1987 09 09
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 9, 1987
4Itchairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad, James
Wildermuth and David Headla
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart and Howard Noziska
STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City
Planner
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDIT I ONAL US E PERM I T TO I N STALL A 33 FOOT AMA TEUR RAD I 0 TOWER AND A 26
FOOT VERTICAL~TENNA-oN-PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE:FA]ULy-XND
LOCATED AT 7071 SHAWNE~LANE, ROY S. BAR~APPLICANT.
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Name
Address
Roy Barke
Phyllis Clayton
Diane Agnew
Bob Raesak
e Mary Raesak
Applicant, 7071 Shawnee Lane
7050 Shawnee Lane
7061 Shawnee Lane
6970 Shawnee Lane
6970 Shawnee Lane
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the Conditional Use Permit
application.
Conrad: Clarify one point, something that I missed. Under your analysis
in our report, that gave the impression we had three towers now.
Olsen: There are actually two towers and one antenna.
Conrad: In the staff report it says installation of the 26 foot antenna and
a 33 foot tower on which the antenna will be placed. So that's how we meet
the 45 foot height requirement?
Olsen: Yes. This is the antenna and there will be a tower with the antenna
on top of it so there's a long antenna and then there's another tower that's
going to be used to... There will be three structures on the site. Two
towers with antennaes on top of them and one antenna.
Conrad: Okay. Could you put back the location of where those are? Could
you circle where those are?
Olsen: This is the 26 foot vertical antenna. This is the existing 60 foot
tower and this is the 33 foot proposed tower with the antenna it could be at
a height of 41 feet.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 1987 - Page 2
-conrad: This is a public hearing.
Mr. Barke, do you have any comments
We'll open it up for public comments.
on the staff report?
Roy Barke: Just one thing I would like to clarify. The pictures are called
vertical, basically construction wise it starts out looking like a 1 in
4...then tapers to like a 1/2 inch. There are some strange looking devices
as you notice called coils on the side which... That tower is situated in
the backyard, I think the tip of it, is 1/2 feet above the roofline of my
house so if you are looking at it from the road or something like that, it
basically will be covered up. The other ones...just to give you a
description of it, it's a 33 foot tower. It comes in four sections. It's a
crank up. Essentially it can be lowered down to a level of about 4 inches
mainly for working on it or if I think there's really bad weather corning or
something like that, I can go out and take it down. It is sufficiently
sturdy that taking down in bad weather would not be something that I would
probably do frequently but it's something I could do. It weighs over 50
square feet. Antennaes now days they find something 1 1/2 feet of antenna.
The antenna is somewhat unique in the sense that it is a pair of antennaes.
The purpose of those two antennaes is that it has the capability to be
rotated in both a horizontal fashion and a vertical fashion. The desire is
the amateur community has a number of satellites that currently circle the
globe and to track those you really have to follow the satellite across the
sky and that's really the sole purpose of that one. I am proposing
attaching it to a PC which will do the tracking for me and I basically can
~concentrate on working the airwaves. Talking to the people versus turning
"'the antenna around trying to transmit the satellite. Outside that I guess
there's nothing. That is really a single purpose tower. The other antenna
one of the functions of that antenna will really allow you to use 4 or 5
bands. Amateurs radio bands, the FCC allows us to use and the reason for
putting up that one is,...there are things that you can work with the
computer with an amateur radio that really require your antenna to be
omnidirectional. The current existing tower I have up there at times works
fine but it's like listening to one end of the telephone conversation. It's
really very focused into the direction you go and consequently it's not been
very effective for me to utilize that antenna for the purposes of the tower.
Also, it will give me the capability to visit with my parents.
Conrad: What's it take to secure the antennaes? Do you have guide wires on
each antenna then?
Roy Barke: No. I don't like, there's nothing attached to the antenna. I
don't have any guide wires on either one of my towers. I don't like guide
wires. I think it's something that's more of a nuisance. It obstructs the
view and I just as soon keep the area as clean as possible. Most of my
towers are free standing towers and they are sufficiently, when you purchase
them, I purchase them with the idea that they are free standing.
Conrad: How big is the antenna on top of the one unit that's there?
Roy Barke: The large one? The large tower I currently have up?
e
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 1987 - Page 3
-conrad:
No, not that one.
Roy Barke: There are two antennaes up there. The reason for two antennaes.
One antenna is the antenna tha t you use to beam up to the sa tell i te and they
always send back on a different band so you're really sending on one and
receiving on one. ...one antenna is approximately 25 feet long and the
other one is 11 feet long and that's how she came up with a maximum of 41
feet high because the top of the tower and if I should rotate and point it
directly straight up, that's when I get the additional 7 feet.
Phyllis Clayton: One of my main concerns is interference with the radio and
TV and telephone which we have experienced with the present antenna a number
of times. We do have interference on the TV. We have had it on the phone
when the phone is on the hook. You can walk into your rooms and hear people
talking. Then you turn your TV on and you'll hear the people talking on the
TV and at that time the TV will get waves. That's one of my main concerns.
Conrad: How often does that happen?
Phyllis Clayton: The phone and radio not quite that often. We've had that
on a few occasions but the TV, we get the interference on the TV quite
often.
Conrad: And quite often is how much?
~PhYlliS Clayton: Quite often is probably at least a couple times a week.
Headla: Have you ever talked to Roy about that?
Phyllis Clayton: The one time that it was coming through the telephone and
the radio and the TV all at the same time, yes, we did go over to his house.
My husband went to his house and asked him if he had the set on which, now
correct me, he had it up at the highest frequency it could go or something
and that he was doing an experiment of some kind.
Headla: Did you advise them that they could talk to the FCC?
ROy Barke: No, I did not advise them of that. I do remember the time
because it turned out that I had been home for Thanksgiving...and I was
anxious to get back on the amateur radio and I was running at the maximum
power at that time. One thing, in retrospect since then, I had what is
called...which is legal but rather than get into that type of situation, I
decided I won't use that...rather than give it away I gave it to my father
because he lives on a farm. That unit puts out 2,000 watts. She was right,
I do remember the situation and I guess my action at that time I stopped
using the power. I just gave them away.
Headla: Do you think you were operating illegally? Do you think you were
within FCC standards?
e
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 1987 - Page 4
e
Roy Barke: Yes I do. That gets into a very gray area. It's hard...with
FCC and interference. It's really a gray area. There are a lot of things.
You get into manufacturers of equipment and it's all state-of-the-art but it
depends upon the...and that type of thing so at that time I was within
constraints of FCC regulations of operating. It just turned out that there
were some other constraints that I couldn't control.
Phyllis Clayton: Excuse me. Did you say you were operating at 2,000 watts?
Roy Barke: Yes.
Phyllis Clayton: According to the FCC reguluations, 1,500 is maximum.
Roy Barke: That is the current. If you look back at the specification, it
was changed a few years ago. Back in 1978 it was 2,000 watts a piece.
Phyllis Clayton: Secondly, the concern is, that would be my main concern.
