Loading...
4.5 Request for Rezoning to allow an Auto Dealership C 1 TY 0 F PC DATE: Sep. 3, 1997 4 CC DATE: Sep. 22, 1997 ,�� , IIANIIASSEN CASE #: 97 -1 PUD By: AI -Jaff STAFF REPORT • PROPOSAL: 1) General Concept and Preliminary PUD Development Plan Approval for Rezoning of Property from BN, Neighborhood Business to PUD, Planned Unit Development to allow an auto dealership 2) Site Plan Review for an 18,494 Square Foot Building LOCATION: South of Highway 5, north and west of Lake Drive East, and east of the American Legion Site APPLICANT: Argonaut Holdings, Inc. Mortenson Development Company 9th Floor "A" Building 700 Meadow Lane North 485 West Milwaukee Avenue P.O. Box 710 (55440) Detroit, Michigan 48202 Minneapolis, MN 55422 • 869 -3210 (Linda Fisher) 287 -5487 (Tom Lander) PRESENT ZONING: BN, Neighborhood Business District ACREAGE: 4.268 acres DENSITY: N/A ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - State Highway 5 and Pedestrian Bridge S - PUD -R, Residential and Lake Drive East E - PUD -R, Church and Lake Drive East W - BN, American Legion WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The highest elevation of 972 is located in the center of the site and slopes off in all directions. A pedestrian bridge is located along the northeast corner of the site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial , - A' 41i k [- . ........- . 06 .4 ,,,,,,, ►� l il i� •�'. 1'I ,,,�e "' File' u� e: Ski miw 4 . , 3 5 �� � ��I r: �� � , i Illj ` = 'r �Z ICJ � �� " �GfILIj „...,. , e "3i'1[ C„„.,„„,,z,:z.„.„....,.........,,,,,,, ...., II !11J 4 '* Y Av ron .% 21 n as ..� • ci ty Hakk .. 1111111 11111 1111111 ' ATT� , ��L E I �� ,`� �! IM! [Mt uuiur D 7,d x ., r i s, Ll uI .l,,;thY , 191 1 .„ --'''--- 44 wrIss— railIMK1 OPP- 4— . e Dr ,s. I , -�, : & 1r �..�! Estate; w (i1 '"111114141 021 ° ` .� . �p t o . ; 4t. 1 " Mini Par.. el- ism M ALI* auri State H 5 ` 1 ! = is N : r i ot 1 ' e p ° SUbJe a+ ��/� ` �, � U 1 q. i 4 c p'��e �� ' ► W A S rk ' plus \, 4.4 :, . 11 , . . 1 . • • Dip Rice Mar h • I� " r I L P rk Rice as swam Lakp Susan ', i ir - i 1, �` '�� arsh Lake k co Pa i !'�'� •, �. ;�1� +! cam` c c . + .® 0 II • � II � . .:.r. .. ass r hn .. . f i . . T h :. .., .a i .... _ Q - _. qr • ..n land R.d . Q = p OP p•.ED_. ,��/ a te . _ Vim: � _ lig 1 fi t � e (' . � — 649 \ !'':. -s i i _ __ -1 " Valley Sales of Chanhassen September 22, 1997 Page 2 PROPOSAL SUMMARY The applicant is requesting approval for General Concept and preliminary PUD Development Plan to rezone property from BN, Neighborhood Business to PUD, Planned Unit Development to allow an auto dealership and site plan review for an 18,494 square foot building. The dealership is proposed to be a General Motors auto dealership. The use includes a show room, customer reception area and lounge, an office, a 12 bay service area and a parts area. New and used, and personal use utility vehicles will be sold on the premises. There will be truck sales, but no medium or heavy trucks. The proposed Valley Sales of Chanhassen is an auto dealership with operation hours of 7:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. on Friday, and 9:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. The facility is proposed to be closed on Sundays. The site is located north of Lake Drive East and a residential neighborhood, east of the American Legion, south of Highway 5, and west of Family of Christ Lutheran Church and Lake Drive East. It is a triple frontage parcel with an area of 4.2 acres. The proposal consists of a site plan approval, general concept and preliminary development plan for rezoning from BN to PUD (the PUD ordinance states that if appropriate because of the limited scale of the proposal, the concept stage and preliminary plan stages may proceed simultaneously). The zoning of the subject property is BN, Neighborhood Business. The intent of this zoning district Section 20 -691 of the Chanhassen City Code "is to provide for limited low intensity neighborhood retail and service establishments to meet daily need of residents." It is the staffs opinion that an auto dealership does not meet the intent of this zoning classification. Staff had numerous lengthy meetings with the applicants and explained that the proposed use does not belong on the site they have chosen. The applicants have chosen this site because it is commercially zoned and they believe the auto use is compatible with the zoning district. The land use element of the comprehensive plan plays a key role in guiding the physical development of a community. It is an important tool in reviewing and acting on rezoning requests where consistency with the plan is required. The Commercial section of the comprehensive plan states Commercial development in Chanhassen can be categorized in one of four general types. Categories include non - sewered commercial, downtown commercial, neighborhood commercial and large scale user commercial. The plan addresses each of these types of development separately. Under the Neighborhood Commercial section, the plan states Neighborhood commercial developments exist in the northern section of Chanhassen and immediately south of the downtown area. Neighborhood commercial uses involve convenience grocery stores, day care facilities, etc. In the future, neighborhood commercial areas may expand commensurate with the development of new residential neighborhoods, particularly those that are removed from the downtown commercial core. Currently, the zoning classification of the site is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The uses permitted in the district complement and provide services to neighboring residential developments. The applicant is requesting to rezone the site to a PUD to Valley Sales of Chanhassen September 22, 1997 Page 3 allow for the Auto Dealership to be located on the subject site. An Auto Dealership has a regional draw and does not cater nor service neighborhoods only. There is a second site located to the west of the subject property (American Legion Site) that has the potential of being developed. The site has a BN zoning classification which is the same as the subject site. These two sites are envisioned to share a driveway off of Lake Drive East. Staff is of the opinion that the uses on these two properties should be compatible and serve the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The site is bordered to the north by Highway 5 right -of -way and Lake Drive East to the south and east. Staff visited the site to determine how the proposed use fit in with the residential developed properties located south of the site and to determine if the site was more suitable for neighborhood commercial uses. A daycare and a neighborhood shopping center are located southwest of the subject site. The site could easily accommodate a number of uses that will directly benefit surrounding properties that are permitted by the BN zoning classification and are consistent with the comprehensive plan. There is an existing pedestrian bridge across Highway 5, that is intended to connect the north and south portions of the City. With the future development of Villages on the Ponds (which is intended to encourage pedestrian movement), staff believes residents who live north of Highway 5, and want to walk or bike to Villages on the Ponds, will use the bridge. These individuals could also stop at other neighborhood oriented types of businesses that could potentially be located on the subject site before they reach the Villages on the Ponds. With these circumstances, staff believes that a different user would find this site to be appropriate for a neighborhood related commercial use. The applicant held two neighborhood meetings to brief the residents and answer questions they might have regarding the project. Staff did not attend either meeting. As mentioned earlier in the report, we have had numerous lengthy meetings with the applicant trying to develop these plans with the understanding that we did not support the zoning changes. Staff has been working with the applicant for a few months and the development plans have gone through some changes. The applicant worked hard to meet all the design concerns that the staff had. The building is attractive and is proposed to be constructed of high quality materials. Brick, stucco and glass are the main materials proposed to be used on the exterior of the building. The building is accented by arches, glass windows, pronounced entryways, and columns. The landscape plan is of a high quality and contains a variety of plantings. The PUD ordinance permits a maximum hard surface coverage of 70 %. The applicant is providing 72 %. A second issue deals with the required parking lot setback from Highway 5 and Lake Drive East. The ordinance requires a 50 parking lot setback from Highway 5. The applicant is providing 25 feet. The ordinance also requires a 35 foot setback from Lake Drive East. The applicant is providing 25 feet. There is no hardship warranting these deviations. Staff is recommending against them. The applicant has worked to develop a good - looking building and site plan. While the site design is well conceived, the use of the subject site is the problem. Based on staff's recommendation of denial of the Valley Sales of Chanhassen September 22, 1997 Page 4 rezoning, the site plan review becomes moot. Never the less, staff reviewed the site plan and gave a recommendation. A number of residents who live in the neighborhood to the south as well as residents of the City who live north of Highway 5, have either contacted staff or sent letters opposing the rezoning. They have continuously explained that they are not opposed to development of the site, if it is a neighborhood related type of business. Some indicated that they checked with the City to find out what the zoning of the property was and the type of development permitted in such districts. They purchased their homes based upon the information given to them by the City. Attached are letters, as well as a petition from City residents opposing the development of the site as a dealership. Staff finds the proposed PUD and site plan to be inconsistent with the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan and is recommending denial of the preliminary stage of the PUD plan, setback and hard surface coverage deviations, and site plan subject to findings which will be presented in the staff report. BACKGROUND The subject site was zoned PUD -2 in 1972. The intent of this district was to provide a district appropriate for high density residential uses and office buildings for administrative, financial and professional uses, particularly in transitional situations between business or industrial districts. Restaurants and theaters were the only commercial permitted uses. In 1986, the property was rezoned to BN and given the intent and district uses it has today. Last year the applicant had proposed an auto dealership on the McGlynn site. The item appeared before the Planning Commission under general discussion. The pros and cons of dealerships were introduced to the commission. Staff finds the proposed PUD and site plan to be inconsistent with the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan and is recommending denial of the preliminary stage of the PUD plan, setback and hard surface coverage deviations, and site plan subject to findings which will be presented in the staff report. REZONING Justification for Rezoning to PUD The applicant is requesting to rezone 4.2 acres from BN, Neighborhood Business to PUD, Planned Unit Development. The following review constitutes an evaluation of the PUD request. The review criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance. Valley Sales of Chanhassen September 22, 1997 Page 5 Section 20 -501. Intent Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria: Planned unit developments are to encourage the following: 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Finding. The majority of the site is being graded. The site is being lowered by approximately 9 feet. Berms are being created along the north portion of the site along Highway 5 since the site falls within the Highway 5 overlay district. There are no wetlands on the site. 2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. Finding. The site is not being subdivided nor assembled with another parcel The site is surrounded by a residential neighborhood to the south, a church to the southeast, and a day care to the west. The site will share an access with the adjoining Legion site. The pedestrian bridge is located along the northeast corner of the site. The site will be very attractive to a neighborhood related business or a pedestrian oriented user linking the Legion property, Villages on the Pond, and downtown via the pedestrian bridge. With these circumstances, staff did feel that this site would be appropriate for a neighborhood commercial use and that an auto dealership will not prove to be compatible with the surrounding property and uses. 3. High quality design and design compatibility with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. Finding. The applicant is proposing to use high quality materials. Staff worked closely with the applicant to improve the image of the entire building. The building architectural Valley Sales of Chanhassen September 22, 1997 Page 6 facade is attractive and the landscape is of high quality. The applicant has requested several deviations (signage, impervious surface, and parking setback). These deviations could be granted under the PUD standards. Staff does not feel these deviations are warranted. 4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. Finding. A neighborhood related type of development (meeting the daily needs of the residents) is more suitable on this site and would be considered a transitional development between the residential district and Highway 5. The auto dealership is a regional commercial use with a larger trade area and is not considered a neighborhood use. 5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding. The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for neighborhood commercial development. An auto dealership does not meet the convenience commercial definition of the comprehensive plan. 6. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail plan. Finding. A sidewalk is proposed along the southwest portion of the site to connect it with the existing sidewalk along Lake Drive East. We do not foresee the proposed auto dealership as a use that would encourage or add to the demand or the use of the sidewalk. Since a subdivision is not being requested, park and trail fees cannot be received in lieu of park and trail dedication. 7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Finding. Not applicable to this proposal. 8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Finding. Staff envisions this area of the city to be more pedestrian oriented. All the previous planning that has been done for this site encouraged a link to the portion of the city located north of Highway 5 with the area south of the highway without having to use a vehicle. The city is one of the few suburban communities that is able to have a pedestrian oriented CBD and future Villages on the Ponds subdivision with these characteristics. These two areas are connected by a pedestrian bridge and sidewalks. To encourage Valley Sales of Chanhassen September 22, 1997 Page 7 residents to use these amenities which the city has invested in, we must create types of uses that pedestrians feel they can walk to. The proposed dealership is located southwest the existing pedestrian bridge which links downtown with the future Villages on the Ponds. An auto dealership type user will not encourage the utilization of the sidewalks and the bridge. There will be more energy conserved if the user of the site was more inviting to a pedestrian such as a neighborhood related user. 9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Finding. Access to this site will be from Lake Drive East. There are two access points to the site, one of which will be shared with the Legion property. The applicant has prepared a traffic study that concludes that traffic generated by an auto dealership is less than other uses permitted in the district. Staff agrees with this statement. The PUD ordinance establishes a minimum district size but allows the city to waive this standard under several conditions. We find that the proposed request is consistent with the second half of condition #3 as follows and are recommending that the area requirement be waived. Section 20 -503. District size and location. (a) Each PUD shall have a minimum area of five (5) acres, unless the applicant can demonstrate the existence of one of the following: (1) Unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a PUD will conserve a physical or topographic feature of importance to the neighborhood or community. (2) The property is directly adjacent to or across a right- of-way from property which has been developed previously as a PUD or planned unit residential development and will be perceived as and will function as an extension of that previously approved development. (3) The property is located in a transitional area between different land use categories or on an intermediate or principal arterial as defined in the comprehensive plan. Summary of Rezoning to PUD Rezoning the property to PUD to allow an auto dealership on the subject site is incompatible with the surrounding area and the comprehensive plan. We recommend that the rezoning be denied. Valley Sales of Chanhassen September 22, 1997 Page 8 PRELIMINARY STAGE PUD PLAN APPROVAL Development Standards /Site Plan Review The applicant is proposing an 18,494 square foot building to be used for offices and garage for the operation of an auto dealership. The site is located north of Lake Drive East and a residential neighborhood, east of the American Legion, south of Highway 5, and west of Family of Christ Lutheran Church and Lake Drive East. It is a triple frontage parcel with an area of 4.2 acres. • Parking is proposed along the north, south and west portions of the site. Potential location for trucks delivering cars is located along the west and north of the proposed building. The parking lot will be screened from views from Highway 5, and an attempt has been made to provide landscaping along the south and east portions of the site to minimize visual impact from Lake Drive East. Building architecture meets the site plan ordinance requirements. The main materials used for the exterior facade is brick, stucco, and glass. The main entry way to the building is pronounced and the overall design is attractive. Staff spent several months working with the applicant in developing these plans (with the understanding that we are recommending denial of the use and rezoning of the property to allow an auto dealership on the subject site). The plans went through several changes and the building provides architectural interest with high quality design. Rooftop equipment will be screened from views by parapet walls. The applicant has not shown where the trash enclosure will be located. The trash enclosures should be shown on the site plan and must be screened. The hard surface coverage in a PUD may not exceed 70 %. The proposed plan shows a 72% hard surface coverage. The BN district allows a maximum coverage of 65 %. A second issue deals with the required parking lot setback from Highway 5 and Lake Drive East. The ordinance requires a 50 parking lot setback from Highway 5. The applicant is providing 25 feet. The ordinance also requires a 35 foot setback from Lake Drive East. The applicant is providing 25 feet. There is no hardship warranting these deviations. Staff is recommending against them. This development falls within the Highway Corridor Overlay and must comply with the district's design standards. The purpose of the overlay district is to promote high - quality architectural and site design through improved development standards with the corridor. The design standards should create a unified, harmonious and high quality visual environment. The building architectural design meets the intent of the overlay district with the following features: The building will be one story and the architectural style is unique to the Valley Sales of Chanhassen building but will fit in. The building will provide a variation in style through the use of columns, arches, glass wall curtains and a pitched roof. The building is utilizing exterior materials that are durable and of high quality. The parking lot deviations do not meet the Highway 5 Overlay District requirement. The ordinance specifically points out that no parking is permitted within the required setback from Highway 5. Valley Sales of Chanhassen September 22, 1997 Page 9 SIGNAGE The proposal includes one wall sign, one ground low profile and one pylon sign. The wall mounted sign is proposed on the west elevation of the building. It includes backlit individually mounted letters. It has an area of 50 square feet. The ordinance allows a maximum of 190 square feet. The pylon sign has an area of 49 square feet and is 16 feet high. It is proposed to be located along Highway 5. It is proposed to be located on the top of a berm that has an elevation of 968. Highway 5 has an elevation of 960. The base of the sign will be 8 feet above the highway elevation and the sign will appear to be 24 feet high. The BN District does not allow pylon signs. The ground low profile sign has an area of 64 square feet and is 5 feet high. The BN district allows a maximum area of 24 square feet. The signs have been design to complement the building and use common themes architecturally such as the arch, columns and the use of brick. We realize that the facility need to advertise its location, however, if this user had been a neighborhood related business, they would not require large highway oriented signage to attract clients since they will be catering to the immediate needs of neighborhood residents. Based upon the forgoing, we do not recommend approval of the pylon sign and the grounds low profile sign. SITE GRADING The site contains a large open grassy field with a large knoll. The knoll is proposed to be lowered by approximately nine feet. Overall, the site grading conforms with the surrounding parcels fairly well. It is anticipated that the site grading will generate excess material that will need to be exported from the site. If material is to be exported from the site, staff recommends that the applicant supply the City with a haul route for review and approval. The applicant and /or contractor should be aware that if the exported material is to be placed in another site within the City that the property owner will need to obtain an earthwork permit from the City. The streets during the hauling operation must be kept clean. It may be necessary to employ the use of a street sweeper. Earth berms and landscaping are proposed along Trunk Highway 5 and also some along Lake Drive East. DRAINAGE Valley Sales of Chanhassen September 22, 1997 Page 10 The site currently sheet drains in every direction. An existing storm sewer line is proposed to be extended to service this site. The existing storm sewer system has a limited capacity of I 1 cfs. This same storm sewer needs to be shared by the adjacent parcel to the west. The applicant is proposing an on -site storm sewer sediment /storage pond to facilitate drainage from this site. The drainage plan proposed storm sewer improvements to convey parking lot and roof runoff via storm sewer to the proposed on -site storm water pond. The storm sewer improvements need to be designed and located to facilitate runoff from future development in the parcel to the west. This may involve relocating and /or re sizing pipes to accommodate this. The storm sewer on this site will also be privately owned and maintained by the property owners. An easement or other document maintaining the use of the storm sewer for the parcel to the west needs to be drafted and recorded against the parcel. Since the storm sewer, watermain and sanitary sewer lines on the site will be private, the applicant and /or contractor will be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits form the City's Building Department. There is an existing catch basin manhole in the proposed westerly driveway entrance off Lake Drive East. If street grades permit a new catch basin should be extended to the northeast radius of the intersection to intercept runoff before it reaches the middle of the intersection. Since the storm sewer system will be private the storm water ponds will need routine maintenance. There should be stipulations in the site plan agreement that addresses the maintenance of the storm sewer pond since it directly affects the downstream public storm sewer system. The applicant needs to supply detailed storm sewer and ponding calculations for a 10 -year and 100 -year storm event to the City Engineer to review and approve prior to issuance of a building permit. UTILITIES Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to the site. There is an existing 8 -inch water line that runs parallel to the west lot line from Trunk Highway 5 down to Lake Drive East. In conjunction with the driveway construction at the westerly entrance to the site, the existing fire hydrant is proposed to be relocated. Staff recommends that a financial security be provided to the City in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of $1,500. The plans show extending the 8 -inch water line from Trunk Highway 5 to service the site. This will not be necessary since the existing water line along the west property line can easily be connected into. The plans should be revised to reflect actual utility hookup locations. The connection to the existing water system shall be a wet -tap system to avoid disruption and maintain water service. Sanitary sewer service is available from an existing manhole located north of Lake Drive East within the property across from Hidden Court. Valley Sales of Chanhassen September 22, 1997 Page 11 Landscaping is proposed within the City's utility easement along the west property line. The applicant will need to enter into an encroachment agreement with the City to permit landscaping within the City's easement. The encroachment agreement will spell out the responsibilities for replacement of landscaping should the City need to utilize the utility easement for repairs or maintenance of existing infrastructures. PARKING LOT CIRCULATION Two access drives are proposed along Lake Drive East. Both access points appear to have adequate sight line distance. The westerly entrance off of Lake Drive East is proposed to be shared with the parcel to the west. The driveway is centered upon the property line. A cross - access and maintenance agreement will need to be developed and recorded against the parcel to insure future access for the parcel to the west. In addition, the applicant will need to acquire an easement from the property to the west to build the entrance. Both accesses will involve the removal of the existing sidewalk and curb and gutter. To guarantee boulevard restoration (sod) and sidewalk and curb work, the applicant shall provide the City with a financial security in the amount of $5,000. Overall, the parking lot and drive aisles appear to function well from a traffic circulation standpoint. The drive aisle widths meet City Code. Construction traffic during the initial building stages should be limited to one access location, preferably the westerly driveway access where a rock construction entrance is proposed. Trip generation for the proposed development, according to Benshoof & Associates, appear to be less for an auto dealership than the permitted uses, i.e. neighborhood retail, restaurant, or convenience stores. Staff would concur with this assessment of the traffic trip generation. LANDSCAPING Proposed landscaping for the site is substantial in number and placement. Since much of the focus within the site is directed to the parking lot, the landscaped islands help to create a more inviting and attractive hardscape. Overstory trees are scheduled for the islands which will provide shade for the lot in the future. Perimeter plantings are a mix of ornamental, evergreen and overstory trees to meet a variety of conditions around the site. To the north is an NSP easement in which no tall trees are allowed. The southern and eastern sides border Lake Drive and a city sidewalk. Here a mix of evergreens, ornamental and overstory trees help to screen certain views of the dealership and provide shade and beauty. While more evergreens may seem to offer better screening of the site, staff feels any increase in evergreen plantings may compromise safety along the sidewalk. Valley Sales of Chanhassen September 22, 1997 Page 12 The 4 Norway maples scheduled to be planted should be changed to any other variety of maple due to the unreliable winter hardiness and disease susceptibility characteristics of the species. Site Plan Findings: In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; Findings: The applicant is proposing a use that is incompatible with the surrounding land uses. The comprehensive plan defines the site as a neighborhood commercial district that meets the daily needs of the residents. (2) Consistency with this division; Finding: The applicant is requesting deviations that staff believes are not warranted. (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing areas; Finding: The site is proposed to be graded to lower the building and create berms along the edges to provide screening of the facility and the parking lot. (4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the • development; Finding: The scale and use of the building is not compatible with adjacent uses. (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; Valley Sales of Chanhassen September 22, 1997 Page 13 b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. Finding: The primary use of the site is a parking lot which is not inviting for local pedestrian traffic. (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: The nature of automobile sales such as test driving, vehicle delivery, etc., makes it difficult to provide adequate protection for the adjacent residential uses. Staff recognizes that the applicant is attempting to address these issues, however, staff believes that some of these issues are out of their control. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On September 3, 1997, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended denial of this application. The Commission explained that they were fairly comfortable with the current zoning of the property. They needed to hear a compelling reason to change it. The zoning and comprehensive plan for the site has been studied thoroughly. It is intended to protect neighborhoods. If the zoning is changed, the residents of the neighborhood, as well as the City, need to be persuaded that this change will be in the best interest of the City. The only benefit was less traffic and noise generated by an auto dealership. Also, in order to rezone a property, the City must find that the current zoning is unfavorable and a change would provide a better zone. The area needs better neighborhood services that would foster a sense of community. The transition from Villages, to the neighborhood, to the pedestrian bridge would be broken up by an Valley Sales of Chanhassen September 22, 1997 Page 14 auto dealership. The type of use needs to be a neighborhood business. A place where people can meet, use services and be able to see their neighbors on a regular basis as opposed to an infrequent purchase and hopefully less frequent return to the repair center. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that there has not been a compelling reason presented by the applicant to change the zoning of the property, hence, the application was denied. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council denies rezoning 4.2 acres of BN, Neighborhood Business to PUD, the preliminary development plans, parking lot, hard surface coverage, and sign deviations as shown in plans dated received April 4, 1997, based upon the rezoning to PUD and site plan findings." ATTACHMENTS 1. Petition. 2. Memo from Dave Hempel Assistant City Engineer dated August 26, 1997. 3. Memo from Mark Littfin, Fire Marshall dated May 1, 1997. 4. Memo from Steve Kirchman, Building Official dated May 12, 1997. 5. Traffic Study prepared by Benshoof & Associates, Inc. 6. Noise Study prepared by Midwest Acoustics and Electronics, Inc. 7. Project Narrative. 8. Letters from Bernie Wagnild dated July 21, and August 19, 1997 announcing a neighborhood meeting. 9. Letter from Linda Fisher dated May 5, 1997. 10. Letter to Linda Fisher dated May 7, 1997. 11. Notice of Public Hearing. 12. Application. 13. Letter from Robert E. L. Lennie, dated August 8, 1997. 14. Letter from Cory S. Ploen, dated August 8, 1997. 15. Letter from Tony and Mary Pavlovich dated August 6, 1997. 16. E - mail dated August 22, 1997. 17. Letter from Douglas and Susan McCarthy dated August 28, 1997. 18 E - mail from Shari Lindsey, dated September 9, 1997. 19. Reduced copies of plans received April 4, 1997. 20. Planning Commission minutes dated September 3, 1997. 21. Plans dated received April 4, 1997. w r i cuutxiV ZLIILY_, CHANHASSEN RESIDENTS AGAINST .VALLEY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP DEVELOPMENT AS A CONCERNED CHANHASSEN RESIDENT AND AS EVIDENCED BY MY SIGNATURE BELOW, I STRONGLY DISAGREE AND DO NOT SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FOUR ACRE SITE SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AND NORTH AND WEST OF LAKE DRIVE EAST IN THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY VALLEY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP AS A PONTIAC -GMC RETAIL AUTO STORE, 4,_____;, . / 4. , 4 . . , _ A _ _q_ 40_ 2(Y, 7 NAME _ ADDRESS PHONE # A =iiii,VW gL Mme,- t . (7 n, i _ �.. , . :20.3 /r arsL tt ire. (1r1&7 : G,t/ d 4 315 14.1. A a_ s N Do_ Q (! - 8 8 e U - - .../ , Aro _lr vsv a37 -76- ___1_..1.4,Acaes-.. .. (4 0 / / Y(7.--.) C,,,,•.5 c Lejt'` void Aavf p ,_ `it c/ 0 7 .6 *4 4 . - h r i Al/ ,1 C •P . • .., ma - a s cc7 / la l r - 737-676/ �r ;. r . J Wf A" ! VV . I a _` es-‘' 4 -1- V(Q6 m r k 6) X7 �(qs7 ,.mac 11,4 o I , 7 r 8iio. too VI dJCJH> HUH') 9C X ,1 9Z; :60 L6 Si, 80 CHANHASSEN RESIDENTS AGAINST VALLEY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP DEVELOPMENT CONCERNED CHANHASSEN RESIDENT AND AS EVIDENCED BY MY SIGNATURE BELOW, RONGLY DISAGREE AND DO NOT SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FOUR ACRE SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AND NORTH AND WEST OF LAKE DRIVE EAST IN THE CITY OF NHASSEN BY VALLEY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP AS A PONTIAC -GMC RETAIL AUTO STORE, NAME ADDRESS PHONE # A ,, . ..' A , j Iii i ' . ' 8/5b iiki 0- . ---:?--„, V ? /.... � i, P, p.,2-/ / c 954/-a ',) vr . •le T/. . _'/ / \g /,a/ /, � t. ('/ aM I -Cy9 j / ,..._ Actiton 11/0(0:0,- 4()cy() K aeyyt c..4- q 3i- (?iia3'i .), , ;d4 ' o `i0 y` c-!- a 2 . ‘z 7,z,/ sfri. ,t, ' c' /-Yf (del ZetiA4 5rct? -88-71 i AIL. - `ItA o _1A a c� . 1. —.4 ( 1 q - C7 J i4BrIr..4 -.-- (3)/ tI;ot& LAf y0,,G- 00c7 a V laik at g-C 9 3+ z 75c d, A .. f 6.- & 3 le 6.- A-A-1.4 _ 937 - a1� 8' A4 1/ - _c 5 ✓33 L. c. 94(% -10/ :112_ f( �i q-> 4, _is / y c , or , lei . ,.„ 7J'? 5c12 / 7l 7 7- > 1 .Tliix.7i asriu - i ASA YY4 1(7:60 L 8 (7 80 CHANHASSEN RESIDENTS AGAINST .VALLEY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP DEVELOPMENT ■S A CONCERNED CHANHASSEN RESIDENT AND AS EVIDENCED BY MY SIGNATURE BELOW, STRONGLY DISAGREE AND DO NOT SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FOUR ACRE ATE SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AND NORTH AND WEST OF LAKE DRIVE EAST IN THE CITY OF :HANHASSEN BY VALLEY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP AS A PONTIAC -GMG RETAIL AUTO STORE. NAME ADDRESS PHONE # talk 1 .1 ; " 11 7.4. i .! }, yd 'Oo ( dta A.A L c sir.. T - A t-- �,\ / Li %37 V7(4' _.4 177 z;•- X:6 i - 'W.1 474/9-6 - 79y If � . , , A0 g0,:2/-Xl.e -K° ' 919 7 �9 ? gn ah ,, ... , . / g>v4 \I('D4 Gr.' s7-6 r G 4� =L - ` I / 0 l JI. C.i, - 937 S � , _ , A/ . �l; /''r� 906 - /a-3 7 - . C )' .\ %, '6 . ; _ C4 "lac - ( -e. 9 1 `) l iri Q_ ;() a, I/ 1.19 - 666 B . ql 97 1a, •� /e'n (T 97s_,_sw+ I, ► - gi , y A ' .,- q'7 5 5 94/T 6 1( - ) M 1: -IC, 1 U •I, ..,..... - l7, Nre)(/iV, (V -, -- `134i-- 74/.32,- 8u0/M) n dAO2I9 g11:1H:1 9CtLtiLC .171 6(7:60 L6•8i; -SO CHANHASSEN RESIDENTS AGAINST VALLEY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP DEVELOPMENT A CONCERNED CHANHASSEN RESIDENT AND AS EVIDENCED BY MY SIGNATURE BELOW, RONGLY DISAGREE AND 00 NOT SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FOUR ACRE SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AND NORTH AND WEST OF LAKE DRIVE EAST IN THE CITY OF .NHASSEN BY VALLEY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP AS A PONTIAC -GMC RETAIL AUTO STORE. NAME ADDRESS PHONE # ' 1 A(\k_4- "�• j CR \ b\ 10A0 410. A-cjj.n 1 l C r - 03 7 1 WI I� " LL, aoo - k4'l ,1r\ r S ,, 4 �. 1 970 x.41 .962, ,LIL - /t/ ,..i ea_ f/3y-27(, .' c . ./. _. yogi Nicie /N, Crr �� 937 - 576.3 • IATK - /l c . 3Zo i±'a i_ 934/_0L, _4 _ & i ' ,c'/,a' ¢yil i e/I-c L, 3 -)<Y7 6A 9 ; . , , Sri r P.:ILA Lis' 6. - 2— ERA -7, ;I ' l' ,-; /) 3 ,70 ,i/aN Zo 9 3' V - 65 d:.4 1 f, ilae --6 �3 5/ /ri e vi.C- s37 "rg ,F5z h'�gN Lora' . r . 1. ` _40 3isc 1-114 -APA \._ i r 97-5.1 J " 4 _ - F l/v/Arm:Anrl q;oGL � n or - 6rst7 ,Lcv6, voi ,.. ?b LFc., /;4_4(:i.,..._ 0 906- 9 y } C. `Flake, �d4d Ly_ n C, t . X10(- 9q inn, s ..,lrm glngq AAIAI ACTLCLC XV{ 6(7:60 2.6/(7/0 CHANHASSEN RESIDENTS AGAINST VALLEY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP DEVELOPMENT AS A CONCERNED CHANHASSEN RESIDENT AND AS EVIDENCED BY MY SIGNATURE BELOW, I STRONGLY DISAGREE AND DO NOT SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FOUR ACRE SITE SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AND NORTH AND WEST OF LAKE DRIVE EAST IN THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY VALLEY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP AS A PONTIAC -GMC RETAIL AUTO STORE. NAME ADDRESS PHONE # Al .. la 11 l 11 . ■ ic+I. S 140 bars/ brt .L' 961_I (® c 1 l. • . /: ,,,,,„ 7 R / _ 'I J /O s;.�lnI J ; u ,--,,_,70-7 L 33 6 sr -tb .. Ci7et_e_L■ C., 7 0 C - 4 /s /J LY� 7.11.4;L. -may U _4 r, ,,,,,v,_, ei.,, fe /;0'_?' 0 77; _-_ntr_g_K Ai!G'. 34/ I t d WIC cote Ll 931 - b� dr _ OW - 5 5 J 50 '6l C /(66c q3v 0/06, � � --L J , j i ' —',....0...-- 361 silo,, ,A__ 0J .'. 0 11 ?Q_ 3Ll s' __ 1_- __ 7-)_. .- - 4- - <- -li yip 1� <d% < c 1- s�/ g � � _ J / a p �21� �ve 9`19 -6l G G , -- ,,,,, t Cm 10 14:i.a cLIN.,._ C O S -- CC) - 6 8 0 0- Z00V1 d:iOH a 1 HD 9£T XYd 2Z :6') L6- SZ 80 CHANHASSEN RESIDENTS AGAINST - VALLEY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP DEVELOPMENT A CONCERNED CHANHASSEN RESIDENT AND AS EVIDENCED BY MY SIGNATURE BELOW, 'RONGLY DISAGREE AND DO NOT SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FOUR ACRE SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AND NORTH AND WEST OF LAKE DRIVE EAST IN THE CITY OF :NHASSEN BY VALLEY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP AS A PONTIAC -GMC RETAIL AUTO STORE. NAME ADDRESS PHONE # g A f a .• . ?oos g3Y r „r•nn Ffi il0H9 HH HI - LCLti TF3 92:60 L6 0 CHANHASSEN RESIDENTS AGAINST VALLEY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP DEVELOPMENT AS A CONCERNED CHANHASSEN RESIDENT AND AS EVIDENCED BY MY SIGNATURE BELOW, I STRONGLY DISAGREE AND DO NOT SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FOUR ACRE SITE SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AND NORTH AND WEST OF LAKE DRIVE EAST IN THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY VALLEY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP AS A PONTIAC -GMC RETAIL AUTO STORE. NAME ADDRESS PHONE # / , &A-4-E- &(.(0 th do - C !c& ec -• -5-- 7 — Y4df-i F-(a y _ 2 4 d �l / tte �0 - s - - -rcr -s (.1. t az / �mot w, �'1- \ Viek c9. A.- U20-, Q._ q 3 - y (V15 t ar Y\ . e 6\oYa...�k ' ril ark \ tilt 66 e ►� t. -('tiN2 (4 - L f a - 3)S U dS — ,4L5() 7 _ ,a �a 4 .. 1 AC. ' 1 / Q '\ 1 r - C IyQ • Cr,1 - dam � , Z. 93YD (27 -- r, 'kw Foo t4rAti ea; go _6241 .', - 0 � ; o ioi ,RAJ '0'1 -0 6 TL : �- - ee C.z.,; X 32 -. G(F' _....... .., _2_, ; _ _ .. _ ....... ___ Pa ril`., , .,,_._ Y5 y - 14 ' ..4,4_4 :rie c - _ 927 -eEb f E 9 .� g--2 n / , 'I ..War - � rc3 ) '< 11 800. 900Vi d10TT) U L1H.) 9GtL£LG XYd L7,:60 L6. 5 7, , 8Ii CITYOF ,::. ii ts CHANHASSEN ....,. � „ w 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer, / ( 4 . DATE: August 26, 1997 SUBJ: Site Plan Review for Valley Sales of Chanhassen Lot 1, Block 6, Hidden Valley - LUR File No. 97 -12 Upon review of the plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. dated April 4, 1997, I offer the following comments and recommendations: SITE GRADING The site contains a large open grassy field with a large knoll. The knoll is proposed to be lowered by approximately nine feet. Overall, the site grading conforms with the surrounding parcels fairly well. It is anticipated that the site grading will generate excess material that will need to be exported from the site. If material is to be exported from the site, staff recommends that the applicant supply the City with a haul route for review and approval. The applicant and /or contractor should be aware that if the exported material is to be placed in another site within the City that the property owner will need to obtain an earthwork permit from the City. The streets during the hauling operation must be kept clean. It may be necessary to employ the use of a street sweeper. Earth berms and landscaping are proposed along Trunk Highway 5 and also some along Lake Drive East. DRAINAGE The site currently sheet drains in every direction. An existing storm sewer line is proposed to be extended to service this site. The existing storm sewer system has a limited capacity of 11 cfs. This same storm sewer needs to be shared by the adjacent parcel to the west. The applicant is proposing an on -site storm sewer sediment/storage pond to facilitate drainage from this site. The drainage plan proposed storm sewer improvements to convey parking lot and roof runoff via storm sewer to the proposed on -site storm water pond. The storm sewer improvements need to be designed and located to facilitate runoff from future development in the parcel to the west. This may involve relocating and /or re sizing pipes to accommodate this. The storm sewer on this site will also be privately owned and maintained by the property owners. An easement or other Sharmin Al -Jaff Valley Sales SPR August 26, 1997 Page 2 document maintaining the use of the storm sewer for the parcel to the west needs to be drafted and recorded against the parcel. Since the storm sewer, watermain and sanitary sewer lines on the site will be private, the applicant and /or contractor will be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits form the City's Building Department. There is an existing catch basin manhole in the proposed westerly driveway entrance off Lake Drive East. If street grades permit a new catch basin should be extended to the northeast radius of the intersection to intercept runoff before it reaches the middle of the intersection. Since the storm sewer system will be private the storm water ponds will need routine maintenance. There should be stipulations in the site plan agreement that addresses the maintenance of the storm sewer pond since it directly affects the downstream public storm sewer system. The applicant needs to supply detailed storm sewer and ponding calculations for a 10 -year and 100 -year storm event to the City Engineer to review and approve prior to issuance of a building permit. UTILITIES Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to the site. There is an existing 8 -inch water line that runs parallel to the west lot line from Trunk Highway 5 down to Lake Drive East. In conjunction with the driveway construction at the westerly entrance to the site, the existing fire hydrant is proposed to be relocated. Staff recommends that a financial security be provided to the City in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of $1,500. The plans show extending the 8 -inch water line from Trunk Highway 5 to service the site. This will not be necessary since the existing water line along the west property line can easily be connected into. The plans should be revised to reflect actual utility hookup locations. The connection to the existing water system shall be a wet -tap system to avoid disruption and maintain water service. Sanitary sewer service is available from an existing manhole located north of Lake Drive East within the property across from Hidden Court. Landscaping is proposed within the City's utility easement along the west property line. The applicant will need to enter into an encroachment agreement with the City to permit landscaping within the City's easement. The encroachment agreement will spell out the responsibilities for replacement of landscaping should the City need to utilize the utility easement for repairs or maintenance of existing infrastructures. PARKING LOT CIRCULATION Two access drives are proposed along Lake Drive East. Both access points appear to have adequate sight line distance. The westerly entrance off of Lake Drive East is proposed to be shared with the parcel to the west. The driveway is centered upon the property line. A cross - access and maintenance agreement will need to be developed and recorded against the parcel to Sharmin Al -Jaff Valley Sales SPR August 26, 1997 Page 3 insure future access for the parcel to the west. In addition, the applicant will need to acquire an easement from the property to the west to build the entrance. Both accesses will involve the removal of the existing sidewalk and curb and gutter. To guarantee boulevard restoration (sod) and sidewalk and curb work, the applicant shall provide the City with a financial security in the amount of $5,000. Overall, the parking lot and drive aisles appear to function well from a traffic circulation standpoint. The drive aisle widths meet City code. Construction traffic during the initial building stages should be limited to one access location, preferably the westerly driveway access where a rock construction entrance is proposed. Trip generation for the proposed development according to Benshoof & Associates appear to be less for an auto dealership than the permitted uses, i.e. neighborhood retail, restaurant, or convenience stores. Staff would concur with this assessment of the traffic trip generation. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall provide the City with a financial security in the amount of $6,500.00 to guarantee hydrant relocation and boulevard restoration. The security shall be provided in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow. Bonds are not acceptable. 2. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City. A condition shall be placed in the site plan agreement addressing pond maintenance. 3. The site plans shall be amended to reflect the existing waterline along the west lot line and proposed connections. All connections shall be wet tapped. 4. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for placement of landscaping within the City's utility easement. 5. The applicant and /or contractor shall notify the City upon encountering any existing drain tile on the site. The City will determine whether or not the drain tile can be abandoned or relocated. 6. All construction vehicles shall access the site from the westerly entrance off Lake Drive East. Rock construction entrances shall be installed and maintained until the site is paved with a bituminous surface. Haul routes, if necessary, shall be pre - approved by the City. The applicant will be required to maintain haul routes and clean the streets of any dirt and mud accumulated from vehicles tracking. Any damage to City streets, curbs or other public facilities will be the responsibility of the applicant. Sharmin Al -Jaff Valley Sales SPR August 26, 1997 Page 4 7. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer and ponding calculations for 10 -year and 100 - year storm events for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to issuance of a building permit. The applicant shall provide detailed pre - developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100 -year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations for the proposed pond. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. 8. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 9. The existing catch basin /manhole on Lake Drive East falls within the proposed westerly driveway entrance. If street grades permit, a new catch basin should be extended to the northeast radius of the intersection of Lake Drive East and driveway entrance to intercept runoff before it reaches the intersection. 10. The westerly driveway entrance is proposed to be a shared driveway access with the parcel to the west. Cross- access and maintenance agreements will need to be developed and recorded against the parcels to guarantee ingress and egress to the properties. 11. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The City boulevard areas which are disturbed along Lake Drive East shall be restored with sod. ktm g:\eng\dave\pc \valley sales.doc CITYOF CHANHASSEN F - . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 vIEMORANDUM 1'O: Sharmin AI -Jaff, Planner 11 'ROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshall )ATE: May I, 1997 ;UBJECT: Request for rezoning 4.27 acres of property BN, neighborhood business, to PUD, planned unit development to allow an auto dealership and site plan review for an 18,494 square foot building located south of Highway 5, north of Lake Drive East and east of the Chanhassen Legion site, Valley Sales of Chanhassen, Argonaut Holdings, Inc. Planning Case 97 -1 PUD and 97 -5 Site Plan have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department /Fire 'revention Division, I have the following fire code or city ordinance /policy requirements. The site plan is based on the available information submitted at this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy tems will be addressed. 1. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV, and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9 -1. ). "No parking fire lane signs" and yellow curbing shall be provided. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of signage and painted curbing. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department /Fire Prevention Policy 06 -1991. (Copy enclosed). 3. The fire department sprinkler connection shall be located adjacent to the main entrance to the building. This is being consistent with other locations throughout the city requiring the connection located near the front door for firefighter ease of locating it in the event of a fire. 1. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding fire sprinkler systems. Pursuant to Fire Prevention Division Policy 40 -1995. (Copy enclosed). S. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Prevention Policy 29 -1992. (Copy enclosed). 5. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding pre -fire plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Prevention Policy 07 -1991. (Copy enclosed). 7. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department /Fire Prevention Policy 04 -1991. Nit! /he .. CITYOF 0 CHANHASSEN \ .--. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 r ':' (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS 1. Permits are required for all sprinkler work. 2. A minimum of four sets of plans are required. Send, or drop off plans and specifications and calculations to: Mark Littfin. Fire Marshal City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen. MN 55317 3. Yard post indicators are required and must have tamper protection. 4. All control values must be provided with tamper protection. 5. All systems tests must be vwitnessed by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. Appointments can be made by calling the Fire Marshal at 937 -1900, ext. 132, between 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM. Monday through Friday. Please try to arrange tests at least 24 hours in advance. All revisions of 25 heads or more will require a test. 6. Main drains & inspector test connections must be piped to the outside atmosphere. 7. AVater may not be introduced into sprinkler piping from the City main until the Fire Marshal witnesses a flush test per NFPA 13- 8 -2.1. 8. The City of Chanhassen has adopted Appendix E (see 1305.6905 appendix chapter 3S of the IBC). Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Division Policy #40 -1995 Date: 01/12/95 Revised: 03/12/97 Page 1 of 2 9. All systems must be designed to NFPA -13, 1991 edition and Chapter 6 Standards. All attic systems are to be spaced at a maximum 130 square foot coverage. 3/4" plastic piping will not be allowed at any time in attic space. 10. All equipment installed in a fire protection system shall be UL listed or factory mutual approved for fire protection service. 11. Fire. protection systems that are hydraulically calculated shall have a 5 psi safety factor at maximum system flow. 12. Acceptable water supplies for fire sprinkler systems are listed in NFPA -13, 1991 ed., Chapter 7. Swimming pools and ponds are not acceptable primary water supplies. 13. Pressure and gravity tanks shall be sized per the requirements contained in NFPA -13 and 22. Duration of the water supply shall match the hazard classification of the occupancy. 14. Include spec sheets for fire sprinkler heads - dry pipe/pre-action valving. 15. The definition of inspection is contained in IvfN Rule 7512.0100 Subpart 10, and states that inspection means: 1. Conducting a final acceptance test. 2. Trip test of dry pipe, deluge or preaction valves. 3. A test that an authority having jurisdiction requires to be conducted under the supervision of a contractor. Only licensed fire protection contractors are permitted to conduct these tests. 4. All other inspections including the inspectors test, main drain and other valves are permitted under MN Rule 7512.0400 Subpart -2G, as maintenance activities and do not require a license as a fire protection contractor. 16. Per Section 904.3.2. and the 1994 Uniform Building Code, an approved audible sprinkler flow alarm to alert the occupants shall be provided in the interior of the building in a normally occupied location. (Location must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal). 17. In existing systems, the following shall apply: 1. If any changes in the hydraulically most demanding area, or an addition of 20 or more heads. hydraulic calculations will need to be provided. 2. If an addition or change of 20 or more heads to a system, a test will need to be completed. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Division Policy 440 -1995 7'n Date: 01/12/95 / Revised: 03/12/97 r pproved- Public Safety Director Page: 2 of 2 „,„ CIT'Y OF • ,44, CIIANEASSEN 1 y ^•y� l 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 - CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY PREMISES IDENTIFICATION General Numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background. Size and location of numbers shall be approved by one of the following - Public Safety Director, Building Official, Building Inspector, Fire Marshal. Requirements are for new construction and existing buildings where no address numbers are posted. Other Requirements - General 1. Numbers shall be a contrasting color from'the background. 2. Numbers shall not be In script - 3. If a structure Is not visible from the street, additional numbers are required at the driveway entrance. Size and location must be approved. 4. Numbers on mall box at driveway entrance may be a minimum of 4 ". However, requirement x3 must still be met. 5. Administrative authority may require additional numbers If deemed necessary. Residential Requirements (2 or less dwelling unit) 1. Minimum height shall be 5 1/4 ". 2. Building permits will not be flnaled unless numbers are posted and approved by the Building Department Commercial Requirements - 1. Minimum height shall be 12 ". 2. Strip Malls a. Multi tenant building will have minimum height requirements of 6 ". b. Address numbers shall be on the main entrance and on all back doors. 3. If address numbers are located on a directory entry sign, additional numbers will be required on the buildings main entrance. I Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #29 -1992 - Date: 06 /15/92 Revised: Approved - Public Safity Director Page 1 of 1 tx 4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER . CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY REGARDING PRE -PLAN Prior to issuing the C.O., a pre -plan, site plan shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval. The following items shall be shown on the plan. 1) Size 11" x 17" (maximum) 2) Building footprint and building dimensions 3) Fire lanes and width of fire lanes 4) Water mains and their sizes, indicate looped or dead end 5) Fire hydrant locations 6) P.I.V. - Fire Department connection 7) Gas meter (shut -off), NSP (shut off) 8) Lock box location 9) Fire walls, if applicable 10) Roof vents, if applicable 11) Interior walls 12) Exterior doors 13)• Location of fire alarm panel 14) Sprinkler riser location 15) Exterior L.P. storage, if applicable 16) Haz. Mat. storage, if applicable 17) Underground storage tanks locations, if applicable 18) Type of construction walls /roof 19) Standpipes PLEASE NOTE: Plans with topographical information, contour lines, easement lines, property lines, setbacks, right -of -way lines, headings, and other related lines or markings, are not acceptable, and will be rejected. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy X07 -1991 Date: 01 /16/91 X ' Revised: 02/18/94 Approved - Pudic Safety Director Page 1 of 1 6' C ITYOF ‘,. ,,,,,,„, ,,, ,,, . ,,,,,,,,,,. ,,., 0 CHASEASSEN ,,_ . ._, \- ,f 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 l .�f- (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 i CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE LANE SIGNAGE 1. Signs to be a minimum of 12" x 18 ". NO 2. Red on white is preferred. PARKING FIRE 3. 3M or equal engineer's grade LANE reflective sheeting on aluminum is preferred. 7\ 4. Wording shall be: NO PARKING FIRE LANE 5. Signs shall be posted at each end of the fire lane and at least at 7'0" 75 foot intervals along the fire lane. 6. All signs shall be double sided facing the direction of travel. 7. Post shall be set back a minimum of 12" but not more than 36" from the curb. - V - 8. A fire lane shall be required in (NOT TO GRADE front of fire dept. connections SCALE) extending 5 feet on each side and along all areas designated by the Fire Chief. ANY DEVIATION FROM THE ABOVE PROCEDURES SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING, WITH A SITE PLAN, FOR APPROVAL BY THE FIRE CHIEF. IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE CONTINUITY THROUGHOUT THE CITY BY PROVIDING THESE PROCEDURES FOR MARKING OF FIRE LANES. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy 406 -1991 Date: 1/15/91 C.- 7 ' Revised: Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 ab ,vs* PPINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ,, CITYOF 0 . 4,;,, ,k" .„..., . ,,,,,,. , CHANHASSEN , .,, , ,,, .., � `x� \ s } 690 COULTER DRIVE • PO. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 � ? (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY EXTERIOR LIGHT AND HORN OVER FIRE DEPARTMENT SPRINKLER CONNECTION 1) Exterior Light and Horn for indicating Fire Department Sprinkler Connection shall be: a. Simplex model number Horn - 31T -115 -R Light - WH3T- 115 -FR or b. Wheelock 7004 -T c. Notifier 5542862 or equivalent per Fire Department approval. Chanhassen Fire Department eG- Fire Prevention f Policy: #02 -1990 // Date: 09/04/90 �✓ (/ Revised: Approved - Public Safety Director Page 1 of 1 I9 7 o�r0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITYOF .. ,e. ..,.:i: .,-_ 0 , CHANHASSEN \. -, ' , }' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 �f (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES TO BE INCLUDED ON ALL SITE PLANS 1. Fire Marshal must witness the flushing of underground sprinkler service line, per NFPA 13- 8 -2.1. 2. A final inspection by the Fire Marshal before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 3. Fire Department access roads shall be provided on site during all phases of construction. The construction of these temporary roads will conform with the Chanhassen Fire Department requirements for temporary access roads at construction sites. Details are available. 4. Onsite fire hydrants shall be provided and in operating condition during all phases of construction. 5. The use of liquefied petroleum gas shall be in conformance with NFPA Standard 58 and the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. A list of these requirements is available. (See policy #33 -1993) 6. All fire detection and fire suppression systems shall be monitored by an approved UL central station with a UL 71 Certificate issued on these systems before final occupancy is issued. 7. An 11" x 14" As Built shall be provided to the Fire Department. The As Built shall be reproducible and acceptable to the Fire Marshal. (See policy #07- 1991). 8. An approved lock box shall be provided on the building for fire department use. The lock box should be located by the Fire Department connection or as located by the Fire Marshal. Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #04 -1991 Date: 11/22/91 Revised: 12/23/94 Page 1 of 2 9. High -piled combustible storage shall comply with the requirements of Article #81 of the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. High -piled combustible storage is combustible materials on closely packed piles more than 15' in height or combustible materials on pallets or in racks more than 12' in height. For certain special- hazard commodities such as rubber tires, plastics, some flammable liquids, idle pallets, etc. the critical pile height may be as low as 6 feet. _ 10. _. Fire lane signage shall be provided as required by the Fire Marshal. (See policy #06- 1991). 11. Smoke detectors installed in lieu of 1 hour rated corridors under UBC section 3305G, Exception #5 shall comply with Chanhassen Fire Department requirements for installation and system type. (See policy #05- 1991). 12. Maximum allowed size of domestic water service on a combination domestic /fire sprinkler supply line policy must be followed. (See policy #36- 1994). Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #04 -1991 Date: 11/22/91 Revised: 12/23/94 Approved - Public Safety Director Page 2 of 2 cNANHASSEN FIRE DEPT. CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT P.O. Box 97 • 7610 Laredo Drive • Chanhassen, MN 55317 tA, Bus. Phone 934 -9191 • Minnewashta Station No. 2 • Phone 474 -7094 CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY Labeling Fire Rated Walls General Numbers and/or letters shall be placed on all rated fire walls identifying their rating. Said numbers and/or letters shall be not less than 5 inches high x 3 inches wide, with a minimum ''A inch stroke and shall contrast with the background. Requirements are for new and existing construction. Occupancv Requirements This policy is in effect for all occupancies except Group R -3. Other Requirements 1. Identification shall be marked 10 feet from every corner or change of direction and every 30 feet thereafter. Identification shall be on both sides of interior walls. 2. Identification can be hidden from plain view. i.e., above ceiling tiles or in attic spaces. All other locations must be approved by one of the following: Fire Marshal, Fire Inspector, Building Official, or Building Inspector. Example: 1 hr (1 hour fire wall) Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy 74¢ -1997 Date: 01/08/97 Revised: . Page l of l .\pprov eci - Public Safety Director CITYOF t CHANHASSEN ...„ - . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin AI -Jaff, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official ( 1 i i` DATE: May 12, 1997 SUBJECT: 97 -1 PUD (Valley Sales of Chanhassen, Argonaut Holdings, Inc.) I was asked to review the site plan proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, APR 04 19 9 7 , CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project. I have no comments or recommendationsconcerning this application at this time. 1 would like to request that you relay to the developers and designers my desire to meet with them as early as possible to discuss commercial building permit requirements. g: \safet)\sak\memos\plan \alyslst 511? BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 7301 OHMS LANE, SUITE 500 / EDINA, MN 55439 / (612) 832 -9858 / FAX (612) 832 -9564 April 4, 1997 REFER TO FILE: 97 -01 MEMORANDUM TO: Steven Kaufman, C, neral Motors World Wide Real Estate FROM: James A. Bensh00 and Edward F. Terhaar RE: Results of Traffic Study for Proposed Pontiac GMAC Automobile Sales in Chanhassen, MN PURPOSE This memorandum is to present the results of our traffic analysis for the proposed Pontiac GMAC Automobile Sales in Chanhassen. The traffic analysis and results are organized as follows: 1) Background Information. This includes development characteristics, existing roadway characteristics, and information on other pending developments in the area. 2) Traffic Forecasts. Weekday p.m. peak hour traffic forecasts were developed for the site driveways and the following four intersections: T.H. 5/Dakota Ave., Lake Dr./Dakota Ave., T.H. 5 /Great Plains Blvd., and Great Plains Blvd./Lake Dr. 3) Traffic Analysis. Traffic operations at the four key intersections and the site driveways were analyzed for the p.m. peak hour. 4) Conclusions. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Proposed Development Characteristics The proposed automobile sales facility is to be located on a presently vacant lot on Lake Drive, approximately midway between Dakota Ave. and Great Plains Blvd., as shown in Figure 1. The project site is designated as commercial in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan and is currently zoned BN Neighborhood Business District. The applicant is a„ a s `e,� `v. ' x j . f t�' " E. in i ". s d s"' A t, - - . � � x 3 9 - z • \ y 3 :1! : ::, „::::, , , i - , • r .sT4 E E P . f L. : %`' K .er d 0 04, : * >` w yx , t ,rv >n,..+,. , x t. ' 4 l t •v4kl "'.s r § ? tir+r 'v'''"'.B N .. .- , wwaaan :s _aaax - w ..�� .,... _ ce�...�u ...n�mT•e�sa y .., a:am»..s..> , . w::��•ns a.•...•�nu,«- 1. ... -it N .o--' .v r , A r„x9PTTP3S +...wuk � � - T. �- — � E uu+r�'� e � � se .n.� • - ...._� _.. ".. .,._." ,,,,,,..,„,1 - PROJECT -, r , - LOCATION "" .q Yr ffit EE Ed - - xaa'"' •Erg i f T` Siw `� o<Pa: :Y6WAeN^'A4Nw^v:' od° .a .�v. ° ' o UR' ... sue. �R..tin D f "'E:itlRVy. .. L >a z E:= — >r zm,,,a s. n`y Y .v, v , i e N 'awn .nom - SCALE P'. ; t 3 E .,...w ..�.. ^^w e � .. e:: v. O 1000E GM WORLDWIDE REAL ESTATE TRAFFIC STUDY FIGURE 1 FOR PROPOSED �j BENSHOOFBASSOCIATES,INC. AUTOMOBILE SALES PROJECT LOCATION �] TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERSANDPLANNERS Mr. Steven Kaufman -3- April 4, 1997 requesting rezoning to PUD Planned Unit Development District. The automobile sales facility is expected to consist of a 18,494 sq. ft. building to be used for sales and service activities. The remainder of the site will be used for customer and vehicle parking. Access to the site will be via two driveways on Lake Drive. Existing Conditions Lake Drive is a two -way, two lane east/west roadway which serves businesses and homes south of T.H. 5. Lake Drive is designated as a Class I collector route by the City. At Dakota Ave. and Great Plains Blvd., Lake Drive is controlled by stop signs. Great Plains Blvd. is a two -way, two lane roadway with turn lanes at the T.H. 5 intersection. Great Plains Blvd. is presently closed to traffic south of Lake Drive due to the construction of the Villages on the Ponds development. The roadway will eventually connect to T.H. 101 to the southwest. The intersection of T.H. 5 and Great Plains Blvd. is signal controlled, with left and right turn lanes. Dakota Ave. is a two -way, two lane roadway which extends from T.H. 5 south into a residential area. North of T.H. 5 the roadway becomes the north leg of T.H. 101. The intersection of T.H. 5 and Dakota Ave. is signal controlled, with right and left turn lanes. Turn movement counts were conducted on January 22, 1997, from 4 to 6 p.m. at the intersection of T.H. 5 /Great Plains Blvd. and on January 23, 1997, from 4 to 6 p.m. at the intersection of Lake Dr./Dakota Ave. Traffic counts were obtained from Mn/DOT for the T.H. 5/Dakota Ave. intersection. Traffic counts at the Great Plains Blvd./ Lake Drive intersection documented in the Villages on the Ponds Environmental Assessment Worksheet' were verified through field observations. Other Planned Development Accounted for in the Traffic Forecasts Information was obtained from City staff regarding other planned developments in the immediate area. Three developments were identified, including the Villages on the Ponds, Chanhassen Commons as proposed by Oppidan, and CSM Chanhassen East Business Center. The Villages on the Ponds development is to be located west of Great Plains Blvd. and south of T.H. 5. The development will consist of over 700,000 sq. ft. of retail, office, and residential space when fully built. Construction has started on some of the development, including a church and school complex and a hotel. These initial components were assumed to be in -place by the year 1998. The remainder of the development is expected to be in -place by 2002. The Chanhassen Commons development is expected to consist of approximately 22,300 sq. ft. of retail space and 5,200 sq. ft. of restaurant space located east of Great Plains Blvd. and south of T.H. 5. It was assumed that the entire development would be in -place by the year 1998. It was also assumed that this development would include removal of the existing American Legion building in the southeast corner of T.H. 5 and Great Plains Blvd. Access to this development was assumed to be via a right turn only access on Great Plains Blvd. and a full access driveway on Lake Drive. Villages on the Ponds EAW BRW Inc. July 1, 1996 Mr. Steven Kaufman -4- April 4, 1997 The CSM Chanhassen East Business Center development consists of approximately 200,000 sq. ft. of office /warehouse space in the northwest corner of Dell Road and Lake Drive. This development has been constructed but is not fully occupied. For our analysis purposes, we assumed the development would be fully occupied by the year 1998. TRAFFIC FORECASTS Traffic forecasts were developed using projected trip generation for the automobile sales and Chanhassen Commons developments, as well as traffic forecasts previously developed for the Villages on the Ponds' and CSM Chanhassen East Business Center developments. Trip Generation Utilizing data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and results from studies of similar uses in the Minneapolis /St. Paul area, trip generation rates were developed for the proposed development. Next, it is important to classify trips to and from the development in terms of the following two categories: • New Trips - trips solely to and from the proposed development. • Passby Trips - existing "through" trips on T.H. 5 that in the future will include a stop at the proposed development. The automobile sales use was assumed to generate all new trips, with no passby component. Based on our experiences for the retail uses and on information published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, we estimate that approximately 80 percent of the trips to and from the Chanhassen Commons development would be new, while 20 percent would be passby. Table 1 shows the p.m. peak hour trip generation for the proposed automobile sales and the Chanhassen Commons development. ' Villages on the Ponds EAW, BRW Inc. July 1, 1996 2 Traffic Study for CSM Chanhassen East Business Center RLK Associates, Ltd. November, 1995 Mr. Steven Kaufman -5- April 4, 1997 TABLE 1 P.M. PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION PROJECTIONS FOR AUTOMOBILE SALES AND CHANHASSEN COMMONS New Trip Ends Passby Trip Ends Land Use Size (sq. ft.) in out in out Automobile Sales 18,494 18' 25 0 0 Chanhassen Commons - retail space 22,300 101 101 25 25 - restaurant 5,200 30 23 7 6 - removal of American Legion 3,500 (20) 2 (16) 2 (5) 2 (4) 2 Totals 129 133 27 27 1 The auto dealership trip generation is based on driveway counts collected on February 13 and 15, 1997, at Valley Oldsmobile in Apple Valley, MN. ` Trip generation information from Trip Generation, 5th edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers An additional step that was taken in the trip generation process was a comparison of land use alternatives for the automobile sales site. The number of trips expected to be generated by uses that are currently listed as permitted or conditional in the City Code was compared to the number of trips expected to be generated by the automobile sales use. The resultant trip generation numbers are shown in Table 2. TABLE 2 COMPARISON OF TRIP GENERATION FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND ALTERNATIVE USES FOR TILE SAME PROPERTY Saturday Development P.M. peak Weekday mid -day Saturday Alternative Uses Size hour daily peak hour daily Proposed use Automobile sales 18,494 sq. ft. 43 590 83 603 Neighborhood retail Alternative A (permitted use) 32,000 sq. ft 189 2493 328 3112 Site -down restaurant Alternative B (conditional use) 5,000 sq. ft. 65 890 75 1146 Convenience store with gas pumps (conditional 3,000 sq. ft 108 1302 125 1677 use) Neighborhood retail (permitted use) 24,000 sq. ft. 142 1870 246 2334 Subtotal for Alt. B 32,000 sq. ft. 315 4062 446 5157 The auto dealership trip generation is based on driveway counts collected on February 13 and 15, 1997, at Valley Oldsmobile in Apple Valley, MN. Information published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers was also reviewed and found to be comparable to the driveway count information. Mr. Steven Kaufman -6- April 4, 1997 Table 2 shows that the proposed automobile sales use will generate only 23% as much p.m. peak hour traffic, 24% as much weekday daily traffic, 25% as much Saturday mid- day peak hour traffic, and 19% as much Saturday daily traffic as Alternative A. Likewise, the proposed automobile sales use will generate only 14% as much p.m. peak hour traffic, 15% as much weekday daily traffic, 19% as much Saturday mid -day peak hour traffic, and 12% as much Saturday daily traffic as Alternative B. Trip Distribution and Assignment The top half of Figure 2 shows the trip distribution for new trips. These percentages are based on the expected origins and destinations of customers that would make new trips to these developments. The bottom half of Figure 2 shows the expected trip distribution percentages for the passby trips, which are based on current directional traffic volumes on T.H. 5. Utilizing these trip distribution percentages, trips to and from the proposed developments were assigned to the roadway. Traffic Volumes Traffic volumes at the T.H. 5/Dakota Ave., Dakota Ave./Lake Drive, T.H. 5 /Great Plains Blvd., and Great Plains Blvd./Lake Drive intersections were developed for the following three scenarios: 1) existing conditions, 2) 1998 without the automobile sales use but with the other developments, and 3) 1998 with the automobile sales use and the other proposed developments. Year 2002 traffic forecasts were also developed for the T.H. 5 /Great Plains Blvd. and Great Plains Blvd./Lake Drive intersections. The 1998 traffic volumes were developed using the existing traffic counts collected and obtained from others, as well as traffic generated by the expected developments. The existing traffic volumes on T.H. 5 were increased three percent per year and all other existing volumes increased one percent per year to account for other background growth. The traffic generated by the other developments was added, resulting in 1998 volumes without the proposed automobile sales use but with the other developments. The trips added by the Villages on the Ponds and the CSM Chanhassen East Business Center developments were determined directly from the traffic documents noted earlier. The trips expected to be generated by the proposed automobile sales facility were added to the 1998 base volumes, resulting in 1998 post- development volumes. The projected traffic volumes are shown in Figures 3,4, and 5. The year 2002 traffic volumes for the T.H. 5 /Great Plains Blvd. and Great Plains Blvd./Lake Drive intersections were developed through use of the forecasts developed for the Villages on the Ponds, as referenced earlier. The expected number of trips added by the proposed traffic automobile sales facility, Chanhassen Commons, and the CSM Chanhassen East Business Center development were added to the year 2002 build volumes presented in the Villages on the Ponds traffic report. The resultant year 2002 traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4. r NEW TRIPS 0 = 1 25% T.H.5 F= v/ < g o 25% a a CO LAKE D RIVE C � O¢ 150/0 r��WYYY LOCATION 0 H o %5% s N $ 20% W NOT TO SCALE r PASSBY TRIPS = 6j T.H.5 H �C ¢zo U g m LAKE F a • RIVE Li] Q¢ PROJECT 0 LOCATION 4 00/ 0 ■ 0 f .