings and
please give us another one
Loren Habbeger: What I'm suggesting here and if you people will go along with
' it is if the engineer that's currently working on it meet with Gary and meet
Gary's expectations as to what he wants.
' Councilman Johnson: Is he a professional engineer? Is he a licensed
professional engineer?
Loren Habbeger: Gary has been working with him in the past here. I don't know
what.
Gary Warren: I don't know who you're talking about .
' Loren Habbeger: Dave Sime. Well Dave Hemple has been actually.
' Gary Warren: But I don't know who your engineer is. Regardless, we would want ,
the city engineering department would want the registered stamp on the plans
documenting to the accuracy of the drawings. We are not going to go out , the
engineering department to double check the work up there. That's why we require
a stamp on it .
Councilman Johnson: That 's standard procedure in most of these. Like I said,
' the engineering firm I used to work for did this work for people. We did Anoka
County landfill. We did the RDF, or the. . .landfill.
Mayor Chmiel: Hopefully with everything that 's been discussed will be reviewed
and made sure that they're all contained in here.
Councilman Johnson: Also there be a condition 13 about restoration of the
' wetlands along the entry road and erosion control to be provided along the entry
road. Has Bob Obermeyer been out to the site yet?
' Loren Habbeger: Bob looked at the site initially when we applied for the
initial permit.
' Councilman Johnson: Which initial permit? This one?
Loren Habbeger: With the Watershed, yes.
Mayor Chmiel: But it probably has changed.
Councilman Johnson: You mean 3 years ago or now?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I'd like to have him review that site one more time.
Councilman Johnson: How long ago was Bob out there?
' Loren Habbeger: I mean we got the initial permit in 1988 is what it amounts to.
' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Well since then there's been a lot of violations on that
since then and I think he should review it at that time.
58
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
Loren Habbeger: He'll review it and then he's going to be coordinating with.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like him to, yes. '
Councilman Johnson: Are signs in here anywhere?
Mayor Chmiel: We'll contact him. '
Loren Habbeger: And I think the engineering that he's work with this will be
included with your people. ,
Councilman Johnson: Yes, it's in item 10 for the signs.
Gary Warren: We should clarify that includes TH 101. I
Councilman Johnson: That will be clarified to include the intersection of TH
101.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussions? If hearing none, Paul.
Paul Krauss: There was also a request that there be a requirement that there be
a letter from the City Engineer authorizing proceeding from phase to phase.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. '
Paul Krauss: That probably should be added.
Councilman Johnson: Condition 14.
Councilman Workman: I'd move approval. ,
Councilwoman Dialer: Second.
Councilman Johnson: Oh, did you slip that in someplace else? Under 7? 1
Gary Warren: 8.
Councilman Johnson: Okay. So that condition was slipped in under condition 8.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to approve Interim Use
Permit X90-2 to excavate material from the Jeurissen Farm subject to the
following conditions and with the understanding that violation of these
conditions will result in the immediate suspension of operation by city staff
with the permit being brought back to City Council for review and possible
revocation:
1. Submit a minimum $30,000.00 letter of credit, with the exact amount to be
determined by the City Engineer, in a format acceptable to the City. The
letter of credit will be used to ensure the following: '
59
,City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
a. cover the cost of daily site monitoring by the Engineering Department
and patrolling of area roads as required by Carver County Sheriff's
Deputies and the State Highway Patrol;
1 b. maintenance of erosion control;
c. site restoration on a phase basis;
d. preparation of "as-built " grading plans demonstrating compliance with
approved plans, on a phased basis;
e. repair of haul roads due to damage caused by the operation as determined
by city and county staff;
f. removal of mud and debris from haul roads as frequently as required by
city and county staff;
g. control of dust and other nuisances;
' h. noise analysis and other testing if required.
2. Pay a Uniform Building Code grading permit fee of $787.56. City and County
staff as well as Carver County Sheriff's Deputies and State Highway Patrol
staff time to monitor and inspect the 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
' Saturday and prohibited on national holidays. If the City Engineer
determines that traffic conflicts result due to rush hour traffic flows, the
hours of operation will be appropriately restricted. Hauling on Saturdays
' will cease if the City receives any complaints. No activity will be
permitted during the U.S. Open 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 year flood elevation in the future.
' 6. Obtain approval of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District and
maintain the operation in full compliance with their requirements.
1
60 •
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990 1
7. Excavation to be phased in accordance with approved plans. As-built grading
plans prepared by a professional engineer or registered surveyor indicating
finished grades shall be prepared by the applicant for each phase, for city
approval, to demonstrate compliance with approved plans. Before any grading
can begin on the site, the applicant shall submit an existing condition
survey prepared and signed by a professional engineer or registered
surveyor.
B. Site restoration shall be completed on a phased basis before work is allowed
to proceed on the following phase. A letter will be issued from the City
Engineer authorizing the applicant to proceed. 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 responsible 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 at the intersection of TH 101 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,
is caused by the operation.
11. The City will work with the County Sheriff to coordinate speed and weight
checks. If trucks are violating traffic laws, staff will require that the
operation be shut down and will ask the City Council to revoke the permit.
12. Prior to the issuance of any permit, existing erosion control problems must '
be remedied to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
13. The applicant shall install erosion control and restore the wetlands along
the entry road.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Chmiel: Next item is Council Presentations. Jay, do you want to hit it
with trees, Kerber and Powers?
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. I think somebody on Council had this under Council
Presentations before and I've discussed it with staff before.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah I did. Todd Hoffman was supposed to look into it. ,
61 '
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
11
Mayor Chmiel: If I remember correctly, those were trees that the developer put
up that weren't required to.
Councilman Workman: They were free trees. He wasn't required to put them up.
Gary Warren: They're not a part of his development contract .
Councilman Johnson: I've got a feeling he didn't pay a lot for them either.
But they died pretty immediately and then the Japanese Bark Beetle, according to
Mr. Hoffman has attacked them and would then be spreading to other pines here
and it 's probably too late now. They've probably already done their damage that
the Bark Beetle's going to do but they should be removed. I was hoping the
forester would get involved in this and if they had any rules or regulations
that could force them to remove them because I'm not sure if the City has any
authority to tell them to remove a diseased tree. I would think we do
someplace,
Councilwoman Dimler: We did have Dale Gregory look into it and he's the one
' that said that they belong to Saddlebrook and would be Saddlebrook's
responsibility. After that I don't know what action has been taken by the City.
' Councilman Johnson: Well yeah.
Mayor Chmiel: Can we just follow through on that?
1 Councilman Johnson: Yeah. I think Code Enforcement or somebody needs to say
hey, we've got diseased trees.
' Mayor Chmiel: We'll get the weed inspector out .
Gary Warren: I know Mr. Murray has been contacted but that 's been a while ago
' so.
Councilwoman Dimler: Let 's check on that.
Councilman Johnson: Getting a developer that's finished his development to do
anything is exactly easy.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Ursuala? Walking path.
Councilwoman Dimler: I had calls from people along Minnewashta. They're very
interested in a path. I know that both the Park and Rec and we are all for
that. They would like to know if they need to, if they have to wait for the
street improvement or if they can go ahead.
' Councilman Johnson: Yes. It 's certainly going to be cheaper.
Mayor Chmiel: It will be much less costly.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, what is the time line?
Mayor Chmiel: Next year.
62
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990 1
Gary Warren: For construction we're looking at next year. We'd be initiating a
feasibility study here probably in the next month we'd be doing that at the
Council's direction.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I'll report that back to them. I think they'd be
satisfied with that .
Gary Warren: There are going to be some geometric changes to the road that would ,
impact .
Councilwoman Dimler: They said we'll take it without the road. We don't want
to pay for the road but we'll pay for the walkway.
Mayor Chmiel: Tom? National League of Cities.
Councilman Workman: Well the National League of Cities thing would coincide
with that December 3rd budget hearing that Don Ashworth recommended. I know Don
you were talking with Don on this and he was talking about getting cheap fares
in relationship to the budget and everything else like that . I don't know where
it's at but in light of that , December 3rd wouldn't work.
Mayor Chmiel: Right . So that's something he's going to have to look at .
Councilman Johnson: Are you all planning on going?
Councilwoman Dimler: Well, as I said to the press I don't mind not going but
that shouldn't be the extent of our budget cutting. I mean if that's going to
be a token, I'm not. '
Mayor Chmiel: But every dollar counts.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, every dollar counts.
Mayor Chmiel: The street department, they said they have $10.00 they can save.
No, it was $100.00.
Councilwoman Dimler: We've got to do more serious budget cutting than that .
Gary Warren: Relative to the hearing date however, that does need to be set so
we can.
Councilman Workman: Well let's set it. '
Councilman Johnson: Tom, are you planning on going to the conference?
Councilman Workman: Am I?
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. '
Councilman Workman: I don't know.
Councilwoman Dimler: We could pay our own way I suppose. '
63 '
° City- Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
Councilman Workman: I don't know what I'm doing tomorrow for lunch.
Councilman Johnson: I mean Ursula you said you weren't planning on it .
Councilwoman Dimler: Oh, I would go if we approved it. I might even go and pay
my own way. I don't know.
' Councilman Workman: We have one less council member to pay for.
Councilman Johnson: See I think that conference is worth every dollar you spend
on it because it's educational. Somebody who's been elected to office and isn't
in yet as of January, this is before, should they go?
Councilwoman Dimler: No. We decided that.
' (Everyone was talking at the same time with a couple different conversations
going at once. )
Mayor Chmiel: We could probably have it on the 10th and 18th.
' Gary Warren: The 18th only gives us 2 days. . .
Councilman Johnson: You know they didn't list Shakopee or Eden Prairie this
time. Last time they listed, because parts of Chanhassen are in the Eden
' Prairie School District and the Shakopee District that we couldn't have it when
their's were on too. It's fun to have 4 school districts.
IMayor Chmiel: Maybe if we hit it for the 10th and 18th rather than the 13th.
Councilman Johnson: 3rd and 10th.
Gary Warren: That would still give us 2 days to do any final revisions if
necessary.