The second concern is, even though it has trees and foliage, it still can be
seen and it is unsightly and I feel that that would lower the property
value. Not only my own but for surrounding homes.
Diane Agnew: I agree about property value. Our house currently is for sale
and... My main concern is with the visual impact. We do not have any
vegetation from our property.
e Conrad: Which side do you Ii ve on?
Diane Agnew: On the north.
Bob Rezac: We can see the tower right...and I think our neighbor besides us
has about the same view. We don't get that good of TV reception. I'm
wondering if that's interference...
Conrad: How much interference are you experiencing right now?
Bob Rezac: We don't know what good reception is... This is the second TV
and neither one of them have had real great reception.
Conrad: That's probably not interference.
Diane Agnew: It must be interference because we've had the same problem with
our radios...
Conrad: Well, you're going to see a difference between when he's operating
and when he's not.
Phyllis Clayton: We have good reception on our TV. I don't know why except
for when, you can tell that there's somebody on the air because of the
lines.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 1987 - Page 5
e ROy Barke: What times do you see this happening? The reason I ask that
right now I'm on a very limited schedule of when I do and I've got it down
to the point where I know exactly.
Phyllis Clayton:
It usually happens late at night.
Roy Barke: Let me put it this way, right now I'm not really active for
various reasons. My work is keeping me busy. I'm only on the radio between
about 8:30 to 9:00 at night. That's the only time of day that I'm on. I'd
say this last entire year, except for maybe a couple days around Christmas,
that is the only time that I am on the air. I would be interested to find
out if that is potentially mine...
Mary Rezac: I'm against this that it will lower the property value and also
because of the interference with the TV, radio and telephone. You say that
you don't use it now very much but if this passes, that doesn't say that in
the future you're not going to.
Roy Barke: ...1 can tell about intereference because I have a TV in the
room. The antenna si tting right on top of the house wi thin 30 feet... I've
heard of getting interference on the TV and I know those things happen
but...sometimes I do tests. If I think I'm causing interference, I just put
on the TV through all the difference channels to see the ripple lines or
something like that across it...You see a lot of difference styles on these.
A Maybe 50 to 60 feet tall and probably two sets of guide wires that go out 26
.feet or 8 feet. I like it to look good but at the same time I don't like to
lose this hobby to the point where I do, the equipment I purchased...ln 1980
I lost two-thirds of my tower that I had to put back up.
Wildermuth moved, Emmings seconded to close public hearing. All voted in
favor and motion carried.
Emmings: We've been here before. We've looked at antennas before and our
hands are basically tied because the FCC has pre-empted us in this area and
we can't say no to him. I was wondering if there was any possible way to
combine the tower you've got up with the new tower that you're putting up?
Can the thing you're putting on the tower, can the antenna you're putting on
that tower go on the tower you've already got up?
Roy Barke: Not really.
Emmings: I think it's outrageous that someone can put up something that
bothers all of their neighbors and I know that it does in the sense that it
interferes with their, you've heard about it interfering with phones and
televisions and all that kind of stuff and I don't know why our hands should
be tied to prevent that kind of interference with our neighbors but what
we've been told when we've looked at this in the past, is the only remedy
you ha ve is to compl a into the FCC each and every time it happens and
apparently they take those complaints seriously when they go to renew his
license so that's your way to have input into that because we really can't
_ do it. I got a phone call from my brother who lives in New York and he was
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 1987 - Page 6
e complaining about a neighbor who had a tower and they're getting him on the
phone and the TV and itls driving them nuts so I know it's a real problem
but I don't think we can do anything about it. As far as the aesthetics of
the property value and that stuff goes I guess, 11m not really persuaded on
that. I think the tower hels got is far less attractive than either of the
ones hels putting up. It's both taller and wider and when I drove by it
sticks out like a sore thumb but he may not like the way you mow your lawn.
Thatls another thing we canlt do much about. So all and all, I hate these
because I hate not having a real choice and thatls the way I feel. Thatls
what I feel is going on. I don't even know why we really look at them. The
only thing is we do get to impose some conditions and I guess, I donlt know
if thatls really doing anything or not.
Siegel: Jo Ann, what recourse does the City have as far as changing the
Zoning Ordinance and what effect would that have? If somebody comes in and
wants one, are we supposed to go by the FCC requirement...
Olsen: All the FCC requires is that you allow them to have a tower.
Siegel: Is it a tower?
Olsen: It's not a number. We donlt have to allow them as many as they
want. The reason for that FCC regulation is for emergencies so if there are
people out there who want to have an amateur radio that will be used for
A emergency purposes, you have to be able to permit them to do that but we
.. wanted to amend the ordinance to say only one tower is permitted on a single
family lot. If we would have had that, it would have been strong and we
could have pointed that out as saying, 11m sorry you do not meet those
conditions and we couldnlt recommend approval. The FCC, that would not go
against as long as we allowed them to have some.
Siegel: So right now somebody could come in and ask for an unlimited number
of towers and it would be a similar situation.
Olsen: I don't know if they ask for 20 it would be a stronger case to say
that would be very detrimental to the surrounding properties but right now
it's real difficult.
Wildermuth: Have you ever been involved in a national diaster of any kind?
Roy Barke: No I havenlt.
Wildermuth: I imagine you would.
Roy Barke: I guess like anyone else I would. The only thing I need right
now is the battery and I can run it...
Wildermuth: There are some techniques that can be employed to prevent
interference with radio and television and telephone lines. Are you willing
to do that? Work with your neighbors?
e
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 1987 - Page 7
e Roy Barke: I have no problem wi th that. I've taken some precautions of my
own. Like triple grounding where you ground parallel substantially reduces
the chance for interference... I have no problem wi th that. If they think
about it, the amount of hassle that you guys go through. The amount of
hassle that I've been going through, a $3.00 filter is. The cost to solve
the problem is so inexpensive.
Phyllis Clayton: If it is so inexpensive is he willing to pay for us who
are having a problem?
wildermuth:
I don't know if that's a fair question.
Roy Barke: One thing I would like to direct to you Steve, the assumption
has been made here and I guess I take a little offense to that, is that
every bit of interference that we have out in Greenwood Shores is my fault.
I would like you to go out and see how many CB's are out there. You don't
require any permits to put up a CB. They are grandfathered in right now and
those, if you go back historically, those are the ones that are more of a
problem. I remember when I first moved into Chanhassen back in 1974, I
lived in the White Elephants you probably called them, I can't think of the
name of them right now. The apartment complex over there and I happened to
have a place right next door to the caretaker and the caretaker had a CB in
his car. I would literally and I understand your talking, I could pick up
his tone. I could recognize his voice through my TV and I could look out my
A window and see him sitting in his car. And I'm not saying that amateur
,., radios do not have the same kind of interference but I think you will find
like anything else, it's not always the dollar value of the item usually is
indicitive of the quality of the components that go into it. If you deal
with a $69.00 2 meter CB and most of my radios cost between $800.00 and
$1,000.00 and they're not expensive radios in the amateur radio community.