- Y N NOT TO SCALE GM WORLDWIDE FIGURE 2 REAL ESTATE TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED TRIP DISTRIBUTION BENSHOOF &ASSOCIATES, INC. AUTOMOBILE SALES PERCENTAGES TRANSPORTATIONENGINEERSANDPLANNERS O � c OD I y 1 ( ) \ T.H.5 119/123/123 1637/1751/1751 129/171/171 88/91/96 1335/1413/1413 > 38/42/42 --.., . i r4", co co 03 W n M CD Q 1 0 Y Q 0 a1a CNJ a 1 r LAKE DR. 144/168/168 <— 33/55/55 7/18/18 12/12/26 15/22/22 —> 8/12/13 ` T f ' 0 o v .4. M O ..... '„T M r 0 co N LEGEND 1--- EXISTING I 1998 WITHOUT AUTOMOBILE SALES t a XX/XX/XX _ 1998 WITH AUTOMOBILE SALES NOT TO SCALE GM WORLDWIDE FIGURE 3 REAL ESTATE TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED P.M. PEAK HOUR AUTOMOBILE SALES VOLUMES AT DAKOTA T, BENS OO & NS ASSOCIATES, INC. AVEJTH 5 AND DAKOTA AVEJLAKE DRIVE N t` ,- O r 00 - - V N 07 ai C V 10 22 •tt CO CO r T.H.5 y > 93/97/97/210/210 <— 1752/1793/1793/2420 /2420 21/140/140/364/364 45/46/46/120/120 1413/1443/1443/1919 /1919 —> 64/104/110/117/123 6 T j to 0 N J r Lt cD CO r co o o cn r nrcDr a o V a. In Q v r i r W L o N r M W CC CO o (D 0 co N (0 r a Z� , I i �` LAKE DR. �1 65/73/84/73/84 < NA/0 /0/0/0 1 5/24/26/60/62 NA/15/15/65/65 NA/0 /0/0/0 —> NA/0 /0 /0 /0 is > o r -- rn o r m . In LEGEND Z co N EXISTING L Ln 1998 WITHOUT AUTOMOBILE SALE in 1998 WITH AUTOMOBILE SALES I I 2002 WITHOUT AUTOMOBILE SALES /XX//XX/XX - 2002 WITH AUTOMOBILE SALES NOT TO SCALE �XXXX FIGURE 4 GM WORLDWIDE REAL ESTATE TRAFFIC STUDY RM. PEAK HOUR FOR PROPOSED VOLUMES AT GREAT BENSHOOF &ASSOCIATES, INC. AUTOMOBILE SALES PLAINS BLVDJTH 5 AND Ic t? TRANSPORTATIONENGINEERSANGPLANNERS GREAT DP LAINS BLVDJ LAKE U CD z41110MMMIo N ��6'ip Q c o z z co IG �b SE o O F-. N o o , N a =aQO � , ?Zr 4� co Y N W � 22 QWCn _�� w W 2Oc n M a _JO cr co � � LT 20 > c tt -2.0 -J w a 0 w W J J < 6/Z/VN ---t m 0 III 6L /El/dN 0 m SS300V ¢ 0 I SNOWWOO N3SSVHNVHO J / S3lVS 31190WO1f1V = j Q 0 Q N v CO o a = W V) v v Z 3 3 Cr) 0 O -I rm R. UOa_m o '6' CS tLLLOO Z z U Q a 0 1.— Q / 0 cc w z U SS300V 1 3A1E10 Z a 1IY /NOLLV /S SVO HSdVV Cii _ W a W Q cc a FW- U i O z CI cn Q z cc W al z = o 0 z z SNIVId 1V3HO Z z •OAl9 W a m Mr. Steven Kaufman -11- April 4, 1997 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS T.H. 5/Dakota Ave intersection Capacity analyses were performed at this signalized intersection for the weekday p.m. peak hour using the Highway Capacity Software (HCS) program. Capacity analyses results are presented in terms of level of service, which ranges from A to F. Level of service A represents the best intersection operation, with very little delay for each vehicle using the intersection. Level of service F represents the worst intersection operation, with excessive delay. Level of service D is considered the minimum acceptable level of service for an intersection. During the weekday p.m. peak hour, the capacity analysis resulted in level of service B for the intersection using traffic volumes for the following three scenarios: 1) existing conditions, 2) 1998 without the proposed automobile sales, and 3) 1998 with the proposed automobile sales. All analyses assumed existing intersection geometrics and traffic signal timing. These results indicate that this intersection presently operates at a high level of service and will continue to provide high quality operations after the automobile sales facility is constructed. Dakota Ave./Lake Drive Intersection Capacity analyses were performed at this unsignalized intersection using the Highway Capacity Software (HCS) and existing intersection geometrics. During the weekday p.m. peak hour, the capacity analysis resulted in level of service B or better for all traffic movements using traffic volumes for the following three scenarios: 1) existing conditions, 2) 1998 without the proposed automobile sales, and 3) 1998 with the proposed automobile sales. These results indicate that this intersection presently operates at a high level of service and will continue to provide high quality operations after the automobile sales facility is constructed. T.H. 5 /Great Plains Blvd. Intersection Capacity analyses were performed at this signalized intersection for the weekday p.m. peak hour using the Highway Capacity Software (HCS) program. During the weekday p.m. peak hour, the capacity analysis resulted in level of service B for the intersection using existing traffic volumes. Using the 1998 traffic volumes without the proposed automobile sales and 1998 with the proposed automobile sales, the capacity analyses resulted in level of service C for the intersection. All analysis assumed existing intersection geomtrics and traffic signal timing. Using the 2002 forecast volumes, the Highway Capacity Software was unable to calculate level of service due to the volume exceeding the capacity for many of the traffic movements. This was true for both the forecast scenario without the proposed automobile sales and with the proposed automobile sales and is due to the large increase in background traffic expected on T.H. 5. The same results were reached in the Villages on the Ponds traffic analysis. Mr. Steven Kaufman -12- April 4, 1997 For both the 1998 and 2002 scenarios, the analyses indicate that the automobile sales will not alter the level of service provided by this intersection. Great Plains Blvd./Lake Drive Intersection Capacity analyses were performed at this unsignalized intersection using the Highway Capacity Software (HCS) and existing intersection geometrics. During the weekday p.m. peak hour, the capacity analysis resulted in level of service B or better for all traffic movements using traffic volumes for the following three scenarios: 1) existing conditions, 2) 1998 without the proposed automobile sales, and 3) 1998 with the proposed automobile sales. Using the 2002 forecast volumes for both traffic scenarios, the capacity analysis resulted in level of service D or better for all traffic movements except the eastbound movements. The eastbound traffic movements are expected to operate at level of service E during the p.m. peak hour, due to the large amount of traffic entering and exiting the Villages on the Ponds development. For both the 1998 and 2002 scenarios, the analyses indicate that the automobile sales facility will not alter the level of service provided by this intersection. Site Access Intersections The automobile sales facility is proposed to have two access driveways to Lake Drive. The westerly most driveway is a shared access with the Chanhassen Commons development. The easterly most driveway will be used by the automobile sales facility only. Capacity analyses were performed at these unsignalized intersections using the Highway Capacity Software (HCS) and expected intersection geometrics. During the weekday p.m. peak hour, the capacity analysis resulted in level of service B or better for all traffic movements at the westerly most access and A or better for all traffic movements at the easterly most access. Traffic Operations Within the Proposed Site The site plan, shown in Figure 6, was reviewed relative to internal traffic operations. The site plan shows driveways and drive aisles of adequate widths to accommodate automobile and truck movements. The layout shown in the site plan will adequately accommodate circulation within the site. / s ,,G- ,...---- -0: \-7: -<\\ � \ VAAVV \\ \ N / V V� \� A A A A� T „� _ i � \ A fi � r ;. la I L -,-- yyy T II '3G / 1 • _ AsA = I r ___.. 6 E< 7. _ - _ '' { v v i- y '- F ,A '/' / - 1 \- ' '' Y // N N G = PL AREA �/.,,,....' / �\ / \ 7 \ \ ■ s 0, / / 1 a/ \ 2 GM WORLDWIDE FIGURE 6 REAL ESTATE TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED SITE PLAN W BENSHOOF &ASSOCIATES, INC. AUTOMOBILE SALES TRANSPORTATIONENGINEERSANDPLANNER9 Mr. Steven Kaufman -14- April 4, 1997 CONCLUSIONS From the traffic analyses documented in this report, we have established the following conclusions: • The proposed automobile sales use is expected to generate much less traffic than other permitted or conditional uses for all time periods analyzed. • The T.H. 5/Dakota Ave. intersection currently operates at a level of service B during the p.m. peak hour. The intersection is expected to continue operating at level of service B during the weekday p.m. peak hour in 1998 both with and without the proposed automobile sales. • All traffic movements at the Dakota Ave./Lake Drive intersection currently operate at level of service B or better during the weekday p.m. peak hour. This is expected to continue in 1998 with and without the proposed automobile sales. • The T.H. 5 /Great Plains Blvd. intersection currently operates at a level of service B during the p.m. peak hour. The intersection is expected to operate at level of service C during the p.m. peak hour in 1998 with and without the proposed automobile sales. In the year 2002, the intersection is expected to operate at an unacceptable level of service both with and without the proposed automobile sales. This is due to the large increase in background traffic expected on T.H. 5. No perceptible change would occur in the quality of traffic operations due to the automobile sales. • All traffic movements at the Great Plains Blvd./Lake Drive intersection currently operate at level of service B or better during the weekday p.m. peak hour. This is expected to continue in 1998 with and without the proposed automobile sales. In the year 2002, all traffic movements, both with and without the proposed automobile sales, is expected to operate at level of service D or better, except the eastbound movements. The eastbound movements are expected to operate at level of service E both with and without the proposed automobile sales. As in the previous point, the automobile sales will not alter traffic operations of this intersection. • All traffic movements at the west access drive are expected to operate at level of service B or better during the weekday p.m. peak hour. All traffic movements at the east access drive are expected to operate at level of service A or better during the weekday p.m. peak hour. These results indicate that the automobile sales would not alter the quality of traffic operations on Lake Drive. • The proposed site plan will adequately accommodate vehicles entering, exiting, and circulating within the site. Based on the analyses presented in this report, the proposed automobile sales facility will not cause any adverse traffic impacts on the surrounding roadway system. Report to General Motors Worldwide Real Estate Mr. Steven J. Kaufman Noise Study for Pontiac GMC Automobile Sales, Chanhassen, Minnesota from Midwest Acoustics and Electronics, Inc. Minneapolis, MN (612) 897 -1814 Richard E. Van Doeren, President April4, 1997 Executive Summary A noise study was performed for the proposed Pontiac GMC automobile retail store in Chanhassen, Minnesota. The study was limited to consideration of facility- unique noise sources: Service Shop noise and new vehicle off - loading noise. The facility operating hours would be limited to the daytime hours as defined in the Minnesota Noise Standards. Three Noise Receptor Sites were selected for both monitoring and analysis. In addition, other sites were considered regarding potential exceedance of the Minnesota Noise Standards. The study conclusions included the following: • Re. Present-day Background Noise Levels. Present -day monitoring data show that the nighttime Minnesota Noise Standards (the Standards) are expected to be exceeded by the existing background noise in the 6 am to 7 am time window on weekdays. The monitoring showed that the daytime noise standards are not expected to be exceeded by the present -day background noise levels. • Re. Facility Noise Sources. The Facility Noise Sources (Service Shop and the new vehicle off - loading) will NOT exceed the Minnesota Noise Standards at the three residential Noise Receptor Sites selected or at the other nearby receiver sites considered. • Re. Annoyance. The predicted maximum noise levels due to the Service Shop and off- loading of new vehicles are less than the actual observed maximum present -day background noise levels in the community. Also, maximum noise levels due to trash collecting of a top - loading commercial trash hauling truck (of the type expected to serve permitted site uses) were measured to be greater than those due to off - loading and the Service Shop. The risk of annoyance due to the Service Shop or off - loading is quite low. Project Ba%ground Midwest Acoustics was retained by General Motors Worldwide Real Estate to conduct a noise study of a proposed Pontiac retail automobile store in Chanhassen, Minnesota. The noise study was to be one of several technical studies to be included as part of an Application to the City of Chanhassen. Initially, the study was to consider both traffic noise and facility- unique noise sources in detail. Facility- unique sources would be those sources unique to an automobile retail store that would not typically be associated with other permitted or conditional uses in BN (Neighborhood Business) zoning. These facility- unique noise sources are referred to as "facility sources" in the remainder of the report. The study scope was modified in early March, 1997 to eliminate a detailed traffic noise study and to include detailed analysis of only the facility noise sources. This was because the results of the Benshoof & Associates traffic study that compared the proposed retail Pontiac store traffic with altemative permitted uses made it obvious that the Pontiac store would result in less traffic noise than altematives. A detailed traffic noise study was therefore not needed. The trip generation numbers provided by Benshoof & Associates showed a total trip generation for the retail automobile use that was less than 30 percent of the trip generation of altemative permitted uses under existing BN zoning. Assuming a similar traffic mix, this would mean that the hourly equivalent noise levels due to the retail automobile use trip generation would be approximately 5 decibels lower than the noise levels of the lowest - traffic altemative use examined by Benshoof. The Benshoof report date is April 4, 1997. 2 would be approximately 5 decibels lower than the noise levels of the lowest - traffic alternative use examined by Benshoof. The Benshoof report date is April 4, 1997. The facility noise sources that were considered in this study were the Service Shop and the off - loading of vehicles from transport trucks. Noise Receptor Sites Three noise receptor sites were selected for monitoring and detailed analysis of the impact of the facility noise sources; these were labeled sites A, B, and C. All the sites are at the property line of a residential land use. Site A is located approximately 55 feet south of the centerline of Lake Drive E. at the north end of the backyard of the home at 340 Hidden Lane. This point is approximately 45 feet east of the centerline of the driveway of the New Horizon day care center. Measured data for Site A was taken at a point approximately 38 feet south of the centerline of Lake Drive E. to avoid reflections from the privacy fence. Site B is approximately 55 feet south of the centerline of Lake Drive E. and 40 feet west of the centerline of Hidden Court, at the approximate northeast property line point of the home at 250 Hidden Lane. This site is at the southwest comer of Lake Drive E. and Hidden Court. Site C is Located at the west property line of the home at 8026 Erie Ave, approximately 250 feet southeast of the centerline of Lake Drive E. This property includes the home just visible to the southeast of the Family of Christ Lutheran Church. This property line point is at a lower elevation than the adjacent Family of Christ Lutheran Church property (located directly to the east of the proposed Pontiac store). It is hidden from Lake Drive E., the proposed Pontiac store, and from highway 5. Figure 1 shows an overall scaled site plan view of the site location. Figure 2 is a sketch (not to scale) of the overall site with the streets identified and the Noise Receptor Sites, labelled A, B, and C. Figures 3, 4, and 5 show sketches of Noise Receptor Sites A, B, and C, respectively (not to scale). The distances of importance are shown and are expected to be within approximately plus or minus ten percent. In addition to the noise receptor sites A, B, and C that were both monitored and analyzed, several other sites were not monitored and were considered for general noise impact from the facility sources. These included a NAC -1 site on the nearby church property to the east, and three close -in NAC -2 sites (see discussion of the State Standards in the following section). Noise Level Criteria Noise level criteria fall into two distinct categories: • Statutory requirements (e.g., the Minnesota Noise Standards and /or local ordinances) • Annoyance. 3 The Minnesota Noise Standards The Minnesota Noise Standards include the following text: "These standards describe the limiting levels of sound established on the basis of present knowledge for the preservation of public health and welfare. These standards are consistent with speech, sleep, annoyance, and hearing conservation requirements for receivers within areas grouped according to land activities by the noise area classification (NAC) system established in part 7030.0050. However, these standards do not, by themselves, identify the limiting levels of impulsive noise needed for the preservation of public health and welfare." The Standards are receiver standards that are based on a noise area classification (NAC) system described in the Standards. The Standards refer to Awt sound levels and use statistical descriptors based on sound levels exceeded for ten percent (the L10), and fifty percent (the L50) of a one hour measurement period. A brief description of the noise area classification (NAC) system follows: • NAC -1, household units, religious, transient lodging, educational, etc. • NAC -2, retail, auto parking, professional services, transportation terminals, etc. • NAC -3, manufacturing, agricultural, transportation routes, etc. The Standards are given in terms of the A -wt sound level exceeded ten percent of a one hour period (the L10), and the sound level exceeded fifty percent of a one hour period (the L50). The L10 and L50 are referred to as statistical descriptors of noise. The Standards are tabulated below for the three NAC's and for the two times of day, daytime (7:00 am to 10:00 pm) and nighttime (10:00 pm to 7:00 am). Table 1, Minnesota Noise Standards Summary Noise Area Daytime (7:00 am to 10:00 pm) Nighttime (10:00 pm to 7:00 am) Classification L50 L10 L50 110 1 60 dBA 65 dBA 50 dBA 55 dBA 2 65 dBA 70 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA 3 75 dBA 80 dBA 75 dBA 80 dBA Very short duration impulsive -type sounds are not covered by the Standards except insofar as such sounds affect the L10 or the L50 sound levels. 4 Annoyance Annoyance reactions to sound can arise due to many factors, including: • exposure to sounds not characteristic of the environment a person is accustomed to, • sounds that strongly exceed the background noise level in a particular area, • sounds that have an unusual character (e.g., impulsive or tonal sounds) and are clearly noticeable to the person. Annoyance is highly subjective and often depends on other aspects (than sound) of the relationship between the person annoyed and the generator of the sound in question. Visual screening or lack of visual screening is often an important factor. The background noise level at the particular location is always an important element in annoyance considerations. The background noise is the noise at a receptor site without the presence of intruding noise from the noise source or facility being evaluated. Chanhassen Noise Ordinance The Chanhassen noise ordinance, Section 20 -951 of the City of Chanhassen Code, simply states: "Noise shall be muffled or otherwise controlled so as not to become a nuisance. Noise levels shall be regulated by the standards of the state pollution control agency." Facility Noise Sources The noise from two operations at the proposed Pontiac retail store was considered in this study. One was noise from the Service Shop, and the second was noise due to the off - loading of new vehicles from a transport truck. Noise from sources that would be common to any permitted use (such as mechanical equipment) was not included in the scope of this study. The term, "Maximum Noise Level" refers to the maximum observed noise level when the sound level meter is set for fast response. All data in this report are Awt, as are the Minnesota Noise Standards. Regular operating hours for the proposed facility would be: • 7 am to 9 pm Monday through Thursday • 7 am to 6 pm Friday • 9 am to 6 pm Saturday • Not open on Sunday Service Shop Operation Noise Noise from the service operation includes air wrenches, hammering, voices, radios, and pages, all inside the entry/exit door on the north side of the building, facing Highway 5. The air wrenches and the hammering were the highest sound level activities observed. 5 Noise levels were measured in the Valley Pontiac Service area in Apple Valley, Minnesota. Activities measured and recorded included both air wrenches and hammering. The maximum noise level due to hammering inside the service shop was nominally 89 dBA. The air wrench maximum noise level inside the shop was nominally 84 dBA. Inside the shop, the measured statistical noise levels were, L10 = 79 dBA, and L50 = 73 dBA. Off - loading Noise Noise from the off - loading operation includes air brakes on the transport truck, impulsive noise from tools and adjustments of the transport itself, and impulsive noise from impacts as the vehicles are off - loaded — driven off the transport. The location for off - loading is proposed to be on the east side of the building. Off - loading will be limited to regular operating hours. Air brake noise was obtained from measured data for large trucks observed for another project at another location. The maximum Awt sound level was nominally 80 dBA at a distance of approximately 60 feet. The off- loading impulsive maximum Awt noise level ranged from 80 dBA to 86 dBA at an effective average distance of 33 feet from the transport. There were a total of ten observed impact events in the off - loading process, each consisting of either a single "clang" of a tool, or of a series of sounds as a car was off - loaded from the transport. The off- loading process took less than twenty minutes. It is estimated by the automobile dealer, Valley Sales, that approximately 100 such off - loading events at the proposed retail store would take place annually, all during regular operating hours. Noise Monitoring The noise monitoring was designed to obtain representative samples of the present -day noise levels at several times of day. The amount of the noise monitoring was intended to provide a reasonably adequate level of information for assessing potential impact, while maintaining an appropriate balance between study scope and costs. Noise levels were measured for short samples of time (nominally 7 minutes) by recording the output from a precision sound level meter on a digital audio tape recorder (DAT). The tape recorded data were then played back into a stripchart recorder and a statistical analyzer that provided the statistical descriptors of the background noise. A summary of the observed maximum (Lmax), and averaged L10, L50, and L90 Awt sound levels are tabulated below. All sound levels have been rounded to the nearest decibel. 