Mayor Chmiel: If it 's strictly hypothetical like last year's was.
Councilman Johnson: Hopefully we're not hypothetical by then.
Mayor Chmiel: Heavens no. You're right.
Resolution 090-105: Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Disler seconded to
acknowledge the State estimated 1991 levy limit for Chanhassen set the Official
Public Hearing dates of December 10, 1990 and December 18, 1990. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, next item Administrative Presentations. This is where we
added MnDot regarding turn lanes on Choctaw and Sandy Hook for a cooperative
agreement.
' 64
I
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990 1
Gary Warren: Right. Request the Council to authorize a cooperative
construction agreement with MnDot . They've agreed to use construction safety
funds to pay for construction of turn lanes on TH 101 for Choctaw and Sandy Hook
Road. '
Mayor Chmiel: MnDot has?
Gary Warren: MnDot has. The City is doing the design and MnDot will pay for the
construction.
Councilman Workman: Are you talking about TH 101 and those intersections? What
about and Cheyenne?
Gary Warren: Cheyenne?
Councilman Workman: I place that, remember the drainage issue and all that and
then that was a part of it because they're getting rear ended as they pull a
left going north. '
Gary Warren: Cheyenne may be one that we want to continue to work on. These
two were carry overs from last year that we have gotten MnDot Safety Funds for.
Councilman Workman: Can I throw out Cheyenne also?
Gary Warren: I will add that to the list. We'll have to initiate a separate.
Councilman Workman: What they're doing is going north, people who are turning
left into there and this isn't uncommon, kind of coming down a slope. Over a
hill and then down a slope and they see these people are taking a left and they
think they can get around on the right and there's no room there and they're
getting. '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, that's something we can look at but for right now we have
to get this one going. Right?
Gary Warren: That's correct . This is just requesting a cooperative agreement .
Mayor Chmiel: Can I have a motion on that? '
Resolution #90-106: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
authorize a cooperative construction agreement with MnDot to use construction
safety funds to pay for construction of turn lanes on TH 101 for Choctaw and
Sandy Hook Road. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I have a motion for adjournment?
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, just something that came up in the
administration that was lying here and I have a question. Do we need to
formally accept Bill Boyt's resignation which was just handed to us this
evening? And number two, there was something about District #112, the community
education committee representative. They recommended Roister. I don't know
anything about that. Does somebody?
65 '
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, those are two other items and I think we should put it out
for, have his also make his application but put it out for.
ICouncilman Workman: That name is familiar. Who is that?
Councilman Johnson: Chris, what's the name of his company. He's in the Rotary
and all the stuff around here.
Councilman Workman: He's got his own communications?
' Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Graphic's Communications. He does some work for the
City. He worked actively with the athletic association. He was our Pee Wee
coordinator this year. He's very active in school things. Good man.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do we want to have it open to other applicants though?
Mayor Chmiel: I think we should.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay.
' Mayor Chmiel: We've done it before in everything else.
Councilman Johnson: That 's almost standard policy. The thing that I wanted to
say is that I don't think we really completed Tom's item there is our discussion
of the National Conference.
Mayor Chmiel: We didn't really come up with any conclusion.
Councilwoman Dimler: We changed the dates.
Mayor Chmiel: We changed the dates so they wouldn't coincide with it .
Councilwoman Dimler: So we left that open.
' Councilman Johnson: Well one thing I'd like to know is, okay. We've got an
election coming up. We've already said that if there's any lame ducks involved.
' Councilman Workman: It 's in our rules.
Councilman Johnson: It's in our rules, they can't go. That's good.
Mayor Chmiel: Two that are here are not lame ducks.
Councilman Johnson: There are two that absolutely won't be. We know we'll have
one new person absolutely because Bill's not running so there will absolutely be
one new person. Should we reserve a spot and then if, at the time of the
election they say no, we can't go then say okay, we'll just cancel our
' reservations. If we're going to go, should we reserve a spot for the new people
as an educational benefit for them to where they can go ahead and get this?
' Councilman Workman: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Why not?
11 66
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990 1
Councilman Johnson: If we're going to go at all.
Mayor Chmiel: If we're going.
Councilman Johnson: But for budgetary purposes, one of the good things to say,
as leading examples of cutting back on expenses is saying we're not going to go
to this and save the $4,000.00 or $5,000.00. That would be my first reaction to
lead by example and say we're going to bite the bullet. This is our only
educational thing. . . Okay.
Councilman Workman: So moved the adjournment .
Councilwoman Dimler: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Hold it. We didn't accept Bill Boyt 's notice of resignation.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to accept Bill Boyt's
Notice of Resignation as presented on August 27, 1990. All voted in favor and
the motion carried.
1
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:17
p.m..
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager ,
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
I
r 1
67 ,
I
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 15, 1990
UChairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p .m . .
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
IIPUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CELLULAR TELEPHONE FACILITY (ANTENNA TOWER AND
' EQUIPMENT BUILDING ) ON PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED
JUST EAST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND THE CHICAGO
MILWAUKEE , ST . PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD, MINNEAPOLIS SMSA LIMITED
' PARTNERSHIP.
Public Present :
Name _._ _ Address
Bill Miller 8121 Pinewood , Timberwood
' Craig Harrington
A . H . Michels 8140 Maplewood Terrace , Timberwood
247-3rd Avenue So . , Minneapolis , MN
Bernie Wong 7128 Bristol Blvd .
' Jerry Gustafson
David Hellerman 8341 Galpin Blvd.
2112 Minnehaha Ave. So . , Minneapolis
Robert Davis 5612 Brookview Avenue , US West NewVector
Lloyd L . Quinton 2421-161st Avenue S.E . , Bellevue , WA
James Frady 6720 Southcrest , Edina , US West NewVector
Ed Hasek 6570 Kirkwood Circle
Mary Harrington 8140 Maplewood Terrace , Timberwood
r
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
I 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' showins 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
r •
I
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 . I
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 the 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 have coverage . As you move from cell to cell , the
computers automatically switch you to the antenna that can give you the
best reception . So 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 have 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 . So that's where the pressure is coming
from. And this is a mature system where we have antennaes in all your
cells and you have complete coverage . In the Twin Cities we don't have
11
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - Page 3 I
IIcomplete coverage in every area . We 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 cel
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 we 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 tower . In
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 that it i,
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 o,
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 11
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 lin
system on this side of the solid black line . We had to stay in the US Wes
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 II
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 II effective coverage . We had to get our application in on by a deadline I
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 soma
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 loll
developments to the north. That 's Ridgewood and to the east.
Krauss: Timberwood .
IIBill Buehl : I 'm sorry , Timberwood and the one to the east was.
Krauss: Sunridge Court . I
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 . "
1 '
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - Page 4
' The pink areas are in this case industrial districts . We 're 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 which 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 progressive
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 building
is across in the industrial park . It is 1 ,050 feet away . This is the
closest structure . The closest residence is 1 ,100 feet away so we 're
fairly far away from any existing 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 . Again 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 next
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 we 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 . This is what it looked like .
And also the next Section 20-915 allows antennaes shall be permitted as
' accessory uses within all zoning districts so we have a telephone equipment
i
11
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - Page 5
IF
building and then an antenna as an accessory use of that building permitteII
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 I
process which is an application for a conditional use permit . The next
standard that I need to 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 II
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
industrial uses across the road . This tower will have a thin profile as I
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
Minnetonka 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 antenn
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 town to go to work or other uses . I
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 low powered system . Your cordless phone , the onell
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
microwave 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 . A lot of these staff is in support so you 're II
telling us stuff that they 've already agreed.
Bill Buehl : But they don 't agree with some things . I
Conrad: And I think you should hit those but the ones where you 're in II 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 Buehl : At 125 or 175? I
Conrad: At 175 you don't . I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
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 .
IConrad: And you didn 't did you?
Bill Buehl : 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 Buehl : Or the property simply needs to be expanded to 350 by 350
which 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?
Krauss: 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 co nstructed 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 facility and these are much newer houses that
were built there after the antenna was put up . Are there any questions?
I 'd like to reserve the right to respond to comments . . .
Conrad: We usually always let that happen , yes .
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - Page 7
II
Bill Buehl : Thank you . I
Conrad: Thank you Bill . It is a public hearing . Are there any other
I
comments?
Bill Miller : Most of these came up while he was speaking so they're not
going to be very well done in order or anything like that .
I
Conrad: Why don 't you give us your name .
Bill Miller : My name is Bill Miller . I live at 8121 Pinewood Circle in I
Chanhassen . I guess I just have some questions. You said there was no
effect on television or radio reception . Is that within a certain distanc
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 lo'
of sites , we 've never had any complaints . Interference with television or
anything like that .
Bill Miller : How about cordless telephones? I
Dave Hellerman: No . They operate on a much lower frequency . They 're eve'
more immune than television .
Bill Miller : Okay . I guess the next question is , how do you determine th'
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 root
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 get"
the larger the coverage circle you 'll get. In this case we have some
problems because of the hilliness of the terrain which Bill mentioned . I 'm e
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
I
driving 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 .
IIBill Miller : Sort of going down the same line. Is the alternative to hay
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
9
August 15 , 1990 - Page 8
' smaller and smaller all the time .
Dave 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 telephone seems to be changing pretty quickly in general and I
don 't know a lot about it but I know a little bit about it and you know ,
for the next question is , how about the timing of what you 're doing . Why
are we needing to do this right now? I know you said you had to fill out
your charter or whatever it was to fill out your area . What is the exact
timing of when you have to fill that out? Is it next month? Is it a
year? Is it 1999? 2014? And why do you have to do it right now?
Bill Buehl : 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?
Bill Buehl : We would have liked it .
Bill Miller : So 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 Buehl : 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 .
Bill Buehl : Right . There is .
Bill Miller : So 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 1
Bill Miller : I 'm just trying to see the criticality of this issue . I 'm II .
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 .