They're medium. They can go down to $400.00 and up to $5,000.00 but usually
you get better quality out of those. I guess one thing I'm saying is, if
the people are really having a problem, it would not bother me to provide
everyone a filter. I'll even show them how to put it on. I would like them
to put it on for two reasons. One, I won't be liable if I should tip it
over and break it but the second thing which is a little bit more important,
they will understand the philosophy and the technique of what we're looking
at. I spent about $60.00 on filters of my own just to tryout, to refine
the signal I put out. I guess in answer to your question but I guess the
one reference I would like to take is I would not like to see it go for
everyone because I know I'm not causing all the interference for all of
them. I'm just not on the air that much.
Wildermuth: There's a way to validate that and verify that but you bring up
a good point because garage door openers, cordless telephones, anything that
generates a radio frequency can potentially interfere with your television
or radio reception and it's not necessarily an amateur radio operator.
Phyllis Clayton: I have spoken with the FCC and they have told me these
things so it's not that we're saying yes, he's definitely the problem. That
there are other things up there.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 1987 - Page 8
e
Headla: I think Jim brings up a good point. I think we're really asking
them to do is go over to the house and let you know and see what kind of
problem they have. with your technical knowledge, you may be able to
pinpoint it real fast. Maybe it isn't the radio but I think it would
help them quite a bit. I think it's just good relations for the hams too
if you would go over and work with them. What do you think the square
feet is on your present antenna? So you're talking only 1/2 a square
foot total for the other two?
Roy Barke: It's about 1 1/2 square feet. Each one would be about three-
quarters of a square foot.
Headla: Would you have any problem if we limit you to 2 or 3 square feet?
More garbage up in the sky is going to be more objectionable and I think
limiting it, as long as...
Roy Barke: ...limiting it to 2 to 3 square feet, I guess what I'm proposing
is two antennas...
Headla: Go to the board and just sketch that antenna that is attached to
the other one. Just draw some lines. I'm not sure I really understand that
one.
e
Roy Barke: Basically, I want to put in perspective of the tower. The tower
is here. On the top of that tower and looking at it from this direction,
through this rotater there's going to be a 5 foot fiberglass pole I made
reference to. Now with the assumption that the antenna is pointing straight
up in the air, what it's going to be is on this side with the antenna like
this. Now across here will be a little elements about this long and the
elements are about a foot long. That one has more, it's really three
dimensional but there are 32 of them on here. The one over here is a little
wider. They are about 35 inches long but this one has fewer and this one
here I think has 16 or 18. I can't remember exactly. This antenna like
this would either go so it's horizontal or rotate around in different
directions.
Headla: Okay, thank you. I've got a couple questions for staff. I like
the recommendations you had before about dismantling 6 months after he loses
his conditional use permit. Why didn't you include that this time?
Olsen:
I didn't think to put it in.
Headla: I think that was just an excellent recommendation. Another one,
wha t happens if Roy dec ides to move? I would 1 i ke to see somethi ng in
there, if we approve it, I would like to see something, this whole thing is
void and can't go unless the new owner comes in for a conditional use
permit. How does that work right now? If Roy would move and another ham
moves in.
e
Olsen: It's a conditional use permit for that property. As long as it's
being used. If it was discontinued for over a year then they have to come
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 1987 - Page 9
e
continues to use that, he doesn't have to meet future permits.
Headla: Wouldn't it be in our interest to talk to the new owner and have
him corne in?
Olsen: I don't know that we would know whether a new owner moved in.
Conrad: We can't control it now so how can we control it in the future? I
think we should have staff review the ordinance after this, maybe staff will
be bringing back some comments.
Dacy: The Commission has to remember that a conditional use, once approved,
it runs with the land.
Headla: If it isn't operational for a year then they lose it?
Olsen: 6 months.
Headla: They would have to corne back then? with your crank-up tower,
apparently that's quite a job to do and normally you would leave that once
it's up?
Roy Barke: If the desire is to use it...I don't want to run out in the snow
and it takes about 15 minutes to crank it up.
e Conrad: I guess I don't have anything new to add. I'm concerned wi th three
towers on a single family. We all appreciate the value of ham operators and
allowing them to have their hobbies. I guess three towers in a residential
area, I think is more towers than we should allow but at the current time I
feel he has the right to do that. I think visually it's not good. I think
in terms of what the interference, I think that problem can be solved. I do
know that Roy will work and I have that confidence that he can work and
resolve it and the FCC can work and resolve it so I know that that issue can
be taken care of. My concern is the visual impact and in this particular
case I don't think we can do anything about it. I think we'll give
direction to staff to review it. I think visual impact is, as Steve said,
it's sort of in the eye of the beholder too. Telephone wires and poles are
probably worse than what ham operators put up so I don't know. In this
particular case I think we'll be recommending approval but I also think
we'll be reviewing the ordinance in the future to see what should be done in
terms of residential areas which I think this has an impact on. Is there a
motion?
Headla: Why didn't you want that dismantled? In case it isn't used in 6
months, they have to dismantle the tower? That seems like an attractive
nuisance that we approved with the first one.
Wildermuth: How are you going to prove that?
e Headla: They have qat to keep rec0rds.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 1987 - page 10
e Wildermuth: How are you going to monitor that? Well yes, he's got his log
but who's going to go and ask him for his log every 6 months.
Headla: That's intended to be dismantled after 6 months of termination of
use.
Wildermuth:
I guess I don't see the value of including that.
wildermuth moved, Siegel seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit #87-15 as shown on the site plan dated
September 2, 1987 for a 26 foot antenna and a 33 foot tower subject to the
following conditions:
1. The tower and antenna shall be locatd at least equal distance of
their height away from the property line and their height shall not
exceed 45 feet.
2. Each antenna and tower shall be grounded to protect against natural
lightning strikes in conformance with the National Electrical Code.
3. The antenna and tower shall be designed and installed in adherence
to the National Electrical Code.
4.
A building permit shall be required for the installation of the
antennas. Applications shall include the submission of a site plan
and structural components and the Building Official must approve
the building plans before installation.
e
5. No part of any antenna or tower nor any lines, cable, equipment or
wires or braces in connection with either shall at any time extend
across or over any part of the right-of-way, public street,
highway, sidewalk or property line.
6. Towers with antennas shall be designed to withstand a uniform wind
loading as prescribed in Section 23.08 of the Uniform Building
Code.
7. Antennas and metal towers shall be grounded for protection against
a direct strike by lightning and shall comply as to electrical
wiring and connections with all applicable local statutes,
regulations and standards.
8. Every tower affixed to the ground shall be protected to discourage
climbing of the tower by unauthorized persons.
Wildermuth, Siegel and Conrad voted in favor, Headla opposed and Emmings
abstained and the motion carried.
Headla: I think he ought to have dismantling after 6 months and I think
they should have limited the amount of antenna area that he has up there to
e 2 to 3 square feet. Right now it's open ended. The sky's the limit.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 1987 - Page 11
e
Emmings:
The record ought to show I abstained.