6 Table 2, Background Noise Levels at Receptor Sites. Average Awt noise levels and standard deviation (in parentheses, for multiple measurements); Lmax not averaged. Site Day No. Meas. Lmax L10 L50 L90 A** Mon,6 -7am 1 64 59 57 52 A Wkday /Sat pm 5 69 57 (1.9) 54 (1.7) 50 (1.9) A Saturday am 2 75 51 (14.3) 43 (3.2) 40 (0.7) B*` Mon,6 -7am 1 61 58 56 54 B Wkday /Sat pm 6 70 60 (1.1) 55 (1.1) 50 (1.6) B Saturday am 4 76 51 (6.5) 42 (2.1) 38 (1.5) C Wednesday 2 56 47 (0.5) 44 (0.1) 39 (0.5) C Saturday am 2 60 47 (6.0) 42 (2.5) 39 (2.1) Notes for Table 2 • A double asterisk next to the site letter indicates a projected exceedance of the Standards. • Site A data has been adjusted from the measurement location data to account for the fact that the Receptor Site is farther from the centerline of Lake Drive than the measurement location (Lmax correction = -3dB, L10 correction = -1 dB, no correction for L50 and L90). • The L50 and L90 were dominated by Highway 5 for all sites. • The L90 is the sound level exceeded ninety percent of the time and is generally considered to be a good measure of the baseline background noise level for a given time period. • The measured maximum (Lmax, Awt, fast meter response) sound levels and the source of the maximum sound level are listed below. ♦ Local cars, approx. 55 feet from Lake Drive E. centerline, 61 dBA to 70 dBA ♦ Jet plane, applies to all sites, 75 dBA • Local medium truck, approx. 55 feet from Lake Drive E., 76 dBA • Helicopter, applies to all sites, 60 dBA In addition, a sample of noise from a top - loading trash hauling truck was measured as it loaded trash from a dumpster at the west end of the Valley Pontiac Service Shop. This type of trash hauling truck has been observed serving other commercial sites. The maximum noise level was 85 dBA at 69 feet with a reflecting wall present. The maximum without a reflecting wall present would be approximately 82 dBA. This is approximately 2 dBA greater than either the off- loading or air brake noise at equivalent distances. 7 Predicted Noise Levels The actual Lmax, L10 and L50 noise levels inside the Service Shop were used to predict the Lmax, the L10, and the L50 due to the Service Shop at the nearby Noise Receptor Sites, A, B, and C. The service shop entry and exit door is a 16 ft wide by 14 ft high door located on the north side of the proposed facility — the door faces Highway 5. To estimate the noise level at the Receptor Sites, the sound power radiated from the door was estimated based on the interior sound level. The directivity of the door opening, the shielding effects of terrain , and the distance to the sites were taken into account in the calculations. Atmospheric absorption was ignored. Site A is nominally 800 feet from the building and is shielded by the proposed building from off- loading noise. The noise radiated from the Service Shop is reduced by the directivity of the open door and by some shielding from the northwest comer of the proposed building. Site B is nominally 300 feet from the building. Noise from the Service Shop is reduced by directivity from the open door and by some building shielding. There is direct line of sight from Sight B to the proposed off - loading site on the east side of the building. Site C is nominally 340 feet from the building and is shielded by terrain from air brake, off- loading, and Service Shop door noise. Service Shop noise radiated from the open door also will be reduced at Site C by the directivity of the open door radiating to the north. For the case of off- loading impact noise, the duration of the impacts is too short to affect either the L1 0 or the L50 (the sound levels exceeded for 6 minutes and 30 minutes respectively, of a one -hour period). The maximum sound level (Lmax) was the measure of concem for off- loading. Table 3, below, gives the estimated noise levels due to the Service Shop and the off - loading process at the selected Noise Receptor Sites. Table 3, Summary of Predicted and Measured NAC -1 Noise Receptor Site Noise Levels near Proposed Pontiac Retail Automobile Store, Chanhassen, Minnesota. Site A Site A Site A Site B Site B Site B Site C Site C Site C Source Lmax L10 L50 Lmax L10 L50 Lmax L10 L50 Off - loading (Pred.) 48 — — 70 — — 60 — — Air Brake (Pred.) 48 — — 70 — — 59 — -- Service Shop (Pred.) 28 18 12 35 25 19 26 16 10 Avg. Wkdy /Sat Bkgnd 69 57 54 70 60 55 56 47 44 Avg. Sat. am Bkgnd 75 51 43 76 51 42 60 47 42 MN Daytime none 65 60 none 65 60 none 65 60 Standard NAC -1 8 Estimates of the L10 and L50 on NAC -1 Church property to the east due to the Service Shop showed an L10 less than 45 dBA and an L50 less than 40 dBA. Both are well below the daytime NAC -1 levels defined by the Standards (L10 of 65 dBA and L50 of 60 dBA). The noise levels due to shop noise radiating from the open door were also estimated for relatively close -in NAC -2 locations, these included the: • automobile parking for the Pontiac store nominally 80 feet to the north on facility property, • public sidewalk nominally 120 feet to the northeast of the open door, and • retail parking nominally 320 feet to the west • church parking to the east across Lake Dr. E. The L10 at the nearest NAC -2 location, the parking for the Pontiac store at 80 feet to the north was predicted to be less than 58 dBA due to the Service Shop, a good margin below the NAC -2 daytime L10 level of 70 dBA. The other NAC -2 locations were predicted to be substantially below the Standard level, due to greater distance and reduced directivity of the Service Shop door. The L50 at the nearest NAC -2 location, the parking at 80 feet to the north was predicted to be less than 52 dBA due to the Service Shop, a good margin below the NAC -2 daytime L50 level of 65 dBA. The other NAC -2 locations were predicted to be substantially below the L50 Standard level, for the same reasons as above. Conclusions The conclusions below were derived from estimates based on: • the actual, measured interior Service Shop and off - loading noise levels observed at Valley Sales in Apple Valley, Minnesota, • the orientation of the Service Shop door to the north on the north side of the proposed Pontiac Store, • off - loading taking place on the east side of the proposed Pontiac store. 9 Conclusions re: The Minnesota Noise Standards The proposed Pontiac retail automobile store operating hours are all within the daytime hours as defined by the Minnesota Noise Standards. The daytime level criteria therefore apply. NAC -1 Sites (residential, religious). The estimated Service Shop and off - loading noise levels are less than the daytime Minnesota Noise Standards by a wide margin at the selected NAC -1 Noise Receptor Sites and at a site on the nearby Family of Christ Lutheran Church property. NAC -2 Sites (retail, auto parking, walkways). Similarly, estimated Service Shop and off - loading noise levels at nearby NAC -2 sites adjacent to or on the proposed Pontiac facility property also do not exceed the daytime Minnesota Noise Standard levels. Conclusions re: Annoyance The primary risk regarding annoyance will be due to the maximum noise levels from off - loading and secondarily from the Service Shop. The predicted maximum noise levels due to the Service Shop open door at all the Noise Receptor Sites are well below the actual observed maximum noise levels present in today's background noise. Similarly, the maximum noise level predicted at Site A due to off - loading is well below today's maximum background noise levels. The predicted maximum noise levels at the Noise Receptor Sites B and C due to off - loading and air brake noise are comparable to the observed maximum noise levels of the background. These are shown in Table 3. In addition, measurements of the maximum noise levels due to a commercial trash hauling truck (82 dBA at 69 feet) show levels higher than those measured for off- loading or air brakes at the same distance. This means that, for the same conditions, we expect that the off - loading and air brake noise would be less than or comparable to the commonly occurring impulsive noise of a top - loading trash - hauling truck that serves commercial establishments. There will almost always be some risk of annoyance due to the highly subjective nature of human response to noise. In this case, we estimate that the risk of annoyance at the selected sites from off - loading is low due to the short duration of the off - loading process, the infrequency of off - loading (one, twenty- minute off - loading every two to three days on average), and prior (ongoing) exposure to maximum noise levels that often exceed the predicted levels. I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me under my direct supervision and th I am a duly registered professional e gineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. a Richard E. Van Doeren, Reg. No. 11823, April 4, 1997 10 33 i:Ci: �.. _ �. :ae o F Y el $3939 Ingl A ga 8 It Z; ^^ AA AAY 5 8 : 2 2 2 4 4 7 1 WN- '' e 9 01^ a. � G p7 j 8 !( 6y 3 ii tY ° ni 3 a C 6 g a W 3 4z y= a � _ 1 w�t ;Y z z y I— It ASS$ _•- ; 5 Uj 4 r. . I 0 - a 1 a `` i 0 g n r. G Wag 1 .- 3 1:s ; saa aas: f 9 g - e f•• a ,_g/4 yy J '� ' .'I ► a „; i LIE iiiiLi2 �g p4f'i�E$at'g�- gj= > >'ei5e� F Y '.£311 I § t- 1311 6du:1a .1 1 N >.. �y N a "9 3 1 3 - 1 9 i n a — k--!!12=-- S Y -- — — — ��� oN / / iCa' " � 1 T \ 1 1 \ \ sV � \ • h ❑ ° °��o, \ N \ \ ., , \ , \ \ . .... re 4 o 77 7 9 .0 u w ' ., a 6 \ lU"$4 \ \ j ij y r i J cc Z .: _ lI _ _ _ _ \ \)) � 1 ''�� �-” � ` '�..� ° off! (�— i _ - \ \ moo, ��� 4 I r _ I - - `n i I� 1-- Q 1i•.1':1 "`a p : Pi . Iii.. i 1" :, f a ':►" 0 s::!E1 1 Z � r 1 g�=e - Figure 1 Scaled Site Plan of Proposed w yii: ! j; 1 ra tei:•i8 1 g s Pontiac GMC Automobile Retail Store o ;41... Q ' L ; v 1 3 ` �J Q 3 1 0 e 0 . f13:1_1 0 \ .- J _5 11 Family of Christ Lutheran Church Proposed / N R Pontiac GMC Site C Retail Site . • State Highway No. 5 • Driveway to New Horizon • NR Day Care , / Site B Home at 8026 Erie Lake Dr. E. Hidden Court Home at 250 Privacy ►Hidden Lane Fence Hidden Lane 'NJ NR Home at 340 Site A Hidden Lane 1' Figure 2. Overview Sketch (Not to Scale) of Proposed Pontiac GMC Automobile Retail Sales Site with Noise Receptor Sites (NR Sites). 12 Driveway to New Horizon Day Care < I 45 ft —> Lake Dr. E. A Light Pole ---> ■ Approx. 55 ft Actual Measurement Site ■ p T 14 ft Privacy Fence /� • v Site A Home at 340 Hidden Lane Figure 3. Sketch of Site A. (Not to scale) 13 Lake Dr. E. 55 Hidden Court 37 ft , -- —/ \ Privacy Fence Site B Home at 250 Hidden Lane c: ::] Figure 4. Sketch of Noise Receptor Site B. (Not to scale) Family of Christ Lake Dr. E. Lutheran Church Fence Curb Line ■I r 264 ft >F 60 ft lil • Site C a \ Home at 8026 Erie Figure 5. Sketch of Noise Receptor Site C. (Not to scale) 14 JAMES P. LARKIN LAR..LN HOFFMAN DALY & LINDGREN ,TD. CHRISTOPHER J. HARRISTHAL ROBERT L. HOFFMAN KENDEL J. OHLROGGE GERALD H. FRIEDELL BRUCE J. DOUGLAS JAMES C. ERICKSON ATTORNEYS A T LAW WILLIAM C. GRIFFITH, JR. EDWARD J. DRISCOLL JOHN R. HILL GENE N. FULLER PETER J. COYLE JOHN D. FULLMER LARRY 0. MARTIN FRANK I. HMVEY 1500 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER JANE E. BREMER CHARLES S. MODELL JOHN J. STEFFENHAGEN CHRISTOPHER J. DIETZEN I 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH PHILIPS. ALDEN LINDA H. FISHER MICHAEL J. SMITH THOMAS P. STOLTMAN BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431 -1194 ANDREW F. PERRIN MICHAEL C. JACKMAN DANIEL W. VOSS JOHN E. DIEHL VILIS R. INDE JON S. S WSKI TELEPHONE (612) 835 -3800 ANN M. MEYER 3 FLYNN THOMAS J. FLYN CHRISTOPHER D. JOHNSON JAMES P. QUINN FAX (612) 896 -3333 RENEE L. JACKSON TODD I. FREEMAN CHRISTOPHER K. LARUS GERALD L. SECK MARCY R. FROST JOHN B. LUNDQUIST DOUGLAS M. RAMLER [AXLE NOLAN • STEPHEN J. KAMINSKI JOHN A. COTTER' THOMAS F. ALEXANDER BEATRICE A. ROTHWEILER DANIEL T. KAOLEC PAUL B. PLUNKETT SHARNA A WAHLGREN ALAN L. KILDOW KARIN M. NELSEN KATHLEEN M. PICOTTE NEWMAN JOHN F. KLOS MICHAEL B.N C. ERIK HAWES GREGORY E. . KORST KORSTAD LYNNE MICHELLE MOORE GARY A. VAN CLEVE • C. BRENT ROBBINS DANIEL L. BOWLES KRISTIN S. WESTGARD • TIMOTHY J. McMANUS JOLIE S. FREDERICKSON TIMOTHY J. KEANE OF COUNSEL ALAN M. ANDERSON JACK F. L GONNA L. ROBACK DALY MICHAEL W. SCHLEY D. KENNETH LINDGREN RONN B. KREPS ALLAN E. MULLIGAN TERRENCE E. BISHOP WENDELL R. ANDERSON LISA A. GRAY JOSEPH SITIS GAR' A. RENNEKE • ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONS.N April 4, 1997 Ms. Kathryn R. Aanenson, AICP Planning Director City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: Argonaut Holdings, Inc. - Application for Rezoning to PUD District, Approval of PUD Concept Plan and Development Stage Plan, and Approval of PUD Site Plan for Valley Sales of Chanhassen Our File No. 22,701 -00 Dear Ms. Aanenson: This letter is the written narrative required by the City of Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance ( "Zoning Ordinance ") in connection with Argonaut Holdings, Inc.'s ( "Argonaut ") application ( "Application ") to the City of Chanhassen ( "City ") for approval of a rezoning to PUD Planned Unit Development District, a PUD concept plan, a PUD development stage plan, and a PUD final site plan for a retail automobile sales store to be known as Valley Sales of Chanhassen ( "Project "). The Project is proposed for a 4.27 acre undeveloped platted lot ( "Site ") generally located south of Trunk Highway 5 and north and west of Lake Drive East. The Site is currently owned by Mortenson Development Company ( "Mortenson "). The applicant, Argonaut, is an affiliate of General Motors Corporation. It has contracted to purchase the Site from Mortenson for development of a Pontiac GMC retail automobile sales store. The operator of the retail facility will be Valley Sales of Chanhassen. The principals of Valley Sales currently operate a retail automobile sales facility in Apple Valley. Collectively, they have over eighty years of experience in automobile retailing. LAR._,N, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, i . D. Ms. Kathryn R. Aanenson, AICP April 4, 1997 Page 2 Based on pre - application meetings with City staff and its own independent analysis, Argonaut assembled the following consultants to assist it in preparing Project development plans and the Application to the City: Site Plan and Overall Project Development THA Architects 817 East Kearsley Street Flint, Michigan 48503 Phone: 810 - 767 -5600 Fax: 810 - 767 -1650 Land Surveyor /Civil Engineer Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 14180 West Trunk Highway 5 Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Phone: 612- 937 -5150 Fax: 612 - 937 -5822 Architect CNH Architects 7300 West 147th Street, Suite 504 St. Paul, Minnesota 55124 -7580 Phone: 612- 431 -4433 Landscape Architect Ernst Associates 122 West 6th Street Chaska, Minnesota 55318 Phone: 612 - 448 -4094 Fax: 612-448-6997 lighting LSI Automotive Lighting 10000 Alliance Road P.O. Box 42728 Cincinnati, Ohio 45242 Phone: 313 -793 -3200 LAR__,N, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, L . D. Ms. Kathryn R. Aanenson, AICP April 4, 1997 Page 3 Traffic Engineer Benshoof and Associates, Inc. 7301 Ohms Lane, Suite 500 Edina, Minnesota 55439 Phone: 612 - 832 -9858 Fax: 612- 832 -9564 Noise Midwest Acoustics and Electronics, Inc. 7300 France Avenue South Edina, Minnesota 55435 Phone: 612 - 897 -1814 Argonaut and its consultants met several times with City planning and engineering staff to discuss the proposed Project and to obtain input on specific development plans. The development team also considered the following materials in preparing and assembling the Application to the City: • City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan. • Highway 5 Corridor Land Use Design Study, prepared for the City of Chanhassen by Barton - Aschman Associates, Inc. in association with Camiros, August 1995. • City of Chanhassen Zoning Map and City of Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. • History of Valley Olds' discussion with the City concerning a proposed Pontiac GMC automobile sales facility in McGlynn Park. • History of other applications to the City for approval of various auto - related uses in the Highway 5 corridor. PROJECT SITE CHARACTERISTICS The 4.27 -acre Site is located south of Highway 5, east of Great Plains Boulevard, and northwest of Lake Drive East. It is irregular in shape and has approximately 730 feet of frontage along the winding Lake Drive East. The Site is approximately 550 feet deep along the west property line. It is legally described as Lot 1, Block 6, Hidden Valley, excepting the portion taken for the municipal pedestrian bridge to the east. The Site address is 250 Lake Drive East. The existing grades on the Site vary widely, from an elevation of 971 feet at the northeast corner of the Site to an elevation of 950 feet at the southwest corner of the Site. Several mounds are also located on the Site, including one near the middle of the parcel and one along Highway 5. Generally, the Site drains to the south and west. However, a portion of the Site along the Highway 5 corridor currently drains into the highway drainage system. LAR,,,N, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, i, . D. Ms. Kathryn R. Aanenson, AICP April 4, 1997 Page 4 The Site is currently vacant. It does not include significant trees or wetlands. The Site is not located in a floodplain or shoreland area. A Northern States Power Company high tension power line is located along the north property line. A municipal pedestrian bridge over Highway 5 is located to the northeast of the Site. SURROUNDING LAND USES The Site adjoins Highway 5 on the south. To the north of Highway 5 are several automotive - related uses on properties zoned BH Highway and Business Services District. The American Legion building and a softball field is adjacent to the Site on the west. The American Legion property is zoned BN Neighborhood Business District. A day -care center is located southwest of the Site, and a residential area and a church are located to the south and east of the Site across Lake Drive East. The residential area and the church property are zoned PUD -R Planned Unit Residential Development. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Argonaut proposes to develop a Pontiac -GMC retail automobile sales store to be known as Valley Sales of Chanhassen on the Site (hereinbefore and hereinafter referred to as the "Project "). The automobile sales building will be about 18,494 square feet in size. It will include a showroom, a customer reception area and lounge, a two -level office, a 12 -bay service area, and a parts area. New and used cars and personal use utility vehicles will be sold on the premises. There will be no heavy or medium truck sales. Parts and service will be available for General Motors vehicles generally. Currently, there is no General Motors customer service within the City. Body work and rapid oil change service will not be offered on the premises. The proposed hours of operation for the retail automobile sales store on the Site are 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday. The store will be closed on Sundays and holidays. New vehicle delivery will be restricted to normal business hours. Off - loading of new vehicles will be confined to the Site, itself, on the east side of the store. There will be no loading or unloading of transport vehicles on public streets. Communications between automobile sales employees will be by cellular phone. No overhead paging will be allowed. Similarly, there will be no test driving of vehicles on local residential streets. As described in greater detail in a subsequent section of this letter- memorandum, subject to City approval, Project identification will be limited to a wall- mounted sign and two ground signs. There will be no ' balloons, flags, pennants or banners employed to identify the proposed retail automobile sales use on the Site. PROJECT LAYOUT AND ORIENTATION ON THE SITE As described in preceding sections of this letter- memorandum, the Project includes one 18,494 square - foot Pontiac -GMC automobile sales store and 236 parking spaces. About 221 spaces are allocated for vehicle display and in- service vehicle parking. About 14 spaces are allocated to customer parking. HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, L , D. Ms. Kathryn R. Aanenson, AICP April 4, 1997 Page 5 The front door of the automobile sales store is on the west side of the building. The customer reception area is on the south side of the facility and the parts and service area is on the west and north sides of the building. The Project includes only one set of service doors on the north side of the building. This location was chosen to avoid potential impacts to the residential area across Lake Drive East to the south and east of the Site. Sales customers entering the Site from Lake Drive East may park at the front (west) of the building to enter the showroom for a sales consultation. Service customers enter a service reception area on the south side of the facility. After the service order is written, the vehicle is then either portered to a service holding area to the north or the customer is scheduled for service at a later date or time and leaves the Site. A waiting room is provided for customers who choose to remain on the Site while their vehicle is being serviced. Other Site features include a stormwater pond at the southwest corner of the Site and a concrete sidewalk along the Site perimeter to allow for connection to the municipal pedestrian bridge to the northeast of the Site. As described in greater detail in a subsequent section of this letter- memorandum, the stormwater pond is being treated as a community amenity and will be enhanced by tree and shrub plantings and perennial flower beds. Access to the Site is proposed at two locations along Lake Drive East. The primary access, at the southwest corner of the Site, is an existing drive approach on Lake Drive East. The drive approach is proposed to be shared with the westerly adjacent parcel. Grading for this shared approach was originally coordinated with the proposed Chanhassen Commons development. If Chanhassen Commons does not proceed, Argonaut will work with the adjacent property owner to receive permission and /or a temporary construction easement to construct the shared driveway approach shown on the submitted development plans. Site constraints and Argonaut's objective of developing a high quality Project compatible with the environment and surrounding land uses played a key role in Project orientation and building placement. At staff's request, consideration was given to moving the building closer to Highway 5. This was not feasible due to the irregular shape of the Site, the rolling topography and City access and ponding requirements. Due to these constraints, movement of the building closer to Highway 5 would preclude an efficient circulation and parking layout for the proposed Project, as well as for alternative uses allowed under the existing zoning. However, as described in greater detail throughout this letter- memorandum, a combination of existing and proposed land forms and new plantings effectively screens the north parking area from Highway 5 views, and the proposed planting plan allows for filtered and softened views of the attractive building from key vantage points along the highway corridor. ARCHITECTURE The Project's overall architectural goal was to achieve the highest quality building design compatible with Highway 5 overlay zoning district standards. Compatibility with plans and ordinances will be addressed in a subsequent section of this letter- memorandum. This section provides a general description of building design and exterior materials. LAk..,N, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, i. , D. Ms. Kathryn R. Aanenson, AICP April 4, 1997 Page 6 The Project architect divided the building into multiple appropriately scaled elements to complement the built environment and to provide a comfortable human scale. A palette of repeated elements and materials defines the Project image as follows: • Low vaulted arch form at the main entry on the west elevation and over the accent windows on the north and south elevations. • Stucco band that repeats around the building, but does not wrap around the entire facade. • Decorative metal composite columns or pilasters supporting the stucco bands on each facade. • Sections of brick exterior walls on all facades. • Rock -face concrete wainscot to define the building base. A conscious effort was made to provide the same level of detailing and high quality, low- maintenance materials on all facades of the building. Special attention was paid to the elevations on the south (Lake Drive East) and north (Highway 5) to ensure consistent architectural style and overall visual interest. In addition, parapet walls were employed to vary building heights and to screen rooftop mechanical units from view. Colors were chosen to be harmonious and to enhance the traditional feel of the Project while not overpowering building design. The main color palette consists of a soft off -white stucco and a medium gray brick with a natural tone slightly into the warm range. The front entry arch and column system is a natural aluminum finish selected to blend with the medium gray brick. A small spark of color is added to each column by inclusion of a slightly dulled red accent circle. This provides additional interest to the facade and integrates with the signage color to complete the Project. The Project includes a free - standing trash enclosure at the northeast corner of the Site. The trash enclosure will be constructed of the same rock -face concrete block as the base of the building. A detail of the trash enclosure is shown on the submitted site plan. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES As described in a preceding section of this letter- memorandum, there is an approximate 20 -foot elevation change from the northeast corner of the Site to the southwest corner of the Site. Generally, the Site drains to the south and west; however, the slope is not a gradual transition. Significant earthwork is required to prepare the Site for Project development. The Site will be graded to drain into a conventional storm sewer piping system located in the southwest corner of the Site with minimum slopes of 0.6% and maximum slopes of 5.0 %. Approximately 80% of the Site drainage area will be routed through an on -site stormwater pond with an outlet elevation of 951.0 feet and a 100 -year high water level of 953.5 feet. The remaining 20% of the Site will discharge directly into an existing storm sewer located in Lake Drive East. The on -site stormwater pond will have 4:1 slopes and a top elevation of 954.0 feet. A four -foot high retaining wall will ring a portion of the pond to LAR...N, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, L.. D. Ms. Kathryn R. Aanenson, AICP April 4, 1997 Page 7 provide maximum aesthetic appeal. The permanent pool depth will be seven feet. This will provide water quality treatment close to National Urban Runoff Program standards. The total ten -year pre - development flow off the Site is 9.09 cubic feet per second ( "cfs "). The total ten - year post - development flow off the Site, after routing 80% of Site drainage to the stormwater pond, is 9.10 cfs. The total 100 -year pre- development flow off the Site is 17.64 cfs. The total 100 -year post - development flow off the Site, after routing 80% of Site drainage through the stormwater pond, is 12.99 cfs. The proposed on -site stormwater pond is not required for water quality treatment purposes. Consultations with City staff indicate that water quality treatment is provided in downstream ponding facilities. Rather, a stormwater pond is necessary because the existing pipe capacity is not large enough to accommodate the Project's ten -year design needs. Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to the Site. A six -inch PVC sanitary pipe is proposed to be extended to the proposed building from an existing manhole at the northwest end of Lake Drive East and Hidden Court. Watermain is proposed to connect to an existing eight -inch stub at the northwest corner of the Site just south of Highway 5. This watermain will serve the building and supply fire hydrants as required by the City fire marshal. Project storm sewer lines are designed for a ten -year event. Two sump catch basins will be placed at the south entrance to Lake Drive East to prevent bypass to Lake Drive during a 100 -year event. The pond outlet structure is sized properly to keep the ten -year flow below 11 cfs as requested by the City. LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING The landscape plan for the proposed Project includes deciduous shade and ornamental trees, mixed varieties of conifers such as spruce and pine, and supplemental shrub plantings such as burning bush, red twig dogwood and some evergreen shrubs for year -round greenery. The selected palette of plant material meets City landscape requirements and addresses aesthetic, maintenance, functional and visual screening considerations. As recommended by the City forester and planning department staff, buffer plantings along the Lake Drive East perimeter include a variety of plant materials. Deciduous overstory trees are mixed with conifers in selected areas. Deciduous plantings provide a more immediate and complete screen for the parking lot area. They also filter and soften building views from surrounding land uses. Conifers are introduced in the buffer area to provide year -round greenery in the landscape during the winter months. The terminus of Lake Drive East and Hidden Court is proposed to be densely planted with conifers to maximize screening for the adjacent residential area. The combination of earth berm and plantings on top of the berm along the north side of the Site screens parked cars from Highway 5 view, while leaving some avenues open for filtered views of the building. The choice of plant material in the north buffer area is limited due to the existing east -west overhead power line. The utility company allows planting within the easement as long as the plants do not exceed a mature height of 20 feet. Ornamental trees and multi -stem amur maple, along with drifts of mugho pine LAk,..IN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, , ,, D. Ms. Kathryn R. Aanenson, AICP April 4, 1997 Page 8 and junipers, are proposed for the easement area. The mugho pine, which will ultimately grow to approximately eight to ten feet in height, will provide year -round greenery. Conifers, overstory trees, small ornamental trees and shrubs are proposed along the west property line to provide visual screening and a division between the two properties. A mixture of evergreen trees, shade trees and deciduous shrubs will be introduced at the southwest corner of the Site in the ponding area. Shrubs will be planted at the top of the retaining wall to provide some sense of edge and security. Plant material around the pond perimeter is compatible with anticipated snow storage during the winter months. Perennial flowering plants are also proposed near the pond to provide summer bloom on an annual basis. The planting design reinforces and enhances the pond as a visual amenity for the community, as well as for the Project. Plant material in the interior of the Site will be located around the building and in parking islands. Shrubs are proposed for the base of the building. The entire Site will be sodded and irrigated. All plant material installed will have a one -year guarantee and will comply with the latest edition of the American Standard of Nursery Stock, American Association of Nurserymen. Argonaut's consulting landscape architect, Ernst Associates, prepared seven site sections to illustrate the screening achieved by the earth berms and plantings proposed for the Project. This narrative generally describes the site sections submitted with the Application. Section A -A: This section was taken looking east cutting through Lot 2 of the adjoining residential area to the south and extending through the proposed automobile sales store. This section represents views from the lower level and second level of this split -level home. The existing earth berm and six -foot high fence screen the parking and the proposed building from the lower level. An individual viewing from the second level would be able to see the building, but the parking would be obstructed from view by the existing six -foot high fence. Proposed plantings along the north side of Lake Drive East also provide some visual screening of the building when the plant material has matured. Section B -B: This section was taken looking west cutting through Lot 1 of the adjoining residential area to the south and extending up through the proposed buffer and building. This section shows an individual standing at grade level at the back of the existing garage and viewing the proposed Project. Heavy plantings within the 20 -foot setback on the north side of Lake Drive buffer the parking and provide filtered views to the building. Screening of this view would be enhanced by additional fencing on the berm or planting around the east end of the fence. This would require discussion between Argonaut and the homeowner. Due to grade changes on the Site, earth benning is not feasible because sufficient height cannot be attained to provide positive screening between the street and the parking lot. Positive screening is therefore proposed to be achieved with plant material. Section C -C: This section was taken looking north cutting through residential Lot 8 and extending west along the south elevation of the proposed automobile sales store. This residence is approximately 420 feet from the east face of the proposed building. The proposed plantings provide some filtered screening of the building and the parking lot. LAk...N, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, i_.. D. Ms. Kathryn R. Aanenson, AICP April 4, 1997 Page 9 Section D -D: This section was taken looking east cutting through Highway 5 and extending through the earth berm along the north property line into the parking lot and the new proposed building. This section shows that the earth berm and shrub plantings will effectively screen the north parking area. The westbound site line to the new parking area is totally cut off by the new proposed earth berm. Filtered views will remain to the top portion of the new proposed building. Section E -E: This section was taken looking north starting at the centerline of Highway 5 and extending east into the proposed parking area. This section demonstrates that the earth berm will totally screen the new proposed parking lot from Highway 5 view. New proposed plantings will also supplement the visual screening created by the land form. Section F -F: This section is taken looking to the northeast starting at the centerline of Highway 5 at the same location as the starting point of Section E -E. It extends across the proposed parking area to the new proposed building. This section again demonstrates that a combination of earth berm and planting will effectively screen the proposed parking from Highway 5 views. Plantings along the west property line enhance the overall aesthetic appeal of the Project, while allowing filtered views to the new proposed building. Section G -G: This section was taken looking to the northeast starting at Lot 9 extending across Lake Drive, through the new proposed stormwater pond, parking area and to the new proposed building. This section illustrates that an individual viewing from the lower level of the home would not be able to see the parking and would have very limited views of the proposed building. An individual viewing from the second level of this home would be able to view a portion of the building, but the view of the parking area would be obstructed due to the existing earth berm and six -foot high fence. LIGHTING Project lighting consists of Greenbriar series light fixtures selected by Argonaut's lighting consultant, LSI Automotive Lighting. Lighting will be shielded and directed downward and will not spill over property lines. As shown on the photometric plans submitted with the Application, lighting levels at property boundaries will meet the one -half foot candle Zoning Ordinance limitation. Twenty -three twelve -foot- high lighting fixtures are proposed around the perimeter of the Site. Seven twenty -two -foot high fixtures with a two -foot high concrete base are proposed for the interior. Project lighting levels will be substantially reduced by a timer during non -sales hours. Lighting pole colors will complement and harmonize with the colors of the proposed building. No wall- mounted lighting is proposed. SIGNAGE Project signage includes one wall sign and two ground signs. A "GMC Truck/Pontiac" wall sign is proposed on the west elevation of the building. The location of the sign was carefully selected to avoid views from the residential area to the southwest. The proposed wall sign will include backlit individually mounted letters, rather than box signage. The proposed wall sign is approximately 50 square feet in size, which is substantially less than the 190 square feet sign area allowed in the existing BN District (5% of wall area between 3,200 square feet and 4,500 square feet). LAR._.N, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, L.. D. Ms. Kathryn R. Aanenson, AICP April 4, 1997 Page 10 Two ground signs are also proposed on the Site. A 16 -foot high, 49- square -foot ground sign is proposed at the northwest corner of the Site facing Highway 5. A 15 -foot high, 64 square foot ground sign is proposed at the southwest corner of the Site facing Lake Drive East. The ground signs use the same rock - face block and brick base and decorative metal composite panel column and arch as the proposed building to attractively integrate Project signage and building design. SUMMARY OF PROJECT TRAFFIC STUDY The Application includes a traffic study for the proposed Project prepared by Argonaut's consulting traffic engineer, Benshoof and Associates ( "Traffic Study "). The Traffic Study compared the number of trips generated by the proposed Project on the Site to the number of trips generated by alternative uses allowed under the existing BN zoning. The Traffic Study also analyzed p.m. peak hour traffic operations at Site driveways and four key intersections: T.H. 5 /Dakota Avenue, Lake Drive /Dakota Avenue, T.H. 5 /Great Plains Boulevard, and Great Plains Boulevard /Lake Drive. The following is a summary of the Traffic Study's findings and conclusions: • The proposed Project generates substantial less traffic than other alternative permitted or conditional uses under the existing BN zoning. For example, the Project generates only 43 p.m. peak hour trips as compared to 189 p.m. peak hour trips generated by a retail shopping center and 315 p.m. peak hour trips generated by a mixed use commercial development (shopping, sit -down restaurant, and convenience store with gas pumps). Project weekday daily, Saturday peak hour, and Saturday daily traffic is also substantially less than traffic generated by alternative permitted or conditional uses during the same time periods. • The T.H. 5 /Dakota Avenue intersection currently operates at Level of Service B during the p.m. peak hour. The intersection will continue to operate at Level of Service B during the weekday p.m. peak hour in 1998 with or without the proposed Project. • The Lake Drive /Dakota Avenue intersection also currently operates at Level of Service B or better during the weekday p.m. peak hour. This is expected to continue in 1998 with or without the proposed Project. • The T.H. 5 /Great Plains Boulevard intersection currently operates at Level of Service B during the p.m. peak hour. The intersection will operate at an acceptable Level of Service C during the p.m. peak hour in 1998 with or without the proposed Project. In the forecast year 2002, the intersection will operate at an unacceptable level of service with or without the proposed Project. This is due to the large increase in background traffic projected for Highway 5. No perceptible change is expected to occur in the quality of traffic operations at the intersection due to the proposed Project. • The Great Plains Boulevard /Lake Drive intersection currently operates at Level of Service B or better during the weekday p.m. peak hour. This is expected to continue in 1998 with or without the proposed Project. In the forecast year 2002, all traffic movements, both with and without the proposed Project, will operate at Level of Service D or better, except the eastbound LAk._.N, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, L. D. Ms. Kathryn R. Aanenson, AICP April 4, 1997 Page 11 movements. The eastbound movements are projected to operate at Level of Service E both with or without the proposed Project. No perceptible change is expected to occur in the quality of traffic operations at this intersection due to the proposed Project. • Traffic movements at both access drives will operate at acceptable levels of service during the weekday p.m. peak hour. These results indicate that the proposed Project will not alter the quality of traffic operations on Lake Drive East. • The proposed site plan adequately accommodates vehicles entering, exiting and circulating within the Site. • Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, the proposed Project will not cause any adverse traffic impacts on the surrounding roadway system. No roadway improvements or changes in traffic signal operations are needed to accommodate the Project. PROJECT NOISE STUDY The Application includes a noise study for the proposed Project prepared by Argonaut's consulting acoustical engineer, Midwest Acoustics and Electronics, Inc. ( "Noise Study "). The Noise Study analyzed in detail service shop noise and new vehicle off - loading noise. It also generally addressed traffic noise based on the consulting acoustical engineer's review of trip generation numbers contained in the Traffic Study. The following is a summary of the Noise Study's findings and conclusions: • Traffic noise levels generated by the proposed Project will be significantly lower than traffic noise levels generated by alternative uses allowed under the existing BN zoning. This is because traffic generated by the proposed Project is substantially less than traffic generated by alternative uses allowed under the existing BN zoning. • Service shop and off - loading noise levels will be less than applicable Minnesota noise standards at worst case residential receptor sites and at the nearby Family of Christ Lutheran Church property. • Predicted maximum noise levels due to the service shop and off - loading of new vehicles are less than actual observed maximum present -day background noise levels in the community. Also, predicted maximum noise levels due to new vehicle off - loading are less than actual measured noise levels of a top - loading trash - hauling truck that serves commercial establishments allowed under the existing zoning. This means that for the same conditions, off - loading and air brake noise will be less than or comparable to commonly occurring impulsive noise of a top - loading garbage - hauling truck that typically serves shopping centers and other commercial establishments allowed under the existing zoning. LAR-.N, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, i.. D. Ms. Kathryn R. Aanenson, AICP April 4, 1997 Page 12 • The risk of annoyance from Project noise is expected to be minimal due to the short duration of the off - loading process, the relative infrequency of off - loading, and ongoing exposure to maximum background noise levels that often exceed predicted post- Project noise levels. PROPOSED PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ZONING The Application includes a request for approval of a rezoning from the underlying BN Neighborhood Business District to PUD Planned Unit Development District. Automobile sales are neither a permitted nor a conditional use in the existing underlying BN District. Automobile sales and service are a conditional use in the BG General Business District. The applicant considered requesting approval of a rezoning from BN to BG. This alternative was rejected because the BG District would allow future development of more intense uses on the Site as permitted or conditional uses. For example, the BG District allows a supermarket, home improvement or building supply center, garden center, bar and tavern, and fast food restaurant as permitted uses. In contrast, under PUD zoning, each PUD may be used only for the use or uses shown on the approved PUD development plan. A change in use for an approved PUD development plan requires Planning Commission review and City Council approval of a PUD amendment after published and mailed notice and a public hearing. PUD zoning also affords the opportunity for the City to exercise greater control over site development and performance standards through negotiation of conditions to approval and a PUD development agreement. The Zoning Ordinance establishes a five -acre minimum area requirement for a PUD, unless the applicant can demonstrate the existence of one of the following: (1) unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a PUD will preserve an important physical topographic feature; (2) the property is directly adjacent to or across the right -of -way from property which has been developed previously as a PUD or planned unit residential development and will be perceived as and will function as an extension of that previously approved development; or (3) the property is located in a transitional area between different land use categories or on an intermediate or principal arterial as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The Site which is proposed for PUD zoning is 4.27 acres in size. Argonaut believes, however, that PUD zoning is appropriate because the Site is designated commercial in the Comprehensive Plan and is in a transitional area between other commercial areas north of Trunk Highway 5 and the planned unit residential development area across Lake Drive East to the south of the Site. The Site is also located adjacent to Trunk Highway 5, which is identified as a Class I Minor Arterial in the Comprehensive Plan. Planned unit development zoning offers enhanced flexibility to develop a parcel through relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfers of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development cost. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the Zoning Ordinance states that PUD development plans should result in a higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the use of other, more standard zoning districts. Planned unit developments are to encourage preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space; more efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities; high quality of LAk. _.N, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, L.. D. Ms. Kathryn R. Aanenson, AICP April 4, 1997 Page 13 design and design compatible with surrounding land uses; sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the City; development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; creation of public park and open space consistent with the comprehensive park plan and overall trail plan; provision of affordable housing if appropriate within the PUD; energy conservation; and use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. As described throughout this letter- memorandum, the proposed Project is a high quality development sensitive to and compatible with surrounding land uses. It meets Zoning Ordinance PUD expectations as follows: • Preserves desirable site characteristics and open space. The Site does not include significant mature trees or wetlands. However, a natural low area in the southwest corner of the Site will be retained as open space for an on -site stormwater and amenity pond. Although the pond is not required for water quality purposes, it is proposed as a wet pond with a permanent pool depth of seven feet. This will enhance its overall aesthetic appeal. Landscape treatment of a ponding area will help to provide a community amenity. • Building orientation, access and circulation maximizes the efficient and effective use of land. The primary Site access will be at an existing driveway approach, as recommended by City staff. Shared access with the westerly adjacent parcel will facilitate future redevelopment of the neighboring parcel consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. • Architecture and building design includes high quality building materials and architectural features compatible with Highway 5 corridor objectives. Building design has been substantially upgraded from GMC prototypical building design. Other upgraded project features include a finished service reception area, lower site lighting levels as compared to typical GMC developments, prohibition on overhead paging, and a modified signage program that provides for wall signs and ground signs complementary to and integrated with building design. • Project development plans provide a transition and buffer between the Site and the residential area to the south and east and the commercial area to the north of Highway 5. Internal vehicle circulation is directed away from the residential area and a single service door is located on the northeast side of the building away from the neighboring residential area. Vehicle display and parking areas are substantially screened from Highway 5 view by earth berms and plantings. Parking areas are also screened from most residential views. Berms and landscaping soften building image and provide filtered views of the attractive exterior facade. • The Project includes a sidewalk along the perimeter of the Site that allows for connection to the municipal pedestrian bridge to the northeast of the Site. This is consistent with Highway 5 corridor objectives to encourage pedestrian circulation. LAk._,N, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, L. D. Ms. Kathryn R. Aanenson, AICP April 4, 1997 Page 14 • Automobile sales and service is destination retailing. As documented in the Traffic Study, therefore, the proposed Project generates substantially less p.m. peak hour and daily traffic than alternative permitted and conditional uses under existing zoning. Upon completion of the proposed Project in 1998, site driveways and all four key affected intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service. No roadway improvements are needed to accommodate Project traffic. The Application also requests PUD flexibility for parking setbacks along Highway 5 and for impervious surface coverage. A 25 -foot setback is proposed to the north parking area. This reduced setback is necessary to provide efficient vehicle circulation, building placement and parking due to constraints posed by the irregular shape of the parcel, the rolling topography, and drainage and access requirements. As described throughout this letter- memorandum, a combination of earth berms and plantings effectively screens this parking area from Highway 5 view. As a result, encroachment in the front yard setback area does not adversely affect Highway 5 corridor objectives. Similarly, the submitted site plan provides for about 72% hard surface coverage, as compared to the 70% maximum hard surface coverage allowed in the PUD district. As demonstrated by the submitted landscape plan and site sections, the slight exceedance of this hard surface limitation has no significant impact on the visual environment because of the sensitive building placement, and strong perimeter buffer and planting plan. CONSISTENCY WITH CITY PLANS, POLICIES AND ORDINANCES The Project is consistent with the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan ( "Comprehensive Plan "), the Highway 5 Corridor Land Use Design Study ( "Highway 5 Study "), and the HC Highway Commercial District overlay zone ( "HC District "). The Site is designated commercial in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan commercial land use guiding. The Project is also consistent with planning goals and policies established in the Highway 5 Study as follows: • The proposed Project supports the Highway 5 Study concept of developing a diverse community. It supports an image of the City as the community with a diverse economy, solid residential neighborhoods and a strong social fabric. • The Project provides high quality building and site design, landscaping and signage. • The proposed Project is oriented to reduce massing in scale and to screen parking areas from Highway 5 corridor view. Filtered and softened views of the attractive building are still available from the Highway 5 corridor. • Proposed setbacks from the highway are sufficient to provide appropriate berming and landscape buffering and to minimize the highway's visual impact. LAk..iN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, 1, . D. Ms. Kathryn R. Aanenson, AICP April 4, 1997 Page 15 • The development plan includes a pedestrian sidewalk affording access to the municipal pedestrian bridge. • No direct access to Highway 5 is proposed from the Site. Primary access is from the Lake Drive access boulevards consistent with the Highway 5 Study. • Project lighting and signage are complementary to and integrated with building design. To the extent feasible, design elements from other projects along Highway 5 have been incorporated in Project plans. • Access points to and from Lake Drive East are designed to maintain acceptable traffic flow. The submitted Traffic Study demonstrates that traffic operations at site access driveways and all affected intersections will be acceptable after development of the proposed Project. No roadway improvements are necessary to accommodate Project traffic, which is projected to be substantially less than traffic generated by other uses allowed under the existing BN zoning. With the exception of the HC District parking setback criteria for which design flexibility is requested, as discussed in the preceding section of this letter - memorandum, the Project is consistent with HC District standards as follows: • Project architecture includes variation in detail and form. The Project includes the following multiple appropriate scaled elements to create visual interest and to break up the mass of the exterior facade: low vaulted arch form at the main entry and over the accent windows, decorative metal composite columns, and rock -faced concrete wainscot to define the building base. • Parapet walls are used to vary the building heights and to screen mechanical units from public view. • The proposed 40 -foot building height meets HC District limitations. • Proposed exterior materials, including face brick, glass, stucco, decorative metal composite columns, and rock -faced block meet HC District criteria. • All building components have good proportions that relate to the facade of the building and relate well to one another. • The medium gray brick/soft off -white stucco color palette creates a harmonious color scheme. A slightly dulled red accent circle is included for visual interest. • A free - standing trash enclosure constructed in part of the same rock -face block as the building screens this element from public view. LA}._ .N, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, _D. Ms. Kathryn R. Aanenson, AICP April 4, 1997 Page 16 • The Site does not include significant trees or wetlands. An existing low area in the southwest corner of the Site is preserved for an on -site stormwater and amenity pond. • Massing of plant materials is provided, as compared to isolated or scattered placement of individual specimens. • Selected plant varieties are repeated to achieve unity of planting design. • The selected lighting design enhances the building design and the adjoining landscape. The lighting standard design is compatible with adjacent areas. Lighting is shielded and directed downward and does not spill over property lines. GMC's prototypical lighting requirements were modified to reduce lighting levels consistent with HC District criteria. If you have any questions concerning this letter- memorandum or the Application generally, please give me a call. Sincerely, 1 Linda H. Fisher, for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. cc: Steve Kaufman, GMC Worldwide Real Estate John Johannson, Welsh Companies Bernie Wagnild, Valley Automotive Group Jim Paul, Valley Automotive Group George Ananich, THA Architects Quinn Hutson, CNH Architects Dwight Jelle, Westwood Professional Services Gene Ernst, Ernst Associates Jim Benshoof, Benshoof & Associates Rick Van Doeren, Midwest Acoustics Paula McFarland, Pontiac GMC Robert Krieg, Pontiac GMC Jim Dalbec, GMC Area Manager David Fell, Otten, Johnson, Robinson, Neff and Ragonetti 0289516.01 L VALLEY AUTO1vlOTIVE GROUP � , ���•� "` 7500 West 145th Street • Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 • 612- 432 -9500 4;;-- 2 3 1997 July 21, 1997 Dear ,-G' `- 77Y2y You are invited to attend a neighborhood meeting at 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, July 29, 1997 in the Chanhassen City Council Chambers, 690 Coulter Drive to review Valley Sales' plans to develop a Pontiac -GMC retail automotive sales store on a four acre site south of Trunk Highway 5 and north and west of Lake Drive East in the City of Chanhassen. We will be serving light refreshments at the meeting. If you plan on attending, please call 953- 2100 between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. We look forward to seeing you at the meeting. Sine y, Bernie Wagnild President dey Olds, Pontiac, GMC Valley Sales of Hastings Valley Sales of Waconia Transmission Doctor Valley Development Last Chance Advertising 7500 West 145th Street PO. Box 186 43 West Highway 5 15425 Cedar Avenue S. 7500 West 145th Street 7500 West 145th Street Apple Valley, MN 55124 Hastings, MN 55033 Waconia, MN 55387 Apple Va11ep, 61n 55124 Apple Valle}. MIN 55124 .Apple Valley, MN 55123 612 -432 -9500 612 - 437 -9815 612 - 442 -5000 612 - 953 -6544 612- 432 -9500 612 -432 -9500 VALLEY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP 7500 West 145th Street • Apple Valley, Minnesota 55124 • 612 - 432 -9500 August 19, 1997 Dear Chanhassen Resident, You are invited to attend a second neighborhood meeting at 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, August 27, 1997 in the Chanhassen City Council Chambers, 690 Coulter Drive to continue to provide data and facts regarding Valley Sales' plans to develop a Pontiac -GMC retail automotive sales store on a four acre site south of Trunk Highway 5 and north and west of Lake Drive East in the City of Chanhassen. We will be serving light refreshments at the meeting. If you plan on attending, please call 953-2100 between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. We look forward to seeing you at the meeting. Sincerely (6s ,..,.. Bernie Wagnild President it 4'.7, tea 7 AUG 21 1997 D r (4- ;;,, t Valley Olds, Pontiac, GMC Valley Sales of Hastings Valley Sales of Waconia Transmission Doctor Valley Development Last Chance Advertising 7500 West 145th Street BO. Box 186 43 West Highway 5 15425 Cedar Avenue S. 7500 West 145th Street 7500 West 145th Street Apple Valley, MN 55124 Hastings, MN 55033 Wacorna, MN 55387 Apple Valley, Mn 55124 Apple Valley, MN 55124 Apple Valley, SIN 55124 612- 432 -9500 612 -437 -9815 612 -442 -5000 612 - 953 -6544 612 - 432 -9500 612- 432 -950 RD ; _A:, {:.\ :........ ,Ay I,riu. , _ . 1 _ , . - . _ Ju1E5 LAP" LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. G4RJETOPHER J. 15 11F,M]F J OH RCEOE OI ROBERT L N FR EOELL B4UCE J. MUMPS M.FFIEO` ATTORNEYS AT LAW mumcc'rrTM. E owp c.. D*I& J'J JOHN R. HILL N. FU FULLER or= 1 GEY tE GENE N. FOLIER LARRY O. WPM% FRAN D. FuLLll3, 150 NOR WEST FINANCIAL CENTER JANE E. eRE.E C45F t I. 5. MOD J0 J FIEFFBflIA IEN � 4TO H ' MOOaL 7900 XERXES AVENUE S OUTH miLIP a. ALDEJ CHRICTOFMFR OIN 1410-4121 J' am,,RH U rfiA M P. nIm NJOREW F. PER5P THON1 P. r AcKmg• + BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 65431.1194 0555121. w. YOS3 J a - E1 EL ' JnOOAN. NYG R. FAX J omJE n gr T ELEPHONE (612) s36-as00 PPM M. ME*EP PAN5.a FLYNN CRI3raPr.=_?o JOHNrbf+ AYE:, € i F (B12)BB -3333 REnER I.- JAMMON T ODD P, aura CHR1?TOPNFA . L RUE TODD P, L FREEMAN MARCY R. FROST G1JN1D L EEC", 7.YriM M. BAWLER. JGMJ R. Lu+'00015T GTETf -'m 1 EmIEJfM JOWL A. COTTE T 1QMI' 5, MAR.JACI!l JOM1A CA RCP- PAVEL T FJDIEC PAARIICE A RO?TNERER PINnA. A WAHIJ3REN PALL a 1 T YARN M. NtSP.n IW+ 151:1.'4 JOHN F. 'LOS YFT',.EEN M. B ALTTE NEM1M1 JOHN ERIF H 2flS WQ CJI e. IIDMTJ LYME M OW:y5 NCYJIE pCCa4Y YORBTM C !Mem ROEEINS C.nRT P. ifl.EYE' men, B ,TERidao ' f L J , ' KEEL S. FFEOER105 JN MVSTHY J. nMOn11' J. SE /552 Je: OF COVNBEI. 007".5 ft JACX Y6 5 r 051.7 R'niti J ICH A L W.Pr.- 0 NIC11A5 PRE .£f KVJJR MV113M1 norm a PREPS 5 JJr�oneaN TCRCrpri c 516475 YJEHO ' GARY L+• P aRIY WY A RE'+NNtC fL:C ADMN fED 15 MSrLw•.N May 5, 1997 Ms. Sharrnin Al -Jaff City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P. O. Box 147 VIA FACSIMILE Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: Argonaut Holdings' Zoning Application Our File No. 22,701 -00 Dear Sharmin: Argonaut Holdings requests that the City pull the newspaper notice for the May 21 Planning Commission. previously scheduled to be published on May 8 and that the City not mail notices to property owners within 500 feet of the site for the May 21 Planning Commission. Also, pursuant to our discussion today, Argonaut agrees that the statutory time period for City action. on our pending zoning application will begin to run when the application first appears on the Planning Commission agenda. We will be back in touch with you as soon as possible regarding our schedule for the Planning Commission. Sincerely, r inda H. Fisher, for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 May 7, 1997 Ms. Linda Fisher Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 1500 Norwest Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Bloomington, MN 55431 -1194 Re: Argonaut Holdings' Planned Unit Development Application Dear Ms. Fisher: This letter is to formally notify you that per your request, the City cancelled the newspaper notice for the May 21, 1997 Planning Commission Public Hearing for Argonaut Holdings' Planned Unit Development Application. As we discussed, this is the second time you requested tabling this item. I explained that I was concerned that these delays were cutting into the 120 day time period which the City needs to review and act on an application. We agreed that I would cancel the newspaper notice for the subject application with the condition that Argonaut Holdings' agrees that the 120 days time period for City action on the pending application will begin to run when the application first appears before the Planning Commission for a Public Hearing. In your letter dated May 5, 1997, you stated "Argonaut agrees that the statuary time period for City action on our pending zoning application will begin to run when the application first appears on the Planning Commission agenda." I wanted to be on record that the City will use the full 120 days statutory time period for City action on the pending application. The 120 days will commence when the application first appears before the Planning Commission for a Public Hearing. The City is using the full 120 days due to the complexity of the application and to allow the Planning Commission and City Council the time they need to render a decision. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Sharmin . -Jaf f Planner II g: \plan'sa auto.e -.. Nii i.. -.... NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING .,. / 1.111 ' �'''_• PLANNING COMMISSION i1' � C " r„ ' iw, Wednesday, September 3, 1997 l i i ' � �,( at 7:00 p.m. •I (�\ City Hall Council Chambers ' I . �010 690 Coulter Drive = ' /! 4.ov 1 . „ SUBJECT: Rezoning and Site Plan Review ' ` � � •� cp / 111 MI for an Auto Dealership I ih p .._ ., % `' ��� , .�� . �, sta ,� -. ,. Now APPLICANT: Argonaut Holdings, Inc. ��r� =� a :p , _OCATION: South of Hwy. 5, north of a � % _ 'w a 1. Lake Drive East, and east ,� ���� ■ Miff' ft of the Chanhassen Legion M;; 4% VAN II NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Argonaut Holdings, Inc., is requesting rezoning 4.27 acres of BN, Neighborhood Business District, to PUD, Planned Unit Development to allow for an auto dealership and site plan review for an 18,494 sq. ft. building to be located south of Hwy. 5, north of Lake Drive East and east of the Chanhassen Legion site. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937 -1900 ext..120. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on August 21, 1997. ` Ire �h i CARVER COUNTY ABSTRACT AND TITLE CO., INC. CARVER COUNTY (612) 448 -5570 201 Chestnut St. N. FAX (612) 448.5155 ABSTRACT & TITLE P.O. Box 106 Dale B. Kutter Chaska, MN 55318 David E. Moonen March 27, 1997 Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren 1500 Norwest Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Ave. S. Bloomington, MN. 55431 Attn: Peg Reed According to the 1997 Tax Books in the Carver County Treasurers Office the following persons are listed as owners of the property within Carver County, Minnesota, which lies within 500 feet of the following described property: Lot 1, Block 6, HIDDEN VALLEY, Except that part described as follows: Beginning at the most northerly corner of said Lot 1; thence southwesterly along the northwesterly line of said Lot 1, a distance of 394.88 feet; thence southeasterly, deflection angle left 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 105.00 feet; thence easterly, deflection angle left 51 degrees 23 minutes 00 seconds to the easterly line of said Lot 1; thence northeasterly along said easterly line to the point of beginning, according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County, Minnesota 1. Al H Klingelhutz & % 5. American Legion - Chanhassen Post ` Gerald W. Schlenk P 0 Box 264 8600 Great Plains Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN. 55317 6. Amoco American Oil Co j 2. Michael & Darlene Leonard Property Tax Department 8016 Erie Ave Q /N 200 East Randolph Dr Chanhassen, MN 55317 �'" M C 2408 Chicago, IL 60601 3. Steven M. Wentzel • 8018 Erie Ave 7. City of Chanhassen Chanhassen, MN 55317 c/o City Treasurer 690 Coulter Dry P 0 Box 147 4. Chanhassen HRA Chanhassen, MN 55317 690 Coulter Dr P 0 Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 8. Valvoline Instant Oil Change 1 301 Main St. E Suite 1200 Lexington, KY 40507 9. Tace R & Carmen M Wieczorek /01 ° 18. James A & Carol A Udstuen 250 Hidden Ln / 360 Hidden Ln Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' 10. Eric A & Debra A Waletski 19. Peter A Knoll & ry �� 260 Hidden Lane Mary Z Staudohar -Knoll sr Chanhassen, MN 55317 370 Hidden Ln / Chanhassen, MN 55317 11. James S & Shelly A Babusek 280 Hidden Ln 20. Bisrat & Denise Alemayehu Chanhassen, MN 55317 380 Hidden Ln Chanhassen, MN 55317 12. Warren 0 & Coleen M Watson ZI's' 300 Hidden Ln j 21. William R & Debra E Prigge Chanhassen, MN 55317 390 Hidden Ln Chanhassen, MN 55317 13. Cory S & Brenda J Ploen 310 Hidden Ln i 22. Douglas B & Susan M McCarthy Chanhassen, MN 55317 8001 Hidden Ct Chanhassen, MN 55317 14. Todd D Michels 320 Hidden Ln ♦ 23. James F & Pamela A Murphy Chanhassen, MN 55317 8021 Hidden Ct Chanhassen, MN 55317 15. David A Lyons & Julie Tenhoff -Lyons 24. John A & Lana J Bergo 330 Hidden Ln 8041 Hidden Ct Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 16. Matthew J Pattee & j 25. Stanley H. Lester Donna E Spinelli 8061 Hidden Ct 340 Hidden Ln Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 26. Karen M Klinsing 17. James P Adank 8090 Hidden Ct 350 Hidden Ln Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 y 27. Jon Steckman & Laurie M Pieper 36. Shannon N McClard & 8080 Hidden Ct Sherrie R Peterson Chanhassen, MN 55317 8030 Hidden Cir Chanhassen, MN 55317 t 28. Michael H & Rhonda W Collins 8060 Hidden Ct , _37. Reza Aghelnejad Chanhassen, MN 55317 8061 Hidden Cir Chanhassen, MN 55317 29. Brian D & Jean M Steckling 8040 Hidden Ct 38. Ulrico & Laurie Sacchet Chanhassen, MN 55317 8071 Hidden Cir Chanhassen, MN 55317 30. Christopher & Jean Polster 8020 Hidden Ct — 39. Michael C & Margaret Buchner Chanhassen, MN 55317 8081 Hidden Cir Chanhassen, MN 55317 31. Paul R & Michelle M Haik 261 Hidden Ln t 40. Nancy L Helland Chanhassen, MN 55317 8091 Hidden Cir Chanhassen, MN 55317 32. Keith & Delores H Blatzheim 271 Hidden Ln 41. Thomas M Perrier Chanhassen, MN 55317 l. 311 Hidden Ln Chanhassen, MN 55317 t 33. Barry S & Lisa L Thompson 8000 Hidden Cir • 42. Keith W & Cinda R Gottschalk Chanhassen, MN 55317 321 Hidden Ln Chanhassen, MN 55317 • 34. Anthony & Mary Pavlovich 8010 Hidden Cir ( 43. Brian E Semke & Deborah C Duetsch Chanhassen, MN 55317 331 Hidden Ln Chanhassen, MN 55317 ► 35. Michael & Miriam Crews ► .0 8020 Hidden t 44. Family of Christ Luth Church Chanhassen, MN 553171 a 275 East Lake Dr PO Box 388 i Chanhassen, MN 55317 45. Blue Circle Investment Co 53. Daniel W & Michelle Lorinser 6125 Blue Circle Dr 8020 Erie Ave Minnetonka, MN 55343 Chanhassen, MN 55317 4r 54. Harold H & Pricilla B Herrmann 46. Chanhassen NH Partnership 8024 Erie Ave 900 2nd Ave S Chanhassen, MN 55317 1100 International Centre Minneapolis, MN. 55402 o 55. Bradley Jay Johnson 8026 Erie Ave Chanhassen, MN 55317 47. Sinclair Marketing, Inc Sinclair Oil Corp -Prop Tax Div 56. Martin E & Lora Lee Wade PO Box 30825 8028 Erie Ave Salt Lake City, UT 84130 Chanhassen, MN 55317 t 57. Jane H Loos 48. Patrick J & Judy L Misener 8030 Erie Ave 8027 Erie Ave Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhasen, MN 55317 58. Mark G Ringdahl 49. Allan J & Kathie J Nelson 8031 Erie Ave 8025 Erie Ave Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 59. William R & Marie A Weber 50. Robert A & Dawn T Lund 8034 Erie Ave 8023 Erie Ave Chanhassen,MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 60. Robert F Harrell III & 51. Ralph W Lytle & Mary E Harrell Mary Ann Rossum 8036 Erie Ave 8021 Erie Ave Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 52. Donald T & Helen C Smith 8012 Erie Ave Chanhassen, MN 55317 Carver tLounty Abstract & Title Co Inc. This company does not assume any liability for the accuracy of this report. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REZONING AND SITE PLAN REVIEW CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, September 3, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the application of Argonaut Holdings, Inc. request for rezoning 4.27 acres of property zoned 13N, Neighborhood Business, to PUD, Planned Unit Development to allow an auto dealership and site plan review for an 18,494 sq. ft. building located south of Hwy. 5, north of Lake Drive East and east of the Legion site, Valley Sales of Chanhassen. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II Phone: 937 -1900, ext. 120 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on August 21, 1997) NHASSEN HRA RAYMOND S & MARY ANN JEZIERSKI MARTIN E & LORA LEE WADE COULTER DR PO BOX 147 8013 DAKOTA CIR 8028 ERIE AVE NHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 .NHASSEN POST #580 RONALD D & LINDA L OLSON JANE H LOOS BOX 264 8015 DAKOTA CIR 8030 ERIE AVE .NHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DENNIS A & STEPHANIE A UNZE MARK G RINGDAHL 8017 DAKOTA CIR 8032 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ( OF CHANHASSEN CITY OF CHANHASSEN WILLIAM R & MARIE A WEBER COULTER DR PO BOX 147 690 COULTER DR PO BOX 147 8034 ERIE AVE :NHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 :NHASSEN HRA ALLAN J & KATHIE J NELSON ROBERT F HARREL III & COULTER DR PO BOX 147 8025 ERIE AVE 8036 ERIE AVE S ;NHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Y OF CHANHASSEN SALLY J MILROY DAVID JOSS! COULTER DR PO BOX 147 2955 WEST WOODLAND TRL 250 HIDDEN LN ;NHASSEN, MN 55317 SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Y OF CHANHASSEN DONALD T & HELEN C SMITH ERIC WALETSKI COULTER DR PO BOX 147 8012 ERIE AVE 260 HIDDEN LN ;NHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 "NHASSEN HRA DANIEL W & MICHELLE LORINSER JAMES S & SHELLY A BABUSEK COULTER DR PO BOX 147 8020 ERIE AVE 280 HIDDEN LN "NHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ANHASSEN HRA HAROLD H HERRMANN & LEE & MARY KAUFMAN COULTER DR PO BOX 147 8024 ERIE AVE 300 HIDDEN LN ANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LVOLINE INSTANT OIL CHANGE BRADLEY JOHNSON CORY S & BRENDA J PLOEN I) BOX 14046 8026 ERIE AVE 310 HIDDEN LN XINGTON, KY 40512 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TODD D MICHELS JOHN A & LANA J BERGO ANTHONY & MARY PAVLOVICH 320 HIDDEN LN 8041 HIDDEN CT 8010 HIDDEN CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DAVID A LYONS & STAN LESTER MICHAEL & MIRIAM CREWS 330 HIDDEN LN 8061 HIDDEN CT 8020 HIDDEN LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MATTHEW J PATTEE & KAREN M KLINSING SHANNON N MCCLARD & 340 HIDDEN LN 8090 HIDDEN CT 8030 HIDDEN CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMES P ADANK JON STECKMAN & REZA AGHELNEJAD 350 HIDDEN LN 8080 HIDDEN CT 8061 HIDDEN CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMES A & CAROL A UDSTUEN MICHAEL H & RHONDA W COLLINS ULRICO & LAURIE SACCHET 360 HIDDEN LN 8060 HIDDEN CT 8071 HIDDEN CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SANDY STAI & BRIAN D & JEAN M STECKLING MICHAEL C & MARGARET BUCHNER 370 HIDDEN LN 8040 HIDDEN CT 8081 HIDDEN CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BISRAT & DENISE ALEMAYEHU CHRISTOPHER & JEAN POLSTER NANCY L HELLAND 380 HIDDEN LN 8020 HIDDEN CT 8091 HIDDEN CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 WILLIAM R & DEBRA E PRIGGE PAUL & MICHELLE HAIK THOMAS M PERRIER 390 HIDDEN LN 261 HIDDEN LN 311 HIDDEN LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DOUGLAS B. MCCARTHY KEITH & DELORES BLATZHEIM , KEITH GOTTSCHALK 8001 HIDDEN CT 271 HIDDEN LN 321 HIDDEN LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMES F & PAMELA A MURPHY BARRY S & LISA L THOMPSON BRIAN E SEMKE & 8021 HIDDEN CT 8000 HIDDEN CIR 331 HIDDEN LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 1 ENSON DEVELOPMENT CO AEADOW LN N IEAPOLIS, MN 55422 JHASSEN HRA :OULTER DR PO BOX 147 JHASSEN, MN 55317 LY OF CHRIST LUTH CHURCH SICII.Pu311rL6 AST LAKE DR PO BOX 388 JHASSEN, MN 55317 CIRCLE INVESTMENT CO BLUE CIRCLE DR JETONKA, MN 55343 HORIZON DAYCARE AKE DRIVE EAST JHASSEN, MN 55317 Y L BROWN KOEHNEN CIR W = LSIOR, MN 55331 JY PETERSON ERIE AVE NHASSEN, MN 55317 ,/EN M WENTZEL ERIE AVE NHASSEN, MN 55317 ' ti Al Klingelhutz Michael & Darlene Leonard Amoco American Oil Gerald Schlenk 8016 Erie Ave. Property Tax Dept. 