Bill Miller : Okay but when he said October , it sounded like all of a
sudden . You know we 're August . That 's only 2 months . That sounded prett
serious . What is the area that 's going to be served currently by this
tower and how long 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 Buehl : You 've got 25 simultaneous calls . '
Bill Miller : Is that based on the equipment on the ground and then you call
add additional units on the ground with one tower? I mean is it going to
go 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 II
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 thll
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 to be filled up?
Dave Hellerman: The rate of growth of our whole industry is beyond , this
whole industry has existed about 6 years . The rate of growth is surprisin
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 1
months . Something like that . I wish I could give you better estimates bu
it 's all . . .
Bill Miller : I understand. So what do you do in 18 months? What happens "
in 18 months?
Dave Hellerman: Well we will be adding other cells. Whether the focus II will be out here as much as in the city is something that we have yet to
determine . I 'll point out one other item that is important to us in that
it gives some extra urgency to this particular project is the U.S . Open
golf 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 . 1
Bill Buehl : Bill , I 'd just like to say one thing about . . . I tried making
a call right up there by the McGlynn 's Bakery site and my phone didn 't
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - Page 10
' work . Couldn 't get out of the area because we didn 't have the capacity .
Bill Miller : Well that happens to me everytime I go to LA too . That 's
' nothing new . I know but that 's not some deficiency right here, That 's
nothing to do with Chanhassen .
Dave Hellerman: . . .we 're not always perfect and we do the best we can .
Bill Miller : Why not use the Chaska water tower or something existing
already that high with something smaller and less noticeable? Is there
some problem with that?
Bill Buehl : Because Cell One is already on that tower . That 's their
' antenna right next to it .
Bill Miller : Where? In Chaska?
Bill Buehl : Yeah , the Chaska tower .
Bill Miller : How about the one , do we have a water tower right up here
' somewhere don 't we? Is something wrong with this one or does that have
somebody on it already?
Conrad: That 's outside the area .
' Bill Buehl : It 's outside the search area .
' Bill Miller : So that search area literally had to be that little 1 ,000
square foot piece of land? What if something was already there? What if
that was already a big building?
Mary Harrington: . . .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 was 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 .
•
Bill Miller : So you 'd pop it right on top of somebody? .
Bill Buehl : And we also have sites currently in South Minneapolis in a
very tense residential area .
Bill Miller : You mentioned you couldn't make a deal or something like that
with US Telephone to move it otherwise . What was the problem there?
Bill Buehl : I 'm not sure of the details . I just know that it was out of
the question .
Mary Harrington: Based on your side or based on their side?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - Page 11 1
Bill Buehl : I don 't know the details . '
Bill Miller : Why couldn 't you get the . . .
Bill Buehl : Most of our search area was in the US West Telephone service
area anyway .
Bill Miller : I 'm just trying to see why . '
Bill Buehl : These are good questions . I can understand your concern .
Bill Miller : I guess I have a question for someone up here . What does
conditional use permit mean? Is that going to take too long to understandS'
Conrad: It just means we have conditions . Basically they can 't have
something unless they meet the conditions .
Bill Miller : Does that mean that you have the power to stop this if you II
choose to?
Conrad: If they don 't meet the conditions . '
Bill Miller : Okay . Are the conditions , the conditions that exist the day
they apply for it or can conditions be changed? I 'm just wondering . ,
Conrad: There 's some vagueness in the conditions .
Bill Miller : I have a couple more . Am I taking too much time? '
Conrad: Go ahead .
Bill Miller : I saw what 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 Buehl : I believe , Paul you 'd know. 160? ,
Krauss : The one that I 'm familiar with off of Baker Road 's 185 feet tall .,
It sits down in kind of a gully .
Bill Buehl : I don 't really know .
Bill Miller : I just want to make sure that we're looking at something
that 's really what we 're going to see . You say there are no health affects
or safety affects and you 're certain that that tower wouldn 't hit an extra'
10 feet and smash a car going down the road down that 10 foot side?
Bill Buehl : I 'd like to refer the letter that I submitted . I think it 's I
pretty clear in there .
Dave Hellerman: It takes a pretty severe natural event . They don 't just
fall over . If it were , and it 's a long shot to go over . 1
Bill Miller : Well I understand that but bridges do fall in once in a while
and things do happen on occasion .
11 Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 19'90 - Page 12
11
' Dave Hellerman: It would be during a tornado or something like that which
you would . . .warning .
Bill Miller : Don 't we have tornadoes around here sometimes? Just kidding .
The area that 's going to be served by this you said was 3 miles?
Dave Hellerman: Roughly .
' Bill Miller : 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 who 's in a Shakopee cell would never be tacked onto this one or
1
something like that?
Dave Hellerman: The idea of cellular is to limit the coverage of each cell
' so 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 much as users of TH 5 and the new planned TH 212 . I believe they 're
very close to the coverage itself and cellular phones have become more and
more popular and they 're becoming an important factor that people consider.
' when they look for a place to live . . . .developments I 've heard talked
about in 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
circuit 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 Buehl : 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 110 .
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 there , it 's definitely going 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 1
away , you 'd certainly notice it I would think . Or half a block or 2 block,
or 3 blocks . As far as decline of property values , I guess you can do all
sorts of studies to prove numbers but I guess I 'd just make the point that
it has some effects . I can tell you I probably wouldn 't buy a house that II
was right next to one which would certainly lower the potential value of
that house . I guess I would agree with Paul 's recommendation at least now
to deny it and at least give time to investigate some of these things whic
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 all
the 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: Thanks 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
bippy I could see it if they put it over there . I '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 II
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 ones that are from the Timberwood area
and the ones that are down on Galpin . I had a chance to speak to Mrs .
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 II
here I guess but Mrs . Carlson said that if there 's a petition out , that sh
wishes to sign it to the effect that we are not interested in having a
tower that at the time , you know 125 feet . I own a 2 story house and so
I said my 2 story house is 24 feet tall so if I piled up 5 of my houses- I II
would be that height of that tower . Now I 've got to pile up 7 of them and
I 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 II
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 thing
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. '
11
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - Page 14
I
Jerry 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 .
' Mary Harrington: I spoke to your wife .
Jerry Gustafson: And that we 're not apathetic .
Mary Harrington: Your wife was appalled .
Jerry Gustafson: I have a couple of questions . Number one is , you know
the tallest tower in Minneapolis years ago was the Foshay Tower so it 's
just full of antennaes . Why isn 't there room for one more antenna on the
water tower there in Chaska? Is one antenna , does that fill it up?
Bill Buehl : Yeah , in this case it 's way over on the edge of the search
area . I don 't think that water 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 we can 't locate there because
of frequency interference and telephone phone lines . . .prohibition . We
would much rather be on the water tower if we can . We would rather not
have to build a tower structure .
Jerry Gustafson : I would think that would be ideal for you on the water
tower .
Bill Buehl : And we are on many water towers .
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
whatever . Why do we need a new tower 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 Gustafson: Motorola that I just hold. There 's no antenna on the car
or anything . Just hold it .
Bill Buehl : 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 users because what happens is you
' have more and more users on the same frequency and unless we have antennaes
close to the users in this area , they won't be able to get the same
interference free reception . That 's kind of the growth we were discussing .
We were discussing growth . So as we have more users , we need more sites to
maintain the same quality of service .
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - Page 15 1
Jerry Gustafson: It doesn 't matter how many users you 've got . The same II
site will 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 won 't support an II
infinite number of users .
Jerry Gustafson: So you 're counting on a number of more users using I
telephones to call into that area and that 's why you need the tower?
Dave Hellerman: It 's users in that area who want to use their portable on
mobile telephone like yours . People can call land lines in that area . Is
that what you 're , or am I misunderstanding you?
Bill Buehl : Mr . Gustafson , do you have a cellular phone? This Motorola , II
is that a cellular?
Jerry Gustafson : Yeah .
II
Sill Fuehl : And you 're saying that when you 're home you can call .
Jerry Gustafson : No . Like when I 'm in Hopkins where I work , I can call , II
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 . I
Dave Hellerman: That 's going on the wires to your home . That 's on the
telephone wires into your home . I mean you 're in Hopkins .
II
Jerry -Gustafson: No , no . I 'm calling from inside my car .
Dave Hellerman: Right . But the connection into your home . . .that 's on
II
wires in this area .
Ellson : The antenna 's in Hopkins then? I
Dave Hellerman: The antenna is close to where he 's calling .
Ellson: What you need is the antenna from where you 're placing the call II
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 to make is il
I know people build houses next to objectionable sites and I don't
understand why they do that. Put a $200,000.00 home next to a swamp or
something . I don't know but to put something there that is objectional an
then offer a residential area , you know put $200 ,000.00 homes on it , I
don 't think would be . . . I just don 't think . . .
Conrad: Good . Thanks for your comments . Other comments? I
Craig Harrington: I 've just got a couple of quick questions . Craig
Harrington . Maplewood Terrace in Timberwood Estates . A couple of
II
Planning Commission Meeting
•
August 15 , 1990 - Page 16
I
' questions 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 I have
a concern that 5 years from now 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 are the concerns that I have and the hesitency that
I have saying that the City should endorse something like this. Are we
' going to be staring at a 200 foot tower or a 300 foot tower 5 years from
now or multiple towers on that site? And then perhaps increasing power or
something like that or maybe other uses for towers that may be coming into
play where interference could be a factor . The real concern I have there
was , I was in a home 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 appraiser and walked through the basement
' and the pipes were literally singing country western music and it really
was a concern . I know that you approach this whole area that this is not
something that 's going to interfere but I guess maybe right at this moment
' it isn 't but is it going to sometime in the future and I guess that 's my
concern . I don 't think anybody can maybe guarantee unless you really have
some technology of what 's going to be happening in the future .
' Dave Hellerman: I can tell - you what we do know . First of all , I used to
work 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 grows , the sites
become lower and the power actually gets smaller because you want more and
more smaller cells . That 's how we increase the capacity so when we started
' out building this sytem , we were building towers of 300 to 400 feet . Now
in some of the peripheral areas we 're still doing that where we 're covering
for miles . Cologne is 250 or 300? 485? Okay . But as we increase the
density of our users , we 're able to make the towers smaller and the towers
' lower because we don 't want the cells to be bigger . We want them to be
smaller and that 's the direction that we 're going in . So that while it 's
possible that this area 's growth continues at , by this area I mean
' Chanhassen , Chaska . If growth continues like we 've been seeing , we may
need more towers , they will be smaller and lower and eventually we 'll be
doing , we see a day when we 'll be on top of 60 foot telephone poles .