I didn't vote.
Conrad: Barbara, could you put on your work load to review the ordinance?
CONSIDER LAND USE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE TH 2 CORRIDOR, MARK KOEGLER.
Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on the Land Use Alternatives for the
TH 5 Corridor as Mark Koegler had to attend another meeting and was not
present at this point in the agenda. The item was presented prior to the
Public Hearing for the Zoning Ordinance Amendment as the two items are
related.
Headla: It just doesn't seem realistic that you're going to have houses
going right against TH 5. You look at TH 7 and you look at TH 5 going east,
they're all commercial and did they ever consider going back like a tenth of
a mile from either side of the highway before they made it residential? At
a tenth of a mile, let that be commercial.
Dacy: The City does have in it's current Comprehensive Plan with your
realignment of West 78th Street, there was a planned street extension along
the north side through the Lake Ann Park and out to TH 41 to act as a
frontage road per see We're not proposing single family development along
the corridor but high density and medium density. Yes, you raise a good
~ point. There should be adequate separation between TH 5 and the residential
~ development. Just from the noise standpoint. You remember from the Tomac
request for rezoning, when we met out at the site with the developer and the
neighbors, you could bearly yourselves talk because of the noise from that
intersection so yes, you raise a good point. That's why we're proposing
higher density residential. There will have to be support frontage roads
along TH 5 also because MnDot certainly and nor should the City allow direct
access.
Headla: Either way there would have to be frontage roads. If you have a
buffer of commercial you're going to get rid of that noise too and maybe
some safety aspect for homes.
Dacy: I think it just comes down to how much and where and how it best can
be assimilated by the transportation system that they have in place.
Chanhassen is getting to the size where we are getting inquiries from car
dealerships, those intensive highway uses that you see along TH 12 and so
on and you're older part of TH 7 in St. Louis Park and Minnetonka that the
City should begin thinking. This is the entrance into the community all the
way through. How do you want this corridor to look 20 years from now.
Concentrated in several areas and vary the land uses.
Conrad:
prairie?
What's going to happen east of Chanhassen between us and into Eden
How is TH 5 going to develop to our east?
Dacy: North of TH 5 into Eden prairie is within their urban service area.
e However, it's staged that they will have to make trunk extensions to serve
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 1987 - Page 12
4It that area. I think you can anticipate north of TH 5 developing in a single
family pattern. The area next to the Press, we've already been notified
that they are going to be subdividing that land within the next two years.
Conrad: Residential?
Dacy: Right. South of TH 5, there are pockets that are not, the MUSA line
jogs up in tha t area so there are pockets tha t are not with in the i r urban
service area. Most of the development is going to be occuring north of TH 5
in that one sector of Eden prairie.
Conrad: And therefore no commercial?
commercial.
It's not sounding like it's
Dacy: Not that I'm aware of but that's not to prevent a land use plan
amendment.
Conrad: Have we looked back, the new TH 212, what have we decided, what
have we directed Staff to do in terms of looking at TH 212 and zoning along
that? Have we asked you to look at that?
e
Dacy: Right. You've asked us to corne up with some alternatives for land
uses around there and that was in our work program for the update of the
Comprehensive Plan. I did develop some alternatives for the public hearings
that were held about TH 212. Strictly residential all the way around the
interchange and a pocket of commercial but I think the issue of whether or
not TH 212 is going to be built over rode the other land plan use issues but
yes, that will be corning back.
Conrad: So, this is sort of a conceptual starting point for us to be
thinking about, I'm looking for some practical things that maybe we should
be directing you on right now. I guess I heard you say one thing and that's
the Eckankar property. That's something we could be looking at if we felt
that that intersection, that area needs to be commercial. That's something
we can do.
Dacy: I don't know that we're asking that the Commission and Council start
an invitation to change Zoning. I think at this point we're just looking at
some general policy statements as far as when should development occur.
When does urban scale development, should that continue to occur along with
the provision of water and sewer service. That's been our current policy up
to now and that's basically in accordance with the Met Council's policies
also.
Conrad: That's the other one. How do you want to solicit comments on that
for us to pass along to City Councilor to get direction.
Dacy: Number one, as far as reaction to this particular proposal, how does
the Commission feel? Do you agree with the concept of concentrating
commercial developments along three major intersections? Is this too much
for you right now that we should just maybe wait and discuss this later
e
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 1987 - Page 13
4It during a Comp Plan update in total? Again, this was requested because of
the zoning Ordinance Amendment for a retail garden center and the Commission
was saying, well what is going to happen along TH 5 so that's why we brought
it up. I don't know if you need to take action on it.
Conrad: Steve, do you have any comments, and just philosophically. Saying
this is a 20 year long term direction, do you have anything?
Emmings: When you say, should we wait, should the development be delayed
until we're able to provide the services, what's the alternative? As a
practical matter, if Fleet Farm builds, just using that as an example, what
would they do? Provide their own septic system?
Dacy: Right. Number one, you would have to amend the ordinance to allow
retail use in the A-2 district. Number two, you would have to amend the
land use plan from agricultural to commercial then yes, they would have to
provide on-site systems and that's the larger growth management issue that
the City has to deal with. The City is 23 square miles big. If you're
going to be allowing urban scale development all the way through the city,
on individual septic systems, you really have to take a hard look at it as
to whether or not that's meeting your goals for management, protection for
fire and police, safety and so on. I know Met Council will have a problem
with it because it is contrary to their adopted policy that this is the
line. You've got to fill it up first and then we talk about expanding so
~ there are a lot of issues there that you're going to have to grapple with.
Emmings: That policy of having development stay within the area where
services are available, if you're talking about urban scale development, it
just makes a lot of common sense to me. I don't think we want developments,
I wouldn't want to see developments popping up here and there in the rural
area. It doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe if you've got a corner like
the corner of TH 41 and TH 7, I would hate to see that all be office and
industrial. There's no transition to the Arboretum. It seems like kind of
an aburpt transition but if there are intersections that are going to
develop, maybe those could be identified as places where we might be willing
to look at some commercial development before the services get there because
on the other hand, I'm sure that technically it's a simple thing to do to
supply your open services to that, to a particular corner and then have them
hook up when it gets there. That would be a condition. They would have to
hook up when it gets there.
Dacy: From staff's perspective we just have a lot of concerns about
locating and amending the zoning ordinance to allow retail uses that could
occur anywhere in the city. People that buy lots, we hear it all the time.
I bought my lot and it's zoned A-2 and now you're putting a commercial use
across the street from me. What's the purpose of zoning districts? What's
the purpose of the land use plan?
Emmings: Right and we're talking about overall policy and we're not talking
about some exception that might be made. We don't have to really think
4It about that. You're asking us to think about an overall policy and I think
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 1987 - Page 14
e
the policy ought to be that the services have to be there before we're going
to have that scale of development.