1 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
no single buildings that. . .but at some point that might become a realistic
way to go but to answer you . We 're not getting higher or bigger . We 're
getting lower and smaller as the system grows so I really don't see the
potential for what you 're concerned with .
Sill Miller : I have a question. Have you ever . . .
Dave Hellerman: We are doing that . Yeah , we are currently in the middle
of a program to do that . We actually are doing on in Arden Hills where
we 'll be putting on the shorter one within the week but we do have planning
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - Page 17
I
for the next year , there are several that we are doing that . We are going"
to lower them down , yes . We 're kind of new at this too . It 's a new
industry but that is happening .
Conrad: Are there other comments? Anything? Is there a motion to close II
the public hearing?
Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted'
in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Conrad: - We 'll go around the Planning Commission for comments . Tim , we 'll,
start at your end .
Erhart : 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 of CR 18 I
and north of the tracks . What 's that going to be?
Krauss : Well this is based of course on the draft that we 're going to tall
to public hearing . The way the draft is right now .
Erhart : Can you draw a line , where 's industrial and commercial?
Krauss: This area is all residential . The area that is proposed not to b
and also this area is residential . The area that 's proposed not to be are
these properties here , here , here and here .
Erhart : Okay , those are all industrial .
Krauss: On the current draft , yeah . 1
Erhart: And you 're basing your denial on the fact that that point down
there , that penninsula is intended for residential? I
Krauss: Correct .
Erhart: How do you weigh their interpretation of the ordinance allows '
this . . .
Krauss: .Those are some of the ambiguities of the ordinance that I. eluded II
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 not as explicit as we would like it and I think can be
misinterpretted and through a series of misinterpretations extended back in
the analogy that that 's being used . I think it's a real stretch and the
ordinance also provides that where there 's conflicts within the ordinance ,
because 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 of the City Attorney, I didn 't get a chance to review
this last bit of information with him yet this afternoon but I will , but i
speaking to him previously, he advised us to clear up the ambiguities that
we knew about already in the ordinance . To clarify that and we have an II
intent to do so .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August. 15 , 1990 - Page 18
I
Erhart : Can you show me what line is the ambiguity?
Krause.: 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
upstairs and the intent there was to deal with regulated utilities .
' US West . NSP .
•
Erhart: Isn't this regulated?
iKrauss: 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
company . These are contracts that are up for bid in each metro area and
there 's two bidders or two operaters that compete for, competition in each
area but their rates are not regulated . They 're not required to have
mandatory service . They 're not required to do any of those things that a
regulated telephone company is .
Erhart : Well , I don 't want to get into that whole thing . Let 's move down
' 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
operaters . There is a sentence in there that says in all residential
districts only one is permitted per lot , satellite dish , amateur radio
antenna tower , which is fine as far as that goes and then ground mounted
vertical antenna . What is that? Well , unfortunately the definitions
weren 't adopted with the ordinance but the definitions and maybe Jo Ann can
11 explain this . This is referring to another style of ham radio antenna
tower . ' It 's not 175 foot cellular telephone tower . Now at this point , the
ordinance is ambiguous and it 's tough to explain that unless you go through
the background but that was the intent .
Erhart : 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 now to . . . I think we have an
ordinance. I think the ordinance allows , no matter how you cut it , allows
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
antenna , considering the low 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?
Erhart: I think it acts as a buffer , yeah . I don 't think the thing is
very visual at all .
11
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - Page 19 1
Conrad: So the land itself is a buffer? ,
Erhart: Yeah . I think the land itself overrides the visual impact on the
tower . You know I would prefer to have it right in an industrial area . S'
you could put it on the other side of the line , would it change it that
much? Just putting it over 300 feet? And combined with the fact that I
think the ordinance clearly allows it and plus we 're talking about a futurl
ordinance change that may take a year to get it changed . I just don 't
think that we have enough basis for denial . That 's my comments .
Conrad: Steve . ,
Emmings: Paul , if we accept their arguments that our ordinance might allow
this , or does allow it , can we deny something based on a plan that 's in th
process or that would permit it when we know that plan is probably going t
change? Have you talked to our City Attorney about that?
Krauss: Yeah , I did ask him about that and he frankly is concerned that II
while he agrees that the intent is justifiable , that the language of the
ordinance is one that a judge might rule against the City if it came up .
You know I think that you 're being asked to put blinders on in essence .
You 'Ye sort of boxed in where you 're saying you know that this area is
going to change and you know that in all likelihood that it 's going to
change to residential but you 're not supposed to look at it . Well ,
planning is an ongoing process and you 've been involved in this process foil
quite some time now and the result of that is on the immediate horizon . I
guess I have a problem ignoring the fact that that exists , especially when
the existing land use plan gives little or no definition as to what 's
intended out there . It just drew a line and it 's a great blank . Based on
the attorney's recommendation though , we are going to propose language to
remed,• that . Now we really haven 't talked about legally how should the
City protect themselves on this . There is a possibility of moratoriums if
we need to do that and then on and on . We will discuss this at length
tomorrow . He did read the report and he did raise that concern .
Emmings: Okay . Well that would be a concern of mine but I really , I think
I was here when 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 whatsoever . When we said a
telephone equipment building , I know we had in mind things that are
connected by wires on both ends and here .we 've got something now that 's II
kind of , you know when is a telephone a radio and when is it a telephone?
We 've got something new that's kind of a hybrid and this is clearly not a
telephone equipment building . At least as we contemplated that term under
the ordinance . Also I question whether or 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
don 't , one is no good without the other so calling it , I don 't think , at I
least in my mind , that buys them nothing to call it an accessory use , if
that 's what they 're doing . As far as the ground mounted vertical antenna ,
I was here when we drafted that ordinance too or put it in and I know that
that did not deal with or include a tower like we 're talking about here bull
we were talking specifically about , at that time , .we were talking
specifically about , it came up because of a ham radio operater 's tower at 11
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - Page 20
I
his house and that was something that was , that term implied that and
' nothing else as I remember it . But anyway all that aside , I think I 'm
going to vote for this thing and I 'm going to tell you my reasons . First
of all a tower is going in there before any homes might be developed around
' there so that somebody coming in is going to be able to see it . It 's not
something we '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
people that will be looking at the tower will 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 as an added condition here . I
don 't think they should be allowed to put any additional , I think we should
know exactly what they 're going to hang on the tower . 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 know what 's going to be on top of it exactly . You showed us
' one picture and that didn 't bother me but I think it should be restricted
to whatever . We should approve what 's going up there . It should be
restricted to that and it shouldn 't be changed unless they come back .
1 !.so , I don 't think the tower should be allowed 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 be subleasing it to
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 up someplace , you might as well make the most efficient
utilitization 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
co-locate so you do only have one instead of .
Ellson: I think he 's saying come through before you do that .
•
' EmmingE : T 'm not saying we wouldn 't allow it . I 'm saying we want to have
a chance to approve it before it gets hung up because we might not want to .
' But other than that , I don 't have any other comments .
Conrad: Annette .
1 Ellson: I believe that despite the height , that it isn't as objectionable
as probably even telephone poles . I 'm sure in the early days everybody
wanted telephone but they didn't want those poles in their backyard . I
think water towers 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
so there 's no doubt in my mind people can build around it . I agree with
' Steve that especially if was there before the people come and I agree with
Tim that we 're right on the border of calling it industrial so I don 't know
that that much distance is going to make that thing . I 'm not really
convinced however that the alternatives that we suggested are totally out
' 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
' just a cost effective way . This will be cheaper so they don 't want to do
that . I 'd like to see that pursued maybe a little bit more before it goes
to Council that absolutely , positively , our other ideas are out of the
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - Page 21 1
question and I 'm not sure that I got that feeling from it but I don 't . I
really see a huge problem with it and I agree with Steve 's idea as far as
adding other uses but I don 't know . I think if it 's there before those
houses go in there , it diminishes the property value from what? From what'
it is now? I really doubt that and if you 're the one building on that lot ,
you 're going in with your eyes open so I can 't , I think the main reason
that we were thinking of denying it was because of the property values andl
I don 't necessarily agree that that 's going to come across that way so I •
• would vote to approve it but I sure want them to convince City Council that
those other alternatives are definitely out of the question because they 11
also were in that search site . Again , I 'm not convinced that it 's a
definite no .
Wildermuth: Paul , I want to congratulate you on an excellent report .
Unfortunately I happen to disagree with it . I don 't think we have a good II
basis on which to deny this conditional use permit . Virtually everything
seems to be there . The one thing that I do think is missing on the part
the explanation given by the applicant is that I don 't feel the alternate
sites were explored very well or explained very well . The other concern
that I have is that the proposed alternate site that we offered Paul , it
was at about 1 ,000 feet so , or 1 ,000 yards so we 're relatively close . It
was a matter of apparently not being able to get together with the propert
owner . I think in support of the applicant 's position , it is a low
intensity land use . Anybody going in to build on a site somewhat adjacent
to it knows the tower 's there . I don 't think it 's going to be particular
desireable for a residential site in that little triangle because you 're
very close to some relatively high use railroad tracks . The railroad not
is probably going to be pretty objectionable . It looks like a reasonable
land use other than the fact that we intended it to be something else in
the 2000 Comp Plan . So to be consistent , I did favor making the lot a par
of that industrial . To be consistent I guess I have to accept the
application .
Conrad : Joan . ,
Ahrens: Does anybody know what the FAA requirements are for lighting on a
175 foot tower?
Krauss: Over 200 feet requires lighting .
Bill Buehl : That 's correct . There will be no lights on this tower . 1
Ahrens: It seems like the planes fly over awful low out there . I 'd hate
to have my house nearby if there 's no lighting on that tower . '
Bill Buehl : We filed an application to get a notice of no hazard from the
FAA before we build it as part of our required process . . .
Ahrens: I 'm going to recommend approval of this also. I drive by that on
on Baker Road several times a week and I never noticed it was there until
today when I was specifically looking for it . I think it 's pretty I
unobtrusive . I think that this is a satisfactory area even to put it up
even though there 's potential residential around it . The alternative sites
are so close , as everyone has said . It doesn 't make any difference if it ',
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - Page 22
a 1 ,000 yards away . People can see it anyway but people see all sorts of
things from their windows . They see electrical towers . Those big huge
monsters and water towers and those big satellite dishes so I think this is
not as bad as all those things or any of those things . I agree with the
other commissioners on most of their comments . Particularly Steve 's in
support 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 're finding reasons that we don 't think we can refuse it but preference
' 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 report . Incompatability with the zoning . Whether
it be today or the future . Incompatability with the character and
1 aesthetically . I guess the biggest thing , and I think all the comments on
the commission are very clear 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 we have a chance to , I guess when this
goes to City Council , I think it 's real important that we understand that
those have really been reviewed but I feel there 's enough here to say no .
' I alsp feel that it takes some residential land away that I 'd rather keep
residential in the future so for those 5 reasons , I would vote with 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? Do you 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 .
Erhart : If we go with a positive motion , do you want us to throw something
out there and vote on it .
' Krauss: I could suggest some conditions if you 'd like to consider those .
Well 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 so 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
' approve both the tower , the aesthetic design as well 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 .
Krauss: Could we touch on that for a moment . As I understand it , this
building is a fiberglass exterior , portable structure that would be brought
in and tied down to some footings . The illustration that I saw , it 's
' painted outside to emulate brick . I don 't know if that 's what you 're
looking for .
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - Page 23 1
Erhart : I would not vote for that . If that 's what I thought it was , I I
wouldn '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,
structure that you see down on TH 101 that 's made out of solid permanent
material . If that 's what we 're looking at , then I almost . . .
Wildermuth : But there again we have no ordinance . '
Erhart : Yeah I know but there 's. Here 's the ordinance . It says it shall
be architecturally consistent with surrounding structures .
Wildermuth: There are no surrounding structures . Trees .
Erhart : To be honest with you , I 'm going to withdraw my motion in favor o'
having it come back with some more information as opposed to just changing
it . If somebody else wants to do it .
Conrad: Put you 've made a motion .
Erhart : Well nobody seconded it so .
Conrad: Do you want to make another motion?
Erhart : Okay , yeah . I 'll make a motion that we . . . '
Bill Buahl : Mr . Chairman , point of information . We are willing to
construct whatever type of building you , architecturally . . . We 've built '
many different types of buildings . . .
Erhart: Paul , are you satisfied that you can take this from here?
Krauss: It 's whatever you 're comfortable with . I guess I 'd like some
guidelines . I mean do you expect a masonry brick building? Some of the
newer utility buildings we 're getting are reasonably attractive these days"
Erhart: Okay , I 'll proceed then and we can take a vote on it . That staff
will approve the tower aesthetic design as well as the building and the
building should be consistent with other recently constructed public
telephone 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 which
will come in before Council and Planning Commission . And the other
conditions as staff has outlined. Landscaping per a plan. No lights and II
signage and that the tower will be painted a flat color .
Conrad: Is there a second? '
Wildermuth: Second .
Erhart moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend I
approval of Conditional Use Permit #90-3 for SMSA Limited for a cellular
transmission tower with the following conditions:
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - Page 24
•
1 . Staff will approve the aesthetic design of the tower and building and
the building should be consistent with other recently constructed
public telephone and public utility buildings in the area .
2 . Staff will approve and document the tower shape and structure and that
it 's construction will follow that approval .
3 . No other radio uses shall 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 ether antennaes are to be installed , they should come back for
review under the CUP guidelines .
' F> . Landscaping be installed as per the landscaping plan .
6 . N5 lights or signage be used on this site .
' 7 . The tower shall be painted a flat light color so that it blends in with
the background .
' All 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
industrial areas . I don 't see a need to make them out in stand alone
unit . 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 ca-n 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 doing to follor our comments and you may want to pay attention to a
few of those to make it easier .
rill E'uehl : What sort of information would you like on alternatives?
Elison : The things you said you didn 't have any information on for
example . When Bill was asking you about some of these and you didn 't have
' much information at the time . I think that would be .
Bill Buehl : 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.
' P,u.blc._Pr,esent;,
Name_..__._._ Address
Kevin P . McShane 180 South Shore Court
Daryl P . Fortier 408 Turnpike Road
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - Page 25
Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Conrad
called the public hearing to order .
Conrad: Daryl , do you want to make any additions to the staff report?
Daryl Fortier : I ' ll try to make it brief . I 'm Daryl Fortier and we agredl
with the staff report .
Conrad: Thanks .
Emmings : Nice job .
Conrad: Other comments . Anything? Kevin , anything? Is there a motion t'
close the public hearing:
Emmings moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in I
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Conrad: We 'll start at your end again . '
Erhart : I have no comments on this one .
Emmings : None .
Ellson: I just have one comment only because of what we went through last
week . Now is the time that we can throw something in there about the I
person who 's on the lake and where their high water mark and where their
wetland starts and things like that? Whereas before they always said I
didn 't know I had that and we 're saying now that maybe is the chance we c-
do something like that . I was thinking of a condition like that .
Ahrens' : You can tell them Christmas Lake 's at the end of their lot .
Ellson: I am but it 's the same with the people on Lotus Lake . They put iI
in so I was thinking maybe it should be written into the record right now
when there are opportunity 's here . That was the only thing I was thinking'
of .Krause: -
There is no wetland on this property. It 's pretty nice shoreline
and beach so it 's very well defined . I believe there's a drainage easemen�
required over that part of the lake and if there's not, there will . . .
Ellson: So in general they're, not like this Lotus Lake . . .? '
Al-Jaff : The other thing is , 'this is probably going to be the only
buildable area on the site .
Krauss: Yeah , the location of the home here , and Charles can. explain it i�
need be , is somewhat limited by the need to provide sewer connection which
has a tendency of pushing the house uphill . So the home would be
nowhere . . .
Ellson: Okay . Nothing further . '
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - Page 26
Wildermuth: I support the staff recommendation .
' Ahrens: No comment .
Conrad: 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, 1990 and
subject to the following conditions:
' 1 . Easements :
a . Etandard 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 .
c . 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 fire hydrant is required to the west of the property as shown in
ttachme'nt ##2 .
3 . Park and trail dedication fees will be required in lieu of land
dedication .
4 . 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
approved by staff . Preservation areas shall be adequately marked by a
snow fence prior to construction to avoid damage .
i5 . The private driveway serving Lot 2 , Block 1 must be built to a 7 ton
design and paved to a width of 20 feet utilizing a maximum grade of 10%
' 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 .
6 . Plans for water and sewer connections shall be developed for approval
by the City prior to City Council review . 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.
I
Planning Commission Meeting I
August 15 , 1990 - Page 27
PUBLIC HEARING:
INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR A GRADING PROJECT TO EXCAVATE 100,000 CUBIC YARDS 011
MATERIAL AND LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1500 PIONEER TRAIL , BRUCE JEURISSEN .
Public Present:
Name Address ,
John D . Rice 505 No . Hwy 169
Herb Bloomberg 7008 Dakota
Bruce Jeurissen 1500 Pioneer Trail , Chaska
Loren Hebbeger Wangerin Inc .
Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Conrad
called the public hearing to order .
Loren Hebbeger : My name is Loren Hebbeger . I 'm a representative of '
Wangerin 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 use . Since we shut down on this project , which would be probably in
the ) ater part of May or first part of May , we 've hauled a 120 ,000 yards
out of Chaska , Arbor Park . Leveled off an industrial site and they're
starting to build on it already . What the purpose of this situation was II
originally , and the group of investors that are involved in this situation
with Wangerin , are trying to take an agricultural site which is originally
designated for a 2 1/2 acre tract development situation from 1987 .. Level I
it off and put it to 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
is to improve the land and still at the same time keep it as an
agricultural situation until the land is improved to a developable
situation which when this hauling is done it will still be an agricultural
situation that can be upgraded to a subdivision . So I guess what I 'm
looking at , I 'm in the development situation , I am looking at this parcel II
as an improvement to the existing situation . The zoning is there for a 2
1/2 acre tract . Mr . Jeurissen who will be participating in the project
here is interested in upgrading the land and keeping it as an agricultural"
situation 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 now
but within 90 days we moved 120 ,000 yards which from a standpoint of
traffic problems . We went down Lyman Blvd. to TH 101 and went down ,
Pioneer Trail which is Hennepin County 1 . We didn't have any problem
whatsoever as far as the haul . I guess I appreciate the staff making
recommendation for approval and I guess what we're here for is to just movill
this thing along . We were hoping to put this in an orderly fashion and
continue to haul here previous to this and get the job done . I appreciate
your people 's opinion .
Conrad: Thanks . Other comments. Anything else? Is there a motion to
close the public hearing?
Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted
in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
I
I
•
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - Page 28
Conrad: Joan , 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 toward the City in
the past and a total disregard toward the City 's instructions . But I did
get through it . I 'm not sure I understand it . I have no idea what 190 ,000
' yards of material does to , removing that much does to a piece of property .
Maybe you can explain what this property 's going to look like . I mean is
it going to be flattened or what?
Krauss: Essentially yeah . I don 't know if that video would help explain
that . We do have a movie of this narrated by our engineering staff but if
I could work off of this for a moment . Right now the existing Jeurissen
'
farmstead is over here with the house and the out buildings . The area that
they were working last spring is in here . Now this is basically an . . .
Here 's Bluff Creek . That 's . . . The top of the hill is right here .
Basically you 're pretty much flattening this off to clean it out . There
would be a berm left with some trees on it there and one might be here but
basically they ' ll flattened it down with a slight grade down to the creek .