Siegel: I think we should be doing this. I think we're heading in the
right direction. I don't necessarily agree with the way the distribution
has been laid out. For instance, I don't think we should necessarily have
three commercial zones. I think two would be sufficient and really we're
talking about the extension of one and then I think TH 41 and TH 5 would be
a more applicable one than sticking another one at TH 5 and Galpin. I think
that should be zoned all either residential high density or residential
medium density. I also agree that, as we come up to the park on TH 5 that
area right over there should be also residential of some kind. Not
necessarily office/industrial at the corner of TH 41 right across the street
where there's residential but I agree that we've got to be looking at this
and I think that if we do change the zoning amendment to allow this kind of
development, that we be highly restrictive about it. I think we have to do
some changes. I thought when we looked at this a couple years ago, because
it was out of the sewered area, I sort of anticipated that these kinds of
things would be happening shortly in this huge area that was agricultural.
I thought we were wrong then in not doing something about an overall zoning
map for that corridor up through TH 41 but we didn't and of course now we
are seeing that economic demands are making the inroads happen and we have
to think about it. I think we should be considering not stopping the
development but doing as much as we can to regulate it.
~ Wildermuth: I think very strongly that urban scale development has to wait
until the services are available. I think if we allow extensive commercial
or industrial into an area that does not have it's urban services, that
would be looking at real septic and well problems. Creating well problems
for existing wells. Water quality problems for existing wells. I think
it's probably very appropriate to look at what the zoning might look like
to TH 41. I think it's a good idea to do that now.
Headla: I very much agree with what Jim has said. I have a hard time
believing residential high density right back up to the highway. I don't
think that's too realistic and I think something like that, Bob brought up a
good point about what about TH 212 going through there? It seems like now
would be the opportune time to at least think about how should we be looking
at that all along the highway. I really don't know. I think we can take a
look at it.
Conrad: Like Steve and Jim said, I do not believe in development until we
have the services. Period. Flat out. There's no doubt in my mind. As
much as I like Fleet Farm and I do like them. They are a terrific retail
and I would love to have them in this community, I wouldn't change my basic
philosophy of having urban services in the area before I allow a retail
establishment to come in. preferably I would like Chanhassen to develop
along TH 5. I think that makes a lot of sense. Collect all of our
commercial/industrial and keep it on TH 5. I'll be interested to see how we
merge TH 212 in there in that concept but at this time, TH 5 is it in my
It mind and I don't have a real problem with the globs here. I think they're
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 1987 - Page 15
e
close and as Bob said there's some massaging that has to be done. I would
like to see some creative thinking on TH 5 when we get to it. Classically
it can be the strip type stuff that we see in all the other communities and
I guess I would like to see if there's anything creative we can do along
tha t road way bu t I don't even kno w wha t tha t means. It just means we ha ve
an opportunity of several years to think about it and maybe there is
something that we can do that's creative along the highway. with that, why
don't we bounce back to the public hearing and talk about the zoning
ordinance amendment to amend Article 5, Section 4 allowing garden centers as
a conditional use in the rural residential district.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND ARTICLE V, SECTION 4(4) TO ALLOW GARDEN
CENTERS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, JAY
KRONICK.
Public Present:
Name
Tom Hamilton
Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on the zoning ordinance amendment.
e
Tom Hamilton: Let me change hats here and I'll represent Jay Kronick. I
wasn't asked to represent him and I don't officially represent him in any
official capacity but as a licensed realtor I have talked with Jay on
several occasions about the project that he is attempting to accomplish here
and you are reviewing this evening. The current Natural Green is going to
be moving to Chaska I believe. He needs more space so he, Dave Luse was the
owner of that property, was contacted by Jay Kronick and Jay who currently
lives in Baltimore, Maryland and owns a restaurant in Washington D.C. and
that's why he wasn't able to be here this evening. His background is in
forestry and agriculture. He would like to open a garden center. His wife
is from Minnesota and that's the whole background thing why he's looking in
Chanhassen. Somehow he came across Dave Luse and the two of them got
together and discussed Dave's leaving and Jay wanting to open a garden
center here so the two of them together, without anyone's interference
apparently reached some kind of an agreement on purchasing the property.
It's all contingent on the Metropolitan Waste Commission paying off Luse for
the right-of-way I guess for the easement across his property for the Lake
Ann Interceptor. So Jay would like very much to have a garden center in
Chanhassen and he felt that would be a great opportunity for him to purchase
that property. It would be about 5 acres is about what he needs. He would
grow his material on the property and he would also live on the property.
There is the old home there that has been used as an office for several
years and he would like to convert that to a home and have his family live
there. He does however have some alternatives. This isn't a do or die
e situation for him. He can live someplace else. If he can't have that as a
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 1987 - Page 16
e
retail center, he may still purchase it and do his growing there if that's
something that the Planning Commission and Council would approve and then
have his retail outlet someplace else in the community. He may also just
attempt to do his growing there or wherever he can find a place to do it and
live someplace else so he has several alternatives available to him. I just
wanted to present that to you and tell you why Jay couldn't be here this
evening. I think he would appreciate your consideration on those points.
Wildermuth moved, Siegel seconded to close public hearing. All voted in
favor and motion carried.
Headla: I wonder what the alternatives are if Natural Green moves. What's
really going to happen to that place? I don't know. What can go in there?
Wildermuth: Nothing can happen to it unless we change...
Dacy: The uses that are listed in the RR District, single family,
agricultural and the conditional uses potentially so basically that limits
it to residential or agricultural use unless we would have a request for a
conditional use permit.
Conrad: You've got to answer in your mind if you want retail in some form
in that area. So far we've kept retail, other than small scale sales, out
of that zone so I think that's your question. The zone is there. The use
.A as it is right now follows it can be used as a wholesale nursery or going
~ back to the primary zone. I think you've got to answer whether you want to
start modifying.
Headla: Personally I would like to see it go in but I'm having a hard time
putting retail in the area with what's going on.
Wildermuth: without the urban services, is that right? No urban services.
I guess I would be inclined to make an exception because of the fact that,
as you said Barbara, the intensity or the use intensity is not very great.
It's not going to make a very big demand on the septic system for example.
The fact that there isn't a sewer out there is not going to present a real
problem right?
Dacy: No and there could be very 1 i ttle demand as far as septic systems on
the sewer.
Wildermuth: High well water demand no doubt.
Dacy: The problem is we're referring to a specific use. He's proposing a
very small facility. Staff's concern is that unless you really identify in
10 conditions, the extent to limit how much a garden center could operate,
we're concerned that we could get a large intensity retail outfit in the
rural district area which could pose conflicts...
Wildermuth: Even if that development were a Frank's style operation, I
e don't see where that would be a problem would it?
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 1987 - Page 17
e Dacy: Staff's analysis is based on the proposed use in relation to the
district uses. If you feel that a Frank's nursery can co-exist with single
family development then that's fine. We're just having problems from the
standpoint that those are completely two different types of uses. Retail
versus single family development. Another potential with the zoning
ordinance amendment, you're sending out conflicting messages of what a RR
district should be. Does that answer your question?