Now we have asked to make sure there 's a minimum cut level set there so
that no potential building sites get below the flooded elevation there . At
least 3 feet above it which is what our ordinance requires . I 'd also like
to talk about the residential use on this property for a moment . This and
some other properties were conceptually reviewed as 2 1/2 acre lots prior
to 1987 . There were some time deadlines for them to submit preliminary and
final plats . Those time deadlines came and went and Council extended it
because of the delays in getting the final EIS for TH 212 done . TH 212
passes through so close over there and the platting has been conceptually
looked at but it doesn 't work with TH 212 and that 's one of the concerns
' that the Council has in working . . . It 's not entirely clear . . .as to whether
or not this grading is ideally suited for whatever is going to happen in
the future . There 's no plan backing it up . All we have is the original
concept and that doesn 't fit with this entirely . Now what they 're doing
here , and this is going to be I suppose the more minor aspect of what
they 're doing . The other one , 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
' going to do is basically knock it reasonably flat with a slight grade to it
even 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 we 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 what the application said?
Krauss: 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 topsoil back . So yes , it would be utilizable for farming .
' Ahrens: But the grade will be such you can 't farm over it? •
11
Planning Commission Meeting I
August 15 , 1990 - Page 29
Krauss: No , what the grade on the bulk of the area will be lessened over
what , it 's quite rolling now and it 's not going to be in the future . So
the extent that Mr . Jeurissen has a tough time working grades now , most o
the area he 's farming will be flat or reasonably flat . That steep grade is
only going to occur at the north end of the property .
Ahrens : Is there an intent to move more earth in the future? Is this it .
I know this is it for like this application but .
Loren Hebbeger : That 's it . 1
Ahrens : Or is everything going to just be flat after this?
Loren Hebbeger : It will be flat enough for development from a housing
situation . The elevations will work with a housing development plan and
then we 're out of here . I
Ahrens: But it 's a nice rolling terrain right now right and you 're going
to flattened it out? I
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 . As
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 th
terrain. They don 't consider it farmable .
Ahrens: How long has this area been farmed? 1
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 prograll
in 1995 . We have to have plans in the process by 1992 .
Ahrens: But that 's not really relevant to what we're talking about here i
it? '
Bruce Jeurissen: Well it '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 . . .
Ahrens: 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,
•
11 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 5:00 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- what we 're doing . We '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 I 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 in 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
I would propose that we add a requirement for compensation for either a II
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 apparentl
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 I
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 was 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 ,
maintenance 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 II
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 new
road . It 's in pretty good shape . To the extent that it becomes damaged
during 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: Well 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 till
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 II
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 has 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 II 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 sell
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, 1 .
Krauss: And 9 deals with the need to clean up debris.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - Page 32
' Wildermuth: 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 120 ,000 yards out of Chaska and the sherrif 's -department ,
I met with them . I met with the Chaska Police force . If we 're in weight
restrictions as far as weight load , there is no problem or impact on the
' road 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
situation and I welcome them to come in and weigh any truck that they want
on the BFI scale because all of these loads are being tallied . And I guess
' the thing what I 'm saying here , you can create more problems but going
right back to the original point , we 've already hauled 120 ,000 yards down
Lyman Blvd . with the County and City of Chaska involved and we haven 't had
any problems . Now there was a speeding ticket 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 .
Loren 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 work
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 your
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 which 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 I 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 101/Pioneer Trail intersection is notoriously bad .
Planning Commission Meeting I
August 15 , 1990 - Page 33
1
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 aware of an
fatalities or anything like that but we have had complaints and we 're just
trying to cognizant of that .
Wildermuth: I agree . ,
Conrad: Anything else? Annette?
Elison: I 'm trying to find good reason not to do it . I don't like it . I'
don 't think it's consistent with what we have in our goals of our plan
which is to maximize the natural features of Chanhassen . Instead we 're
taking away hills which are a natural feature and things like that and
I know it also is not suppose to involve any kind of activities that will
be detrimental to any persons or property and I think it 's already been
proven that it has been because of excess of noise and traffic so I think II
based on those two reasons I 'd like to say that I '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 use gravel and sand and dirt and all kinds of things and all kinds of
construction and it all comes from someplace so I guess there 's some kind II
of a balance here . Somebody owns some land here and they want to sell off
some of the land and I 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
hole or defacing something like the river bluff like we had with Moon
Valley and so on so I guess I feel overall that they probably have a right
to do this . I guess what bothers me more than anything else is the past
behavior of these applicants certainly doesn't engender any trust in me .
don 't know how we 're going to know that they 're only taking about 190 ,000
yards . I don 't know how we 're going to know what they 're doing . I don 't I
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 . What?
Loren Hebbeger : That 's fine . Just go ahead. ,
Emmings: Thank you . I guess I 'd support the application .
Conrad: Tim?
Erhart: In seeing the memo from Scott Harr , 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 101 and Pioneer
Trail route was I felt that it was somewhat dangerous because I drive that
route which will probably surprise everybody but that is probably the one II
reason why I would 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 we don 't allow them to take it here , then they're just go to II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - 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 felt that was real detrimental
' to everybody as a whole that drives that clay all the way through
Chanhassen on those winding roads . When 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 know 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
' to 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 my mind though is what does Eden Prairie , why 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 speaking 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 trying 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 15 , 1990 - 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 1 . If you can find , I guess what II
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 for you .
Krauss: - Well it 's covering a lot of things but I guess Dave , do you want
to 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 with a
reasonable number . i
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 II
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 I
damage .
Erhart : Well it doesn 't take long to spend $30,000 .00 . . . I have one othe
thing is that I don 't understand why this has to be allowed on Saturdays .
The reason I say that is I , you know this is a semi-residential ,
agricultural 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 my 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 all 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 noisil
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 to so it's really your call .
Erhart: Okay , well again just in summary . I think it 's okay . I think it ''
something that we don 't , the alternatives are worse 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 worse case
situation and restrict this to Monday thru Friday operation .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - 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 lot of controls yet I don 't see what
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 are proven that they
accept our guidance or our control , it tells me that we need to over
' control and as other commissioners have said, and especially Jim , 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 there , 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? I
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 right 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 .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - Page 37
Conrad: We prefer to . really government out
e pr not o . We Bally try to keep Bove t of it as
much as we 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 we tell them to stop . They will do it immediately . They 'll II
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 real legality situation from a standpoint . It was represented . You
people issued a permit as far as I 'm concerned that we tried to live with
and it has cost us some money as a result to shuffle to other sites . This
site would have been hauled out and been all done already and ready for
development if we wouldn 't have had these problems . I guess the thing is ,
Mr . Jeurissen is involved in the development of the property with the grow
and he is not going to let his property be downgraded to a point where it ''
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 do .
What 's Going to be done and as far as a bond , a bond will take care of thall
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 with
everybody rather than this situation and I feel this situation goes right II
back to 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 II
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 II
you 're saying is not in concert and it probably shows that you really
haven 't been in Chanhassen working with us as much as we 'd like to have you
work with us . '
Loren Hebbeger : I guess Don what I '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 with 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 .
11
1
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
will 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 .
Truck 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 .
Loren Hebbeger : I agree with your concerns .
Conrad: What 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 want 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 we 'd like to have had done in the past .
Our fault . Your fault . It just hasn 't worked so now you 've got to prove
to us .
Loren 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 : Well the thing is , it was represented to start out with
the original engineer . There was not litigation done on this thing . It
' was 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. All of a
sudden we get shut down because , we feel that we got slighted because of
the Moon Valley situation. Now we '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 . We 're not a mining permit as far as taking gravel out and
digging a hole .
' Emmings: This is a clay mine . You 're mining this property to take the clay
and sell 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 I
August 15, 1990 - Page 39
1
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
it . 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 how
you control any kind of pollution? Any kind of runoff into the creek . Wh'
develops those plans . Is it the applicant? Is it the staff? How do we
monitor? Who monitors?
Krauss: The erosion control plans have been developed by the applicant . II
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 want 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 place .
Krauss: I guess I 'd defer that to the engineers who have more experience
with that than 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 . I
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?
Hempel : We 've stated in letters. Certified letters to the applicant to II
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? '
1
Planning Commission Meeting
11 August 15 , 1990 - Page 40
' Hempel : Since probably the end of May. Since the project has stopped .
Krauss: I 'd also like 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 got 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 . . .contr. actor 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 1 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.
Wildermuth: How can we have it , I don't mean to be smart but how come we
haven't gone in 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 i'
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 I
project done as quickly as possible . That 's our intent . We 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 bu
what our interest is is to get this developed to an agricultural situation
back for Mr . Jeurissen who will be participating in the development . We
just want to get the job 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 of anything . As a
matter of fact , this permit was supposed to be issued within a short perio
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 II
no. longer there or no longer functioning?
Loren Hebbeger : I don 't feel that there's anything really serious about
the situation .
Emmings: You 've looked at them and they look okay to you?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - 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 of 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 swampy
area is basically what it amounts to . You can talk to Mr . Jeurissen . 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?
1 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
11 whole bunch of attention to this until we're convinced that the applicant
is running it within the scope of this permit . I think Steve you said that
nothing happens , Tim brought that up? Okay . I think that 's important .
1 Essential and you know that one thing I hear in Chanhasse more than any
other thing is the lack of enforcement . The lack 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 . That
seems like a waste of time to go out and monitor this with something that 's
i
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 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 away from other projects to tell you the truth . Yet II
on the other hand , where we monitor this thing , because I 'm concerned . I 'm
flat out concerned and until they prove to us that they can work acceptabli
well here in the City and geez , I don't think we '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 abou
this and maybe that 's just because I 'm not familiar with what it is . I
would hope that we could do it as quickly as possible . Just get it done I
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 . We 've moved a lot of II
material in different areas and basically if you 've got a letter of credit
or a bond , that basically ensures that all specs will be met and if they 'r
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 valuable to be on another site and if the thing is trashed ,
which I 'm sure Mr . Jeurissen is going to let his site be trashed because
he 's involved with the development . I agree with what you 're saying but a'
the same time , the bond or letter of credit will 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 we 're nice guys . '
Loren Hebbeger : I admit you 're concerned .
Conrad: . . .take care of it and we 've been burned on people clear cutting .'
We 've been 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 II environment . It 's whether it be the bluffs , the trees , the creeks , the
water . When you say that you 've been there since May and some of our
erosion control vehicles are down and not working , I 'd rather 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 sur
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. We'd rather not do that .
•
Loren Hebbeger : I can agree with your concerns and I can't argue with you
one bit . I
Emmings: I think an investment in monitoring this one is also justified by
the fact that as more proposals come in, we 're going to have a better base,
of knowledge on how to deal with them. So I think it 's important to just
to gain some knowledge and experience with these types of projects .
1 , .
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15, 1990 - Page 44
' Conrad: Anything else? Is there a motion?
Emmings: I 'm going 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 Jeurissen farm subject to the conditions in the staff report with the
following changes . You have an introductory statement there that violation
1 of these conditions would result in immediate suspension of operations .
Now is that , I 'm wondering if that shouldn 't be a condition as opposed to
being in a little preamble there .
Krauss: That would 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
Monday thru Saturday .
Wildermuth: Why take Saturday off though?
Emmings: That 's my motion .
Erhart: 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 . So 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 bill back our time at $30 .00 an hour and
' that 's in there but under subheading 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: Any 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
Emmings: 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 sheriff 's office . If the '
county sheriff has to go out there to check some things, I guess I don 't
feel that .
Wildermuth: I 'm concerned about the road and the safety aspect of it wit"
that intensive hauling .
Emmings: That 's the County 's job it seems to me . That 's , well of course I
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 I
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 we had anticipated being
able to reimburse their time as well .
Erhart : You 've thought that in your statement in item 1 included that? I
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 . 511
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
operating hours?
Emmings: I don't know. 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 . II
Saturdays is off time .
Wildermuth: 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: But 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
absolutely nothing on any piece of paper from this group that says it has II
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 P
et the projec
9
done because Mr . Jeurissen probably wants to get back into the farming
I
11 Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - Page 46
business or they want to develop it .
' Loren Hebbeger : He wants to get certified. That 's what we 're basically .
It 's holding him up right now . That 's one of the reasons we want to be on
the Saturday . Get the thing done and I think within a very short period of
time we can move the thing and get it done because the quantities will move
fast . We do need a Saturday . I just , 6 days a week in an orderly . As a
matter of fact Saturday 's a better situation because of the fact that
there 's not as much traffic and we can move the material . Chaska , we had
no problem with that .
Wildermuth: Let 's not restrict the applicant .
' Emmings : Make a motion to amend my motion .
Wildermuth: I 'll make a motion to amend the original 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 .
Wildermuth: Okay , we 've got a motion on the table .
Conrad: Any other discussion?
Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Interim Use Permit #90-2 to excavate material from the
Jeurissen Farm subject to the following conditions:
1 . 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 following:
' - maintenance of erosion control;
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 staff;
- removal of mud and debris from haul roads as frequently as required
by City and County staff;
- control of dust and other nuisances;
' - noise analysis and other testing if required;
- cover costs of site monitoring by City and County staffs .
2. Pay a Uniform Building Code grading permit fee of $787 .56. City and
County staff time and County Sheriff time to monitor and inspect the
Planning Commission Meeting I
August 15 , 1990 - Page 47
1
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 revise
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 erosio
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 II
ensure that homes can be built above the 969 ' 100 flood elevation in
the future .
6 . Obtain approval of the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District I
and maintain the operation in full compliance with their requirements .
7 . Excavation to be phased in accordance with approved plans . As-built II
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 following phase. Provide a revised
restoration plan indicating depth of top soil and ground cover for cit'
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,'
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - 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 laws , 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 who 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 10th. Thank you .
Krauss: Mr . Chairman , could I clarify that? Because there was a desire to
work this through as quickly as possible , we 've been asked by several
people on the City Council to have this on their next meeting which is
August 27th .
Conrad: Okay , thanks Paul .
•
1
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - Page 49
INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR A GRADING PROJECT TO FILL 100 ,000 CUBIC YARDS OF 1
MATERIAL TO SUPPORT AN EARTH DAM LOCATED AT 1000 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD,
DON HALLA.
This item was withdrawn by the applicant. ,
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW TO REPLAT 2 LOTS INTO ONE AND FOR A I
RETAIL MALL BUILDING OF 11 ,822 SQUARE FEET ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD AND
LOCATED ON LOT 2, BLOCK 1 , BLOOMBERG ADDITION. FRONTIER RETAIL CENTER.
BLOOMBERG COMPANIES . '
Public Present:
Name Address
Kevin P . McShane 180 South Shore Court
John D . Rice 505 No . Hwy . 169
Herb Bloomberg 7008 Dakota
Clayton Johnson Bloomberg Companies
Brad Johnson Lotus Realty
Fred Hoisington 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 I
time I was here .
Conrad: Well I was going to make the comment , it 's after 10:30 . It must I
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 on how the parking would work here .
We 're confident however that a plan can be developed that will in fact wort
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 11
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
have 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 reall
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 . Now , 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 Frontier 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 7:30 .
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
' Frontier 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 , I
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 whole thing will or does have the
potential to create a parking problem but I don 't think you 're risking
anything in the short term in that case . Regarding the report 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
1 " 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 all 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 we would expect it to
generate in the way 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 .
r
•
Planning Commission 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 itself 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 thall
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 parking 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 II
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 thi
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 o
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 Bloomberg Companies . I
I 've got a couple other gentlemen with me here tonight . I 've got John
Rice , our legal counsel and Herb Bloomberg our President and owner and I 'd
like to invite them to participate with me in this and maybe if you want tli
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 soli
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 i
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 II
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
11 August 15 , 1990 - Page 52
hardware vacates we 're going to have a more intense use there . I don't
agree with that . The hardware is a very intense use . I 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 . We 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 center 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 164 . You have 153 on Retail West 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 . We will have 5 ,000 square
feet of office which Retail West 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 . When
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 . We looked at these parking situations
long before we ever agreed to the demolition of our building . The other
' thing and some of the comments that were 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. I think it's going to be difficult
for us to come to some sort of a resolution tonight and I think that as
I 've been a part of these things in the past , 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 .
We 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 work 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 you
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
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - Page 53
obviously very anxious for us to get that ugly sprinkler pipe covered up
before wintertime and get this building in place so time is of the essence
but I think it 's going to be very difficult . So 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 II
this . Permanent cross access and parking easements .
Conrad: - Just a second Clayton .. '
Emmings: He should go to page 11 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. Alright . 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'
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 shalt
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 i
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 itli
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 occu
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 'll
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 the
instruct them to park in that area but we don't see any reason to construcll
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 11
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 la
1
Planning Commission Meeting
11 August 15 , 1990 - 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 . We 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 . Well , we
don 't want the building so bad we 're going to put Kent out of business . If
it 's a problem 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 . We 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
11 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 . Well 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 Marketing in there
and the warehouse function , that 's the current use today . I can 't rent it
' for 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 between 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 . We 're concerned
about it . There 's currently a sprinkler system that serves the bowling
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
r 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 .
t
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - Page 55
We think it 's unnecessary at this point in time. We would have the
property all under common ownership but we feel that there aren 't any othe
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 know 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 i
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 . What '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 I
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 . Signage 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 II
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 d'
you have an issue with that or do you want to leave it where it is?
Krauss: Well , 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'll
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!'
we 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 .
le
Conrad: How many parking stalls Clayton do you need for that- restaurant?
Clayton Johnson: We figured , Paul what's the City ordinance on a r
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 in 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
land though . I 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
occupying 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 .
1
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 CBD , the whole purpose o,
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
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 historell
here . - I depend on the City Manager for the history . I asked him to revi
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 wha
we 're saying . It 's really up to you to decide . I think it's clear that
this is not something 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 thi
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 II
know .
Emmings: Not really because I have to go home . '
Clayton Johnson: Well we would have liked to have worked this out startin
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 whicll
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 t'
how the delay occurred. But be that as it may, here's where it sits today
and do with it what you will .
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 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: Well , 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 Bloomberg Companies . I just want to respond to a couple of
things . The tear down of the building . There was two parts . There 's the
10 ,000 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 .
I. 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 and 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
I . been exactly the plan that's proposed here. A complimentary retail/arcade/
mall area that compliments and provides an access and transition to and
from the hotel . I want to speak just to matters of title . Mr . Johnson 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 . Bloomberg
doesn 't control the hotel partnership. I can assure you of that . I was
involved in that transaction . Bloomberg 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 legal rights to operate their business in
I
•
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15, 1990 - Page 59 1
space that they either lease or own. We don't control those mortagees . Wil
don 't control our own mortagees . We 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 .
Another thing . Even if there is a cross easement , despite the
recommendation 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 II
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 hall
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
very large piece . If you 're going to replat , what then has to be replatte
is Lot 2 , Block 1 , Bloomberg Addition with it 's related easements onto the
other property and all of , not just the 21 feet down into Lot 3 , I
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 ove
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
to 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 th
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
Planning Commission Meeting
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 to 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
misleading . 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 Johnson: Well we started on July 2nd and we have to have a format .
I 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. The public hearing was 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 sure 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 has 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 Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - Page 61 1
won 't . What you have before you is the way it sits and I 'm afraid , I wool
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 mean'
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 t
retail area in the Frontier Shopping Mall . I think it's completely
different . The types of stores . As I understand it the type of restauran
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 will
it the way it is temporarily . Get as many stalls as possible from whereve
we can . It is a problem .
Brad 3ohnson: Excuse me . I kind of represent the restaurant . '
Conrad: Why did 't you speak during the public hearing Brad?
Brad 3ohnson: Can I just point out something about parking and why the II
restaurant people are not concerned?
Conrad: I 'd really be interested because I think . . . '
Ahrens: Which restaurant is it by the way?