Conrad: Just remember Jim when you get into retail sales, that's a
different animal than wholesale. You're talking about night time hours.
You're talking about weekend traffic. You're talking traffic issues.
You're also talking what's the difference in this retail versus that retail.
There's no difference between selling a potted plant and selling a skirt.
There's no difference.
Wildermuth: It's the way that I look at this. I would see that area
probably either as high density or a commercial piece anyway ultimately.
Here we go violating what we've just said. It would be a hard and fast rule
about urban services.
Conrad: I think if you can identify a scope, retail sales under $10,000.00.
Traffic under 4 cars a day or 100 cars a day, whatever it might be because
my problem is, there is no difference between that retail and another retail
so whatever you do here will sort of set us up for other retail in this
4It district which is okay if we want other retail in that district.
Siegel: It's too bad we haven't proceeded with the previous subject to the
point where we know what we're going to do along TH 5. I hesitate to see a
wig shop with 5 acre minimum lot size. Everything in perspective. We have
done other exceptions in other areas where we've made conditional use
permits available and I think we can make it restrictive enough. It's too
bad we can't get this downtown. If we could force them out of that location
and put them into one of those nice spots downtown that is still vacant. It
would probably be a better draw for him and a better draw for Chanhassen
downtown although that isn't that far away from downtown and I see that
there is a possibility that that is going to end up being commercial in a
short time. I don't have any problem with this garden center concept as
long as we put the appropriate conditions on it and I don't think I'm being
contradictory.
Conrad: Does that mean you don't mind retail in this district?
Siegel: That's what I said before when we talked about zoning and then the
possibility that we're going to have to look at doing that. As long as it's
planned properly and the appropriate requirements are put on the applicants,
I don't have any problem with it. For one thing I don't judge retail
establishments like you do that they're all one and the same. There's a
wide variety of retail establishments. If you call a car dealership a
retail establishment, it's not a barber shop. It's not the same. There are
categories of retail that I look at being different.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 1987 - Page 18
e
Conrad:
Garden center is one?
Siegel: I don't have a big problem with this from it's use or aesthetic,
being in this area and especially with what's happening all around that.
Emmings: I'm going to take the position here that we ought to keep retail
completely out of the RR. Again, we're the Planning Commission. We have no
obligation to be practical. We don't have to, we could ignore the fact that
there are 40 million trees growing out there right now and it looks like a
retail nursery. Just like last week and I think that's what we should do.
I think we should look at that piece of ground like, we should ignore the
present use of it because when you look at the present use of it, it's just
a tiny step. It seems so reasonable. I think I told the guy when he was
here that it seemed like such an easy, natural thing to do but I think
that's very dangerous for us at least. If the City Council wants to make an
exception here, maybe that's fine but I think if we don't stick to our guns
on the new zoning ordinance. There's a process called the tyranny of small
decisions where you make these natural, easy steps and one day you're over
here and by god the next day you're way the hell over here and you don't
know how you got there and I think we ought to hold the line. The retail,
when you read the RR, you look at the intent statement, it's single family
residential subdivisions intended for large lot development. That's the
intent of the RR. That certainly does not contemplate commercial uses and
when you read down the permitted uses, the accessory uses and the
~ conditional uses, none of them are commercial like this would be. We also
.. just got done talking about what the development on TH 5 is going to be and
said we shouldn't have urban scale development out there until we've got
those services and I think we ought to stay true to that principal too. I
don't think we ought to violate that because it is commercial and although
it's less intensive than a lot of other commercial or retail thinks might
be, you're going to have a hard time making that distinction I think to a
developer who comes in once we've opened the door. That's going to be a
very difficult distinction to draw. There are going to arguments on each
side are going to be of equal weight and we're going to lose ground that
way. If they can make an argument that's as good as the one we can make,
we're going to lose so I guess I'm really persuaded by what staff has come
up with here. The language and the intent under the RR doesn't allow this.
As a footnote though, we're talking about putting a frontage road all along
TH 5 down to TH 41 and if that was there, I would have no trouble with this
there at all but I think that's a long ways off and for now, as a growth
policy, I think we should not have commercial in the RR.
Conrad: I agree with Steve and I agree with Staff. I think my biggest
concern is opening up the door to retail in a residential area and I don't
know how to control it if we did do this one. I think philosophically I
agree with the intent of the agree as it is right now and I agree that
retail should have the urban services so unless there are other things,
questions.
Tom Hamilton: I'm not going to speak on Jay's behalf because I don't think
_ it's fair for me to be trying to speak for him when he hasn't even asked me
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 1987 - Page 19
- to but I think there are some things that I do know about the business that
having been in conversations with him and Brad Johnson was talking to him
about his business I want to share with you. Jay said that not only was he
going to have a plant store where his major business would be April, May,
June and then your lesser bus i ness dur i ng the rest of the summer when you're
doing some shurbery work in your yard and perhaps some other plantings. He
would probably also consider having Christmas trees for instance for a month
or whatever length of time that you sell Christmas trees for so there would
be those actually two periods of time when that would probably be a busy
area. It wouldn't be like a Frank's, at least his comment to myself was
he's not interested in crafts and he doesn't intend to get into that type of
thing so you've got a couple of periods where traffic would be heavy and a
good share of the year there would virtually be no traffic there. I think
in order to compare traffic flows you need to look at the traffic flows out
there now and even though that's a wholesale use, there's awfully heavy
traffic going in and out of that piece of property. Both trucks and
employees. There are a lot of employees there and there are a lot of trucks
bringing materials in and also taking materials out so you may not even see
an increase in traffic at that spot should it be retail. Bob made a good
comment that it would be nice to have him downtown and I know that Brad
Johnson, working with CHADDA, has been trying hard to convince Jay that he
should be downtown and that would be in Jay's best interest to be in
downtown. One of the things that I think all of us need to consider when a
new business comes to town is we want that business to be successful. We
... want that person to come to town, to have a business to last and the best
.., way for him to be successful in a lot of people's opinions, is to have his
business within the CBD so there are other choices to him and I think might
have hit on those and they are very valid points. I guess I'm kind of torn
on this because I feel both ways. I would like to see him the ability and I
think he could, to grow out there. Could he not do his growing there and
then not have the retail facility there at all but do his growing and
perhaps even live on the property? That's something he may be able to do.
Conrad: Yes. That's logical.
Tom Hamilton: I think for the success of his business he would be better
off if he were in the central business district and I think he probably
realizes that but his heart is really out there and he can see where he
could live and grow and work, walk out his backdoor and he could be dealing
with the customer. That looks pretty attractive.
Headla: He could grow all the stuff out there?
Conrad: He can use the land as it is currently.
Siegel: Barb, does the Lake Ann Interceptor go through his property?
Dacy: Yes.
Siegel: When you have an interceptor sewer line going right through your
e property.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 1987 - Page 20
e Dacy:
You can't use it.
Siegel:
You can't use it?