Brad 3ohnson: 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 here . 99% of the time this is pretty near
vacant . There 's certain peak times that 'this is used. Filly'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 saying and
what all of you have said, is somehow we 've got to get people to be able t
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
I •
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - Page 62
to here and a new stairway to go over to the hotel coming out this door .
1 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 lives 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 can be , when
that restaurant 's designed , there will be a door put right here . There
1 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 I 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 .
1 Ahrens: Well 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 .
1 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
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15, 1990 - Page 63
II
contested tonight . Clearly I mean the ordinance establishes parking
standards for the well being of the community . Now if we wanted to take all
laise affaire approach, then tell us to change the ordinance and throw out
those standards because right now 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
about 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 i
was concluded that there 's a whole lot of stalls inside the ring road . Th
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 answered . 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 I
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 our 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 alread1
done . We 've got all the curbs all poured. There isn't one inch of that
whole 78th Street that isn't developed today . We hope it 's blacktopped by
Friday . Okay . I don't think we have any problems . I just wish we would II
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 II
that piece of property . The feed mill property in self defense. We heldll
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 II today , we 've got a beautiful development .along that whole north side of
78th Street . John Rice and Clayton Johnson 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 II
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 II
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 all 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
II
! ,
Planning Commission Meeting
August 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 but 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 . . . We '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 Minnesota 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 mile 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 thin . 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 to 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
getting 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 :
Clayton 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 the
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 . g
Fred Hoisington: What if that owner isn't you anymore?
Clayton Johnson: We are the owners of that parcel . e
Fred Hoisington: Well I know you are now.
Clayton Johnson: That's why we 're willing to giveAt and we are able to e
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 . g
Ahrens: Have you asked the Dinner Theatre?
Clayton Johnson: The Dinner Theatre 's not an issue , it 's the hotel . Whye
is a lender in Washington D .C . going to agree to record a new easement?
Ahrens : I do that kind of stuff everyday . It's not a problem . Believe II
me . Mortagees don't put up a fight with that . I mean most of the time
people are perfectly willing to give those kinds of easements. It 's not a
big deal for mortagees to grant cross parking . e
Clayton Johnson: I wish you 'd had my experience on the bus depot then .
I 'll never sign another easement as long as I 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 II
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 . e
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
through the process to?
e
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 were then left with a building 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 little 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 with 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 Johnson: Okay make sure , we already have a restaurant in there yo'
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 responsibility 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 just
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 applican
and city staff are too far apart for the commission to make an intelligent
recommendation .
Conrad: Anything else? Annette? '
Elison: 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 no
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 goin
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 . IfIl
they 've already got it , whether it 's verbal or whatever now , then all we 'r
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 .
Elison: . .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 tel
somebody from the back how you can get to the restaurant from the rear?
i
Planning Commission Meeting
9
August 15 , 1990 - Page 68
Krauss: Well _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
Restaurant"? •
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 hotel , 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 wasn '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: Well 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. if I 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 in it. I think also a lot of
insensitivity to the point where I think ,some of the behavior is I think a
little unprofessional . Despite 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 we '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 how much
we 've been involved historically in the architectural 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
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - Page 69
bothered me about the whole thing is that the whole hotel came in with whall
we saw was a cedar shake roof and all of a sudden we 're not getting a ceda
shake roof . I thought that was a pretty important part of that project
when I looked at it . Well now they 're talking about a cedar shake roof anli
I 'll tell you what. I believe , we 're not going to see a cedar shake roof onli
this building . I 'm not looking for an answer but it seems like they 're
again a lot of , you wonder a lot . Cross easements , I can't make a judgmen
on that . You know you 've got to look at what's reality . You 've got to ge
Roger involved in it and go for it . It's certainly nice . There 's a great
concern about parking but we 've got to live with the existing situation. It
may not be possible to get those easements. It may not ever be possible till
assure 100% that we 're not going to end up with a parking problem . I thin
most , I think this is a project that 's got to be done . 40 automobiles for
parking in the rear for employees . Are you going to have employees that
are going to want to park in the rear who leave work at night or come into
work 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
lighting . Maybe a security camera or something and make employees use the
bowling alley lot and mount a camera and monitored by somebody in the hote
or something . There 's a security issue involved . The food establishment ,
I guess everyone 's agreeing to that one . Again , the rental equipment , I
really don 't know what to say on that one . I don't know if you can go ove'
and , as much as I agree entirely with Paul 's intent there , I think we ought
to forget those parking 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 sa'
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 trying to draw and again I
think we 've got to get this hotel and Dinner Theatre out of the one II provision where it says no food establishment shall be considered. The
driveway 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 going to II
make an emotional issue out of it , let's get the facts before we draw 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 to do? 11
Erhart: I think we ought to table it . There's a number of issues that
we 're not qualified to . We don't have the 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 guess
what 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 II
question. I don't know if any of us can answer that. Paul and John
obviously have different opinions . . . But let those things be worked out
between now and Council by staff and the proponents and see if they can't II
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 we'll lose the project but we 're
really pushing up against bad weather conditions to get it done .
I
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 half 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 went
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 when I don't have a clue
I have to go with staff report . Yet in some of these cases , I guess I 've
got to question some things . On the cross easements , I don 't know and to
be honest , when you don't know on a technical issue , you almost have to go
along with staff but I 'm not comfortable yet on the cross easement issue .
The only thing I want to do is assure that we have parking in the front for
the restaurant that 's connected with the Frontier Center . That 's what I
want . I think that 's easy . Paul wants some more things and those are the
things that I don 't understand so I think what 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 other things but those are the things that
if we felt it was 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 from 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 to 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 Filly '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
know , 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 I 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 we need some review on so again, I guess I don't
want to see us 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 with 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 between the north and south
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - Page 71 1
parking lots . Those issues seem to be debateable 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 get 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 bu
they can get to City Council and they can deal with some of these . I don '
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 II 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 Johnson: 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 I
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 .
Elison: 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 I don 't like it . The cross easements , we will give you crosil
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 knowll
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.
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, II
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 .'
I 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
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - Page 72
I
hotel and the Dinner Theatre . I think you 'd have to confine that to the
' Bloomberg parcel . Truck parking 's not a problem . The driveway is going to
be resolved . It 's going to either be , I mean we had it all paved before
and it got tore up . Either us or them do it. Adequate turn radii , I
would like to see that . Is that a condition Paul?
Krauss: 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 was a concern raised by the Fire Marshall .
Conrad: Where 's that?
' Elison: Number 3 .
Clayton Johnson: Number 3 . They 're just pouring the curbs now on it .
. Herb Bloomberg: They 're done .
Clayton Johnson: They 're done and I mean I don 't like to think that we 're
going to have to go back and tear them out . If they didn 't look at them
before , I don't know . 4 is done . 5 is done . 6, I told in our submission ,
Paul in his report speaks . . .in our submission on the signage , we just plan
' on moving the pylon to the middle and put two entrance signs . If you want
more detail , that 's something we may have to come back with .
IElison: For the Council 's approval?
Krauss: Yeah , I would prefer that . Otherwise the sign plan 's not going to
come back to you .
Clayton Johnson: We 'll come back with signing on the whole Frontier
Center .
' Krauss: Sharmin has indicated that monument signs are not permitted in the
CBD district.
Clayton Johnson: They 're already there . We already have them. We 're just
talking about moving them .
Krauss: No, monument signs Clayton . Not the pylon.
Clayton Johnson: The pylon we have .
IKrauss: Right . I acknowledge that but new monument signs. Monument signs
are not permitted .
Clayton Johnson: Entrance , monuments? We 've got that right now.
Ellson: Okay , can we move on?
tConrad: Yeah.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - Page 73
Wildermuth: What about number 8? • I
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 will 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 . I
Erhart: A lot of people think that but everybody does it . You 're talking
about a variance 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 line
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 all . I II
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 II
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 II
of the conditions .
Elison: Or you could say review and clarify before you get there or
something .
Conrad: So somebody could make the motion that , do you know? I
Erhart: I 'll give it a try .
Conrad: Let me give you an alternative that might help. We could make a I
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 . I
Erhart: I 'm pretty much doing that .
Elison: 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 II
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.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
9
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 under their control
' right now , Paul doesn't want to , Paul would like to have a bigger plan
drawn up so he 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 8loomberg's property.
Herb Bloomberg: It 's still retail .
Clayton Johnson: It 's still retail though. As long as we come back with
new retail , the only time we have a problem is if we come back with a
restaurant .
11 . 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
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 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
metes and bounds method for approving. Otherwise I 'm going to leave in t
title of chain . Again , we aren 't making a decision here . This is a
recommendation. i
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 . I
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 II
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 II
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 you 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
line of brick underneath the windows that ended at one of the doors and
it 's just like that 's part of the building and it just didn't finish it an,
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, deletil
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 a
is . The paragraph starting with no new. additions or modifications should II
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 a
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - Page 76
is with the additional , if an acceptable means 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
1 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 I was going of
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 .
1 Ahrens: I 'll second it .
Conrad: Any discussion?
Erhart moved, Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Site Plan Review #90-7 and Preliminary Plat #90-14 subject to
the following conditions:
1 . Revise architectural plans to carry face brick below the window line to
the west end of the building. Demonstrate to staff that adequate trash
M . storage facilities are being provided in an acceptable location.
Exterior trash storage facilities shall be screened by a masonry wail
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 I
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. ,
d. Deleted .
e . The owner will ensure that no snow will be stored in the parking II
lot . As necessary , snow shall be removed from the effected area .
f . No new additions or modifications to buildings or uses of any of t
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 p .m/
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 aril
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 Building Official .
6. Provide a revised sign plan for Planning Commission approval .
7 . Provide details of any proposed exterior lighting for staff approval . I
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 th
City staff and City Council determine that metes and bounds are
acceptable .
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ,
•
1
I .
Planning Commission Meeting
August 15 , 1990 - Page 78
' APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Wildermuth moved , Erhart seconded to approve the
Minutes 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 in the following week
' about September 26th as a special meetin for the comprehensive plan .
Conrad: Call 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 low?
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 was adjourned at 12:05 a.m. .
Submitted by Paul Krauss
' Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
I
1
I
1