Dacy: Right and that's the basis of the Lake Ann agreement is Metro Waste
gave us permission to install an interceptor. However, Chanhassen can not
use that until the year 2000 or until the entire urban service areas are
developed.
Wildermuth: Why is that?
Dacy: The major issue was the growth control issue and Met Council felt if
they would allow hook-up into the Lake Ann Interceptor going outside of
their MUSA line would be contrary to the Metropolitan Development. And
really, to get the Lake Ann Interceptor was a major victory for the City and
Council. It's just a major accomplishment that we are able to have that.
Even though we can't hook up into it now, that is addressing some capacity
issues for not only Chanhassen but the entire sewer service area.
Emmings: I notice I had this marked and I forgot to mention it in my
comments but another thing that was of interest to me in the staff's report
was that they pointed out that Eden prairie and St. Louis Park, Brooklyn
Park and Minnetonka, garden centers are not permitted in the rural or
residential area. They are permitted only in the commercial districts. The
~ worse part about being so rigid about these classifications is we start
~ sounding like the Metropolitan Council.
Conrad: There are so many charming things about having what he wants to do.
There are some neat things that I would like to see but when you get back
into being practical and in terms of how you manage that type of development
and that's when things become a little bit tougher.
Emmings moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to
deny the request for the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Article V,
Section 4(4) to allow garden centers as a conditional use in the RR,
Rural Residential. All voted in favor except Siegel who opposed and motion
carried.
Siegel: I would just go with a garden center with the given restrictions
that it should be a permitted use in this area given the proximity of the
area and the surrounding useage of the area and the potential development in
that corridor.
Emmings: You said permitted use, did you mean that or conditional use?
Siegel: Well, the permitted uses in the area. For instance the industrial
on the other side of the highway.
Tom Hamilton: I guess it would be good too, Jay would probably appreciate
it if you would have some comments to make about encouraging him to even
4Itcome to town. If you would like to see him out there growing.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 1987 - Page 21
e Emmings: We need a garden center here very badly. We told him that when he
was here. Now a couple of us said we're always driving way into Minneapolis
for garden materials and stuff like that and we would love to have one here
so I think he knows that and if he doesn't, I'm saying so now. I think it
would be nice if he could have that as his growing range and have a shop in
town in the commercial downtown area. That would be great.
CONSIDER MODIFICATION TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PLAN AND TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN (DISTRICT NO. ~ ---- --- ---
Barbara Dacy presented the staff report on this item.
Conrad: I just had trouble following what we're talking about. Not in
terms of the concept but in terms of what land is now being added. I
couldn't track it.
Dacy: The land within the downtown area is in our redevelopment district.
The land that's in that little cut-out into Eden prairie and Hennepin
County, that's an Economic Development District. Both districts have tax
increment districts within them that the City is receiving property taxes
from those lands. At this point in time we can use those for public
improvement projects so now basically what we're going to do is overlap the
districts. Bring them together so that we can spend the money that's being
~ generated in economic development district in the downtown area. Because of
~ the amount of redevelopment and the amount commitments that we have in the
downtown area, in essence we're running out of funds so we can avoid a major
bond issue. Where the economic development district is very healthy with
the Press and CPT and development that is occuring and the development that
will occur now that Mr. Beddor has subdivided all his land at the Press so
we can use those monies for projects.
Emmings: My brain died when I tried to read this. It was paralyzing to me
but it sounds like a good idea the way Barbara explains it so I'm certainly
all for it. We don't want to give our money to Hennepin County or anybody
else. Might as well spend it here so that's the bottom line I guess.
Siegel: I guess I'm not really clear of why the Planning Commission is
being asked to adopt a resolution. There must have been some reason for us
to do this.
Dacy: State Statute requires that the local Planning Commission and
planning agency review any redevelopment plans for consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan and other documents. To be honest, a resolution adopted
by the Commission was a new item brought to be my attention. However, it is
one of those things that should be done.
Siegel: I'm just wondering why we're acting on this after the City Council
has already acted.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 1987 - Page 22
-
Dacy: The action that the City Council took was merely in concept to agree
with the proposal. Now the City Council will be holding a public hearing on
the expansion of the district's boundaries. The item was brought to the
Council and HRA's attention to see if they would agree to it in principal.
Siegel: Do you know any of the particulars that brought up the shortage of
funds in the other district?
Don Ashworth: It's not really a shortage of funds, it's a matter, we
recognize that the other district will die in 1989. Those monies must be
reverted back over to Hennepin County and the Eden prairie School District.
At the same time that's occurring, we're attempting to keep on schedule with
redevelopment efforts of the downtown area. One of the real tough ones for
us has been that Hanus, Bernie Hanson, Modeen, Hendrickson properties. Five
or six buildings that are concentrated on properties. They have an economic
value to the current property owner as rentable property but they continue
to be a problem and an eyesore for our city. To insure that we pay them a
reasonable value for the property they have and at the same time trying to
encourage new development to come in, the new development simply will not
generate enough increment to take out those...so we're fusing the two
processes and saying if we can expand the economic development district,
which is this dotted line here, we'll literally expand it to reach out and
grab this downtown area. Then the expenditure of monies that currently sit
over here, is a valid expense as long as you can include that in the plan so
~ that's again a reason for modifying. I would refer to it as a shortage of
~ dollars. It's simply a matter again of being able to accomplish our number
one goal.
Siegel: Was it fully explained in here how we're going from Hennepin County
to Carver County with funding outside of an economic development district
that was already established and the relationship between the counties?
Don Ashworth: We've had a number of opinions on how we might be able to do
this and it seemed like we continued to hit a dead end until this latest idea
occurred. There are many districts that sit on the boundary lines
potentially between two school districts, two counties such economics can
occur. There's nothing wrong with it being in two different counties
because during the period of time that it exists, it receives the full
amount of money from that area. You might say right now we're sheltering
that money as it might have gone to Hennepin County or Eden prairie School
District.
Siegel: How can Chanhassen lay claim to a total outstanding amount that
would accumulate and go back to Hennepin County in 1989 when there are two
other governmental bodies involved?
Don Ashworth: If you generated the monies then you can expend those monies
for valid expenditures within the district so by amending the plan to
include those parcels, they become valid expenditures. It's only if you do
not make this expansion and the district comes to an end in 1989 and you're
holding that $800,000.00 or $900,000.00. At that point, you must remit it
e
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 1987 - Page 23
~back to Hennepin County. Hennepin County will take 40% in Metro Pool and
remaining amounts will be split between County, City and School of the
districts.
Siegel: But can the City of Chanhassen independently act without the
approval of Hennepin County and Eden prairie School District?
Don Ashworth: The counties are trying to get that changed. They would like
to have a veto power over the ability of cities to establish an economic or
tax increment district. Up until now the legislature has looked at it in
terms of if a city wants to establish like we did in this area here
recognizing there would be major improvements and we needed to get sewer
across the highway. Major intersection costs in this section in here. If
we desire to establish an area like this, encourage businesses to come in
through our initiative to again be a part of sewer and water and to see that
area develop, then the City should reasonably receive monies in it's efforts
to do this during that period of time that it's repaying it's bonds. So any
type of bond issues we have for this area will all cease prior to 1989 time
frame but the district has done so well that we not only will payoff any
outstanding bonds, we will also generate an additional $100.00.
Siegel: What other approval must be necessary for the City of Chanhassen?
Don Ashworth: City Council must go through that hearing process and they
~ must similarly adopt this modified plan, it has to be then certified with
~ the two counties and the state. The school districts and counties have
receivable plans.
Siegel: Is that money going to be restricted to a certain usage within the
redevelopment area like the realignment of TH l0l?
Don Ashworth: It can only be used for the purposes outlined in the plan
itself. We must outline the amount of money that you're anticipating being
available. In this case we've outlined roughly One Million Dollars for
acquisi tion of parcels. In this area we've identified the specific parcels.
We've also left ourself an opening there that if we still have monies and
we're put in a potential position to work with the State to get TH 101
realigned in this area, monies could also be used for that purpose.
Siegel: But you won't have enough. You're only talking about $90,000.00
and it's going to cost a million for the purchase of the property.
Don Ashworth: I think the plan document says 1.2 million. We put outside
limits, not knowing exactly what may be generated between 1989 and 1990 time
period. Right now we're looking to expenditures to acquire parcels in the
downtown area.
Siegel: Should a wrench be thrown into this wash, what's the possibility of
Chanhassen having to come up with a bond issue in order to complete the
downtown redevelopment?
e
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 1987 - Page 24
e Don Ash wor th: The Counc i 1 has taken the pos i t i on tha t they do no t wan t to
see any bonds sold because we have sold three issues already. Construction
of utilities in the business park, acquisition of Instant Webb and
improvements associated with Wellhouse. Anyway there have been three bond
issues. None of those have required any tax dollars. General guideline of
the Counc i 1 ha s been tha t if the HRA wishes to sell the bond issue tha t they
must come before the City Council, demonstrate that there will be no tax
liability as a part of this bond issue.
Emmings: will these all be general obligations bonds?
Don Ashworth: This is all money on hand. The three that I'm referring to,
one was a tax increment bond. The other two were 429 bonds of which tax
increment is responsible for the general obligation portion of that bond.
Siegel: I was informed that the HRA has not spent any money out of this
incremental funding. Is that true?
Don Ashworth: No, it's not true. Their budget is approximately a million
to a 1.2 million per year. Most of that is dedicated for bond and debt
repayment and it really goes to payoff the existing debt that they incur as
a part of the activities within the business park, downtown, Instant Webb,
incentive program where we would encourage businesses to come in as a part
of that right now special assessments. All oversizing costs associated with
~ sewer and water within this entire area and of course the downtown with the
~ public improvement project is supported approximately 50% by tax increment.
Siegel: But is the HRA funds, 1.2 million that is put into the HRA
district, is that being spent or is the city by it's authority picking the
tab up with that money geared to retain those bonds?
Don Ashworth: The 1.2 million is an annual amount and that is going into
each of these different bond issues. Your total financing is quite complex
because a number of programs they are operating under. Wedo have tax
increment plan. We have put together a financial forecast that shows
previously what we have spent and are currently spending.
Siegel: When you say we, are you talking about the HRA or the City?
Don Ashworth: Me.
Siegel: But you're representing both.
Don Ashworth: That's correct and it has been audited by a private audit
firm which verifies the figures that have been generated by city staff are
in fact correct. I have a copy of that report.
Siegel: But I mean dealing in semantics, is it true that the HRA has not
spent any money of it's increments?
e
Planning Commission Meeting
September 9, 1987 - Page 25
-
Don Ashworth: The expenditures to date roughly have been 5 to 6 million
dollars. That recognizes in early years there was little amount that was
received. It barely paid out the planning costs of $26,000.00. Now that
has grown to 1.2 million dollars. By the time the district ceases, you will
have approximately 35% new commercial/industrial development in the City
that did not exist prior to the start of that district.
Conrad: You would like us to adopt a resolution which is in the last 3 or 4
pages of our packet. Is that the resolution?
Dacy: Right. Whoever is to make the motion can use the second sentence in
the recommendation segment of the memorandum.
Resolution #87-1: Emmings moved; Wildermuth seconded that the Planning
Commission approve the Modified Development Program for Development
District No. 1 and Modified Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment
Financing District No~ 2 consistent with the plans for development of the
City of Chanhassen (Attachment #6): All voted in favor and motion carried:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved; Wildermuth seconded to approve the
Minutes o~the Planning Commission meeting dated August 26; 1987 as amended
by David Headla on page 13, James Wildermuth on page 16 and Ladd Conrad on
~ pages 10 and 11. All voted in favor except Siegel who abstained and motion
., carr ied.
OPEN DISCUSSION.
Barbara Dacy advised the Planning Commission of the upcoming training
sessions~ Steve Emmings asked if the meetings were ever put on video tapes:
Bob Siegel stated that the last time he signed up for a meeting they were
sold out so to sign up early.
Chairman Conrad asked staff to bring back the objectives set up by the
Planning Commission at the beginning of the year and update what objectives
have been done and what's left to be done.
Mayor Hamilton wanted to clarify that a few months ago he changed jobs and
is now selling real estate and there have been rumors around town that he
has a conflict of interest. He just wanted the Planning Commission to
understand that he is employed as a real estate agent and works with Brad
Johnson and Lotus Realty Services Company but is not connected in any way
with CHADDA and does not have a conflict of interest.
Emmings moved, Siegel seconded to adjourn the meeting~ All voted in favor
and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m..
e
Submitted by Barbara Dacy
City Planner
Prepared by Nann Opheim
e
e,
e
CITY OF CHANlIASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION
Date
Resolution No. 87-1
September 9, 1987
Motion By Emmings
WildeI:'muth
Seconded By
RESOLUTION FINDING THE
MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND
MODIFIED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT NO. 2 CONSISTENT
WITH THE PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF
THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN
WHEREAS, the Chanhassen City Council has authorized preparation of a
modified Development Program (Program) for Development District No. 1 and a
modified Tax Increment Financing Plan (Plan) for Tax Increment Financig
District No. 2 and the Program and Plan have been submitted to the Planning
Commission for comment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has made a thorough review of the
modified Program and Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the Planning Commission of the City of
Chanhassen, Minnesota as follows:
1. The modified Program for Development District No.1 and the modified Plan
for TIF District No. 2 are found to be consistent with the plan for
development of the City of Chanhassen as a whole.
2. The City Council of the City of Chanhassen is urged to hold the public
hearing required by law and to adopt the modified Program and Plan.
Passed this 9th day of September, 1987, by the Planning Commission of
the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota.
P/I)
. '/!
. I
'/I " /
~f-,"",jjr~, '
/Chairperson
!
c
RECEUVE[J
SEP 2 2 1987
0511RE04.E40
Ci 1 J ~'; '';1 tI'H ~. ",,\~~(...\\j