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 200 East Randolph Dr. MC 2408 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chicago, IL 60601 Tace & Carmen Wieczorek Warren & C. Watson Peter Knoll & M. Staudohar -Knol 250 Hidden Lane 300 Hidden Lane 370 Hidden Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Family of Christ Lutheran Church Chanhassen NH Partnership Sinclair Marketing 275 East Lake Drive 900 2 Ave. S. Property Tax Division P. O. Box 388 100 International Centre PO Box 30825 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Salt Lake City, UT 84130 Patrick & J. Misener Robert & D. Lund Ralph Lytle & Mary A. Rossum 8027 Erie Ave. 8023 Erie Ave. 8021 Erie Ave. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 f CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937 -1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Argonaut Holdings, Inc. OWNER: Mortenson Development Company 9th Floor "A" Building Contact Person: Tom Lander ADDRESS: 485 West Milwaukee Avenue ADDRESS:700 Meadow Lane North P. O. Box 710 (55440) Detroit, Michigan 48202 Minneapolis, MN 55422 TELEPHONE(Daytime) 612 - 896 -3210 TELEPHONE: 287 -5487 or 522 -2100 Argonaut Contact Person: Linda Fisher 1500 Norwest Financial Center at Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit _ Vacation of ROW /Easements Interim Use Permit _ Variance Non- conforming Use Permit _ Wetland Alteration Permit X Planned Unit Development* _ Zoning Appeal X Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review _ Notification Sign /7 1 X Site Plan Review* /? , - X Escrow for Filing Fees /Attorney Cost ** ($50 CUP /SPRNACNAR/WAP /Metes /,. and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) Subdivision* TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. I Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2 X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME VALLEY SALES OF CHANHASSEN LOCATION South of Highway 5, east of Great Plains Boulevard, north of Lake Drive East LEGAL DESCRIPTION See Attached Legal Description TOTALACREAGE 185,930 square feet WETLANDS PRESENT YES X NO PRESENT ZONING BN Neighborhood Business District REQUESTED ZONING PUD Planned Unit Development District PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Commercial REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Commercial REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Rezoning to PUD Planned Unit Development District, approval of PUD Concept Plan, PUD Development Stage Plan and Site Plan This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. `tee .� ��✓ ?)� / i % Signature of Applicant Date Signature of Fee Owner ;, ,/ Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 1, Block 6, HIDDEN VALLEY, except that part described as follows: Beginning at the most northerly corner of said Lot 1; thence southwesterly along the northwesterly line of said Lot 1, a distance of 394.88 feet; thence southeasterly, deflection angle left 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 105.00 feet; thence easterly, deflection angle left 51 degrees 23 minutes 00 seconds to the easterly line of said Lot 1; thence northeasterly along said easterly line to the point of beginning, according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County, Minnesota. 0288848.01 ROBERT E. L. LENNIE 6811 BRULE CIRCLE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Ms. Kate Aanenson Planning Director City of Chanhassen Chanhassen, MN 55317 8/8/97 Dear Ms. Aanenson, I want to express my feelings concerning the possibility of ally automobile dealerships Iocating in Chanhassen. My wife and I are opposed to this use of land within our community. We are not interested in this type of commercial development in Chanhassen. While we may not be able to attend the September Chanhassen Planning Commission meeting, we want our positions to be considered on this matter. Thank you, Robert E. L. Lennie • li QUALI TECH Quali Tech, Inc. 318 Lake Hazeltine Drive Chaska, Minnesota 55318-1093 USA Phone: 612- 448 -5151 Fax: 612- 448 -3603 August 8, 1997 Bob Skubic Chanhassen Planning Commision c/o Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Skubic: I am writing in regards to the proposed Valley Auto Group development in Chanhassen. I live at 310 Hidden Lane with my wife and three children, ages 5, 3 1/2, and newborn. My family would be directly affected by the development, as it would be in our backyard. My property is immediately south of Lake Drive. I have a very good view of the property in question from my second story. I am against having the project located at this proposed site for the following reasons: • The high intensity lighting of a car lot would definitely affect my family in our home, and our entire neighborhood setting. • We purchased our house after inquiring with the city and learning that the zoning of the undeveloped property behind our house was for "neighborhood business" and not general business. This was very important in our decision to purchase the house. • Increased traffic through and behind our neighborhood. Our neighborhood would be a logical sight for test drives, which would increase the amount of traffic. This is a concern because of my three children. • Aesthetic appeal. I do not like the idea of having a parking lot behind my house. This will only increase the amount of road noise I currently hear from highway 5, it will provide no barrier. In addition to my own personal opinions, I also think you, as a leader in our community, should be against the project for the following reasons: • Chanhassen has worked hard on developing the Highway 5 Corridor. There have been some excellent additions to our community. I do not see how a car dealer located in this particular location fits this plan. Over a million dollars was spent on a pedestrian bridge and now you want to put a car dealership at the end of it? A car dealership has very little pedestrian traffic. This would be poor use of the land and not increase the pedestrian traffic on the bridge. • It also seems to be a poor way for the city to collect property taxes. A car dealer with only one building and a large parking lot cannot generate as much tax revenue as other businesses that could be built there. I am not against having a car dealership in the Chanhassen area. I just do not think it should be built adjacent to existing homes, especially when the site is not zoned for it. If a dealership were to go in, it would seem to make more sense to build it on the west side of town which is industrial. I realize this is a difficult decision. I hope you listen to the people of the community, especially those directly effected by the project. If you have any further questions about my views, please feel free to give me a call at 448 -5151 during the day or 975 -0267 in the evenings and on weekends. Best Regards, Cory S. Ploen Executive Vice President August 6, 1997 Tony & Mary Pavlovich 8010 Hidden Circle City of Chanhassen Chanhassen, MN 55317 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Attention: Mr. Bob Skubic, Planning Commission Dear Mr. Skubic: This letter is to communicate our concerns and disapproval of the proposed Valley Automotive Group development south of Highway 5 and north and west of Lake Drive East. As residents living in the adjacent neighborhood to the south, I hope you can appreciate the concerns we have regarding this proposal. Our most immediate concern centers around the reduced safety that would result in the area given the impact of retail and service test drives and the addition of transport trucks. As a family with two chiiaren, we can't stress enough how much the issue of safety is on our minds. The addition or this business type would undoubtedly increase our children's risk. Equally concerning is the impact this business would have on property values. We moved to Chanhassen approximately 9 years ago and understood that this property was zoned to be developed as "neighborhood business ". Based on the definition, we were comfortable with our site choice. We're now concerned that the rules are being changed, without regard to the impact to the neighbors. Lastly, the noise, lights, refuse and business climate of a dealership in such close proximity to neighborhoods just doesn't make any practical sense to us. We recognize that the property in question is valuable and it's necessary to develop. We welcome a reasonable and practical venture that would enhance our community....the current proposal will NOT! In attended the meeting conducted by the Valley Automotive Group on July 29th, we went there with open minds, but came away with a sense that they were attempting to hide the realities of the development and their business activities. What is their hidden agenda? At times, their primary spokesperson was not patient, and even rude, with the residents. If that's the message today, what kind of neighbors will they be a year after they open, or 5 years, or 10 years? We can't stress strongly enough how much we're against the current proposed use of this land. We hope you concur and vote against it. Sincerely, Tony & Mary Pavlovich (i i? mailbox: /C %7C /Program %2....honeywell.com &number -5 mailbox: /C %7C/ Program% 20Files/ Netscape/... EF3D CpcmaiLmavd.honeywell.com &numt Subject: Date: Fri, 22 Aug 97 12:57:00 PDT From: "Lindsey, Shari (MN17)" < slindsey @p06.mn17.honeywell.com> To: "'chpindir @ci.chanhassen.mn.us "' <chpindir @ci.chanhassen.mn.us> TO: Planning commission I have heard about the recent request by Valley Automotive to rezone the 5 acre lot for sale off Hwy 5 and Lake Drive and am writing to express a strong opposition to it. Approval of any busy commercial business immediately next to a quiet neighborhood would be very detrimental for that neighborhood and to the community as a whole. Increased traffic and noise, decreased neighborhood safety, and increased crime, could all be the effects of a car dealership at that location. It would also be a much taller building and have much more light pollution than most other businesses that might be there. The homeowners in that area purchased their homes with the knowledge that the property was only to be sold to neighborhood businesses. If you approved Valley Automotives request, you would in effect be violating a written and verbal agreement with the residents of chanhassen as to the agreed zoning of that property. As a chanhassen resident, I strongly recommend that this request by Valley Automotive to have the property rezoned be denied. 1 of 1 8/25/971121 8001 Hidden Court '� Chanhassen, MN 55317 . August 28, 1997 Chanhassen Planning Commission* 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 To Whom It May Concern: We are writing to express concerns about the change in zoning requested by Argonaut Holdings for a proposed Valley Auto Group Development on Lake Drive East. Our home is the first property on Hidden Court and therefore in direct view of the site in question. We do not believe that a change in zoning is in the best interest of the community. Area property owners purchased their homes with the understanding that a properly developed neighborhood business use would be compatible with the site. A change in zoning for the proposed use is not compatible with the neighborhood for the following reasons: • Light pollution and noise related to paging, repair shop activities, car carrier deliveries, will destroy the peace which is a large aspect of suburban property values • Increased traffic with cars test driving down the residential streets will endanger children playing in the area (the applicant cannot guarantee this will not happen) • Potential increases in crime and vandalism associated with a large scale business whose merchandise is displayed in the open • Incompatibility with the nearby footbridge which the city has spent a significant amount of money to construct to link the business and neighborhood uses. The applicant has not given sufficient reason to justify a zoning change, other than they think their use will be less onerous than some other. This is suspect reasoning. We urge you to recommend against the change in zoning. Thank you. Sincerely, / •,. i , •,�.�_� Douglas and Susan McCarthy * Note: this is a copy of a letter sent to members' home addresses. Proposed rezoning mailbox: /C %7C/ Program% 20Files / Netscape/. .. %3DLindsey %2Fg %3DShari %2F@MHS &number Subject: Proposed rezoning Date: 09 Sep 1997 16:27:23 -0500 From: "Lindsey, Shari (MN17)" < Shari .Lindsey @MAVDMH.honeywell.com> To: choffmgr @ci.chanhassen.mn.us (Return requested) TO: choffmgr @ci.chanhassen.mn.us TO: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Mason, Councilman Berquist, Councilman Engel, Councilman Senn SUBJECT: proposed rezoning I am writing to you concerning the proposed rezoning from BN (neighborhood business) to BG (business general) of some 4.5 acres of land located between Dakota Ave on the east and Great Plains Blvd on the west, and bounded by Hwy 5 on the north and Lake Drive East on the South. Our house is located in the neighborhood directly adjacent to the area proposed for rezoning, and as such we are adamantly OPPOSED to this rezoning. We purchased our home with the understanding that the land around our neighborhood would be developed as "neighborhood business" and would not be a site for commercial businesses such as car dealerships. Allowing the rezoning would ruin our neighborhood by increasing the noise, traffic, lights, crime, and congestion than a business suitable for "general business" would bring. In addition, our property value would drop sharply. I understand the planning commission unanimously recommends against this rezoning, but I want to reinforce their position and urge you to vote against the rezoning on Sept 22. Respectfully, Shari Lindsey 250 Hidden Lane Chanhassen 1 of 1 9 8 AP , a ,., m,_ _____,--__, .,,__,--- lib " -. r v , i % 4 - X ! . ii, . t ‘.. 0 rt i P \ 1 j IA w -6 - i ; ot E VI ik bilitil*2 e ' V 5 I I . 1 N , , \ ii. ' f ----- co a I i ( O rvirt. \ a •A ...„., r . ill! / .. , 1 • j - i - - ----- v I a II 1 A 1 • r - VI\ 1 g r .4 A1 _ „. ,] , • Iri " 4, 1-- „,..- err. r l ag - -.-2 W. \ . :I 1 qi 1441.4644. ---- , .'.. . °'` '-,,,sdelli • '• rj *am NOSZ - DI t :. ------..." it 1 ' ti i N.J.. i MARKT WILL MO PM. ri , 1 , IR NI a & 8 I • k \ ' ....„, .1.11 g IP viero ‘ ....„. \ N \ ,t _...._ A „.• •,,. _ ,- ".....„ f a . 4 4116, 11311 'c 6 * ‘‘ n sk i6 • - I . \ ' r .. 11 \11 le $ • flp 093:0 CR 1104 111 1 " rr* st•O I ..* IL 111" , „.. . 0 .. EAS \ ‘, r 1. _ 4r. lo, a C ..., . % 11 4,44.). , 4 , . ,...„. „ a 1 = go . ai • rs) • 11111 x 1 . I . I _, \ a I o 1 8 l_t___L__ • ,i. a. i . WIMI a` „. , *4,•,,. ERIE it i AVE , ,... II V 1 k ----- ..., 1 ` i K ° ,, \ 0 • I ' .--.; 7 • KOTA CIAKOTA . mill . A OM" AVa 1 \ 1 ea " . i 8 - 111141111 611111311 1:11 " .. wirr ** X ik‘ # ef ata N ...... e . ti4w wit 4 , A•P RC' • Otl,, lit al 1 . 4 I I c ourko.:.\ na. .8.44 WARN MAO 1 ...1 •• / / , eirsouram , ...1......._ —,IfF 1.41 NNFPIN COON 1"7 „_.„„--.. .., ......,, C;Niqf! r r. - 0 ! ;Y 4 E 0 • 0 i tilalal -r1 1 > f ' g 11111 g tc 4 1111 ffil Z 1 1!=lt = 0 • 1;1111 M I tt•°;14 CA i I p,u 0 1 111 .10ati 71 r7''' /ii T 7 P esf i1 .1 ° • . • . -• r: „.,-.: i r-E 4 - I .4111.......1. E 1 I 1 ' 1 , 1 ,fr.r• 1 UR ill! 1 ; il ill i : V E k.P . . I 7 e ,), d c<\ e j 5 1 - 1 5 . = 50777 1 „ ■111111r .•,3 i 0 _.„,..., A er="11 .1 1 111111 7 ” 15 , . - ' ' VS: • I -,_, ' ..r. c_ ''., ::- :" 410 A 4110 s r onoo 111"if • • 1. 111 11 111.1 s '';' _ - ‘2, 1 1 ‘, n R I ra g 1 .4• •• i s --- '' i 7 1 t 111; 4 ri 1 g4ggiii5E . 1 ,...:... : , 0 ..„i ., emillui Il f il Put g A e : t • ' . g' :::.-... I g' z 1= WI i lit s. m t P?i -I A $ 5 z'` °- / rril 1 1 i T. ' 1,0 1 ,11, r * 1 -- - 0:,,,,:-...,,,:w ' I :rr; • 10 • • gA F 1 iJ i ft a I=.. A EI X 11 }i ) R S // r � 11 i i\ \ •:c k \ � • •. °STiT' w 507 PC uroe 50]A rat \ \ ' f \ �. \\ •` ir r r ,� \\ �• 'tea - \ \ `_ .i 0 rt • 1..- \ \\ \ \ '- •J O ff ). �,�� Q Ye u ° e \ a wl oz " \ b ^a \ ';:•;,,,, o z.` e e t \ " _ , , I — CFA \ \ o` ! t X as Si4 2 1 °.' \ \ \ 1I it I r trr . t , .!: \ \\ 4 t1 - :: " 111•1 v ' .e¢eeee4,a..01tm]0i0•;ieo!• o \ F e F 1 ,,,,Rr .,,b I= i 66 AI 1191 1 oi , gilt; il S s" ''! 1 i al ra - 9 i�$' i i i€ 7ti,a�. =iPir II"' ill���kaill 11 ° P i �ilifi i t '9it F ti i ` talt1.3 z t i $ $ii r9 i��; 3 ,. t _: =:r F ? p e ` ei ati >r i p i, -; _ 1 ,4 3 ; t p n ;;r o i d i 4104q4M11 I 1, 1 � '� € a$ it li ILL a. Le cc ?Sj t @ 1', i ` I A -.1:116.- 2 r 3 t a I :F 4Q g = tl �Y p W t.le " 573 9m a p CA m b $ -b ?`= �p m e b b E.- o Z ° ; fa 1 a '-it4 i. ! 9 tiati wu�1 °I! ° 1 ii' iii rE R A —4 i a 9 3 0 1.1 • i i i i , a i ais� °!� �� i i .e. p B ! "i + a i g ,4 ii l i i E e 1 B :�:j 1 s ppa�b i_ a i 6 i �` !`9° a li ae 1 _b •_, S2, A N s • 1... .1.** . „ ....... Perm; - .f, - 1 t. \:'‘, X44 4 o i i ter + .., . , ,_, , ....._ ”" maaszah r -; , : -, i ....e..:=. .... _caumwe..........;... ,. , . . : , , .I. ...rzu , , „„T3. . , , , ) . . . , , ... .. , , . _., ) ,., , 0 , , _ ) !• R @ @5 i C °: 2 C n2 .. a y R x di d 3 R€ 'gilt a ;15 , E o$2 Rc a Q F igF 'a 4 a M i g gal -a 4 a� a � a 455 ! F al 's R80. Fg Rag2 Xs OR b v e3 g § £l € 1 a -r . S°. S 5 a `; a - ' �e vq v ¢ � $ -i a !I : 1 1 2 r : -a 1 ovF a e B r ; 1 e ''t�...� y m 4.a . " i :: 1 = GE° `i CR g i : v:: io S N p R ! i " ",i, : : ::] q1— a , .. p t o a ' g 's 18 a ii i 'IS i . 4 = g R R a id 7 8 P i , F d 1 5 j 3 f a4 / ,,, A av 6 ' _' : 6v6 +.1 B L . /I Y KIM C. 'A S tn a q a/ J = i a � , i!\ y s � L es : r-:1I 1 ^ AA$ o #� % s F 7f, c F g IC 4 ; . 0.j a e 4 . f 'vg . io .. t� t tea§ 1 0 ( E S T c . / ,- qi u� g P i4 ! o ' 4 poi ii i 0, 4: KidF $ C Y q i ”g IA 3 c $ 41 • 7 3 n II 06 u K 1x Y ; . , 4 Fla .! 1 .0 r $ h 3 €: N a f =p , 4F 6 ] J 4 4 . a' B S;F4E V 5 . 10 1 o5 C , a aao � � � � gds {� e .40 5 _ s $ :v c Fff a mo!.. o.; . ' ? ym € g: sg i p ° € S a z :c`Y.:.i S2 ":` 2 7 6 R $ P R F° a 9 i S a gC p g 7 � v � 1 • ' ��"`i� = W $ a F , p ia 3 14 4� y } � O � :ao :.:: 05 m Q . 1 8 o a ° e a �o ¢ M Men X 1 i 9@ a (a : ° 1= \ V'i 1 '1 4 � / �. .� F�ii 53 d / \ • \ ^' i . 1 \ ` 3 's F / F F ,as �� FdBi / 0� \��'( % ` pt —;� ago�� - -i " .fin Y 6 � _`SC �\ F es\ h ¢ ' / Nov _ i W �\ \ Nitm •,W„, i, ' Ask ,„___ „;' ;;A10Ik r,1 1 k ' ' '. ,, , , ,„ ■ ■ •— , .--- '7 \ --:._ _ _ L' V `N ,,; I tii: '',' ' ' ' 1 ' .;: . 04 '1" '''l ‘1 :- I tte , ._. ^ 'r1 ,s ,8 �- : A 7 �i •h 9 g J\ !1 " , °'1! i \ \ \ ' p . `j 20, .' ; 1„: .1 � i - � ,�+ �p O�Fj� e � 46 • O' / a,� e \ ,\ \ � ,-- �`r.` �QaaPaIi'A'Fe�ll 1 L----- f y / / / 0 1 L y „d � ° , / `/ L -\ � ). / I I / I \.� =- T— •1�'.\ i \�_�'� �'— , \ \ \\ LJ . i / • �. i1 TIC ! vv �v t ' y e 1 \ ,�- I' V A ', - — i,J y i N IL d,,p o o.. � ° I +� _ -- s_ __ _ ___ 7� �`-4 \ \ ,. (\ , ii 1 i j i _,- 9]. d Y i° St' zC °� C \ s \ �_ � , c' v � — x 3 ifs 1. “';, 1', ' Y ' iN, iN. prra• ii r;: rie 1 13 WI 1i I' P 14. i P ,. 1 i . p ,i '4.• 1/ 7 v 1,' ° ,' i 7d If 7 is a(i 9ii ;i i 1i,] 14' i ", 41 , i1R 'ai i 2 l e t 1� 1 it �! iae 4' t / - Y - - ... 6 • _ - 0 0., i i �' � i i 01 i � ' € :1 p 1�3 :;!: , AL y i y 1 ( iii5 ,Ti ,11.„ Ei iiii35 ! vii ;51) d . ti 1! ; i i i l 3 f ° i ph i Jii 7il 7 •°I . 1 11;0 0 i i 3i ? 1 1 175 ) .ii 1 7:3 v • tE1 ,1 O l i 1 a PI v ii l il i 1I 0{ � a l l i .3 i : • l i i t{{ IV 1 ° ! y e o 1e 1 il 1 bY1 1 1 A 1 i tl e 1 30; 11 i i0it flit 11p i 1.i ie S ii. 3 5, 1 i'i 4 Nt gg@p p y x z. o i � 1 1 f i e. fil i i i ?3 f 'a r a! i i �° .i_ • i. 7 Y q s'' c i J R Y8„'7 I A H f oil i i!! i 13 vi. . ...1( 1�t ° I W, 7 1 i i lea• J H; 3 { i 1 11 11 1 ' h• ; r it A• 1 t . ii 1 its R ` i , i I Y a F ° 3 ;H1011..5,1% g ?. 1 i ,- 0 14 , F ; 1 r1 i e l 1 0 +i 1 0 i j: 1 . 1 l l rc , ;,,di :VII d I . i i 1 4i i/z {t i i i " 1 tY i "1 I 8g E ,75 y 9 , ' y t ° ,I f 7, i 1 t` 1 1.10 ' 1 1 ;� i i 1 1 2 ' . 3 71 1F s ;1' 1q ;V 1 i4laY �y1 4, i Y 1 1; i 1 i 1 1 66 w 1 i si t i d: S i is i vi , ! xi a i t 1 i i i 1aa ill 1 ° �i Y 91 V i f, i tt • 1 3 a s ) ; I8 ! � I # r 1 t .� I j ' M. i =... 1 ,,, ,, } �f, = s ' ° 3 i V , r i L a v 5 .i , U �,. gp G $ 3 1 1 I i F . ,: F 1 •i • II.. 3. Zv: 1. i 2•- F F F F k F F F - f �ei $ 1 I 1 fix �., 3 1 8 8$ 8 8 8 S B R S 8 8 8 1 1 -' •m • 9 E 1 1 Y Y 1 i 1 e t•1 _ - ('� ; 1!1 I Tr if • F r d d Id d d d -dr dr dr F,r dr d " 1 n a + -. ° r 7 � 9 9 G �F 6 I<�� < S i d! 0 .. p 1V E . _� a r_ T i I 3 , 1 1 ft ll 1 !! ! 111 ; ; ; ; T ' 11 s r e 1 .400 I ea i cui z s* i , o g i -, ; f . cc "I' ii R , - co d :b -ja a 7 , 061 ' , 1 i — I z 1 1,1' '4� iii. i � '. i I \i ,, / kir FZ P. i b8. g H4l - 6Y Q' X ,� "31 s � 5 � 1 I . • Sy r{ ., ~C\ y 2' y,� L i H 1m1 , H �, � ., . � �\ 3 \I ��l`iL��WE - `3 r 00 s - gyp, - 1 4 y VI ,.... c4, p g \ \` .1 °r \ttf sS• ; m V r ' -� ..-, a--� , x ; �� l', .\ >\ `per t L \ iNli , o t ) ',•1114,t. Atit4N s\ I ti : 3 1°— 1 .. , w \ • ' .4. *A 4 040 I . ;, -•_,,, 04:'gg ,, - I rt0•1 - ,\ \ ,_ ✓, ` . X st-*. ..'mil►\ `, AI i } . O °—\ ,' ,. of v \ / � � 8l 1 I �r.__ ...m.aneea a.-' O p� 0 V � 9 1 1 ' M // 1 ■ ( - ' ' t N / y /7 / -- / s i / __L/V — 1 i E 1 % �.e �' I // 1 1 \ \' am \ / \ ���� ■ s it ' T 9 1__g ,,; $ t — ' P\ ` n I I K g 1D _ F. ' e ii 0. ., 0 , � -40-. se .::- _II i 2 CD � o ff 'L ! i i �r T -' s g° n ' ; t ill t 1 1, � mEa << I; =, al 1 .f 3 f I. N: ,!; p+ Ike . I t i — r a Illlitil- • .. - [1. fir j 9 g •IIli t. 11.+- - i . — , jI. 7 I �� ■ J T' I II l l A 1 i 1 *, ,, . I I ), ,, il. l 1-.r I i 11 ril g R�!4 I ', qtr. I. i 1 "� liil I o ll t 5 3 i III ill 1, :I I L` i 1 I I p 'E9 . i � j ill i' -- . , :y._ .. g ' :..�1: t J a' f I 1 1 �. �r 5 ;;� j � ' 1 9! '© ° b b ; .' r 7 — ,r.„,,, O < g I 5 Fr; 4 lua �q E� a I iti.,, i n fA 1� E 7 t R ar d Pi!! - Y Z J a I ff1 l _ . I N #- pi I ,.—,,_ 1 T ,_ I \ I )l 1 , I I i - �I i [ r - - '1 k' I d�i 1. ro P I I II. i � � a r�. I_! il 0 `i 1 l k y : }� 1 :, yr • I s 1 I 1 11 1 i � - tei 1_ _ Ix I, F Z - .© ' . 71 es i-- 1 i !fib`! ° ; ? � I 0 df 1(3 i $11iill E -m 1 'I D a :` b ,7 . :::! ; ;;• 001— . i siWil ■i ii i1f i i !i ■ IIIIIIII IuOI . = i r IiIi > 1.• i : Siiiii' iii i5 i lima r L E!L:I 2 2 iii I I w mi' ; ■ w _ , d � ■■■, - .■ . • ■ C c = w f�1 f 1 1� ■ , ■ — s ILIA moo Ffli I ,--...9.....,.......;.........;,..:...L....!..........161...--4. F : <y 1p z ,.. 1i� f�l = . .... ..... . .... f �l 8 �•/�•' ................................... .................,......... �1 ❑ ..ir.,..". g p g F A @ 5 . a f Y 2 11.• 0 [.t N 1 ∎. J C Fg a i � g �'' "x i O .. G It O , tom± � P � ! �� n • Vi e ' � i:. >m l! w .. ,a, > ' Z� ,. 4 I. A To I aa I §:�?<' "' aim d a a i _ � z� R I— i .�... i.wv�+.....n ..n ..s F g 4 Y 9 E r �I 11 N. I II e e e % ,1 1 \ 1- -- - - -- -- I ._ o _ f n - -- I - - -'— in _ \. ' _ 1 13 — 1 i -L — - -- if n �) Il,ll II .9111101411 1 11 1 111 -;� -. 3 ' 1 '1e �=_ 1 or ' .; . ' I 'rill _ • a p k I i � � O 1 l i '- ^ 5._,n' ii., IRI r 1 l 11 I i V�1^ _ ' O f l f • ca; , wil I , ll fit ' f Il �1.; as j I a 11 II '71 I I I1 I i gg t ! N 1 p - -- — lip$ - -- -- — — - -- 11 { t I —� – I. — — _ h 1I I ii I it cs� o � 0 0 I :1slss To " R ! •� as ? s . ;<<? N r NA 15F a co I , o $ eea " A I= i 4033: .1 21' PCfl TO BE u00.3e1 ON C33Ce1t •l:NOV0S 2' ABOVE GRADE F • 30 u3o3/1e3 He OKI or 2 • 8 era•-c.-Ico-u•-c• 1 x ... 1 59 1 •se • • 3 450P-5113.-12-31-PIC 1 nez Is° 0 7 6. C le 33030-511G-12-5 -GOO 1 orm-e3-463-9.+-CT.-.� I 335 Tnee OF3 Mt WY 803C33 on OTHER 010 orruRE Ore *370/ +SW ,*sues (u>. 03.95330 Cf: >lase AMEN. e..■ Mu OF 3011ERuLLS. 33 1■31T5 ....), \ .. ' ..3.1.i0.':+.'4.4., - ••• ;: ..'..- •:- ... :::::::::'%: . f . z.:, , ,,, --- •••• r-- \ • ''. - " :::: C7 ( \ - 4 _ \ \ Z\ ■:: \ : Z : 7 ::1' Tr- - -- .1"- ;7, 7,2 i: °. z' „ ._ „.. . -Z. , 2 ..;.3 eh , ' ta: .. A , . . . . . . . . . „, ,,: ....: F ..., .i '. ::::.:":".a . r.:!. '':' r ' ,. '" : ": .. G ) 0 9 6 6 ■ 6 6 o o - - . ..,... .., ..; °'.'...„ j,,....41%4i.''..... .... ':'' \ ....... 6 : \ -: r ' : .- 9 . • '. ,. :... :- .3507:17 6 3 o O 3 3. 3 L3 :- 6 z_b \ s s s i _ - . _ I I . :'. \ 6 6 6 6 s 2 \ t - ‹o 6 i • 3 i n u • . A . e *Xt : u , ° : : ... ' ' -.' s ,... ....■ :, - 9 9 o : :7:\,.\ z -.. :: E Z E t•igh. &. L qi.-fi-iti 1 iliFl.r.it -_ - '' - - ° b . II \ ■ ::: .. ---- 3.; D...., kj : s W - ,. ,3 o o e o e • ' ' ' ''.:' .3'...C. ..3 ...: :.: '... tit ..i., .h., a . 6 t 5‘ : ... :id:: i?:: ii .. ...:, e':.* .f.:;,:' o ../.. - e . o o a o o \ : : : 6 o : \ : : il. ‘ 4 :- - 0 9 1 ;:: (-. !;. ' :i 9: .::' _ :: !.:. , a ■-■ - - a 9 9 9 9 9 ° - f 1: A 7 7, i '' Z Z Z : -:- Z Z : s \ .„. 6 o ' 41:17: . . o . ...,, . . , ..... wommoo., '.... .■1=4.a... '"M sp :. Z' ... -....1.3. 3e , ;;, p o ° O 9 ....--!: .......: ° E A s - r ----- " --- " - - 1!----91' 91 9 `,9 --- 9 - . ..° 9 ----. Ft, : \ , O z.' 9 '-o-A ... ,...,.. / 9 e 9 6 6 6 6 o ; \ \ _i L _ ---000 _ ..., ,.... ,,,.. - 6 ,.... o 6 'a e o 6 e o e a a = N ..-- V 99999999P° 6 6 O 6 6 6 o 6 o oa 06 000 0 ..;; \ -----.. • N ' —__ _ ,_.----' .." ../. 9 9 9 9 : - 9 9 9 : • ..... i / ...-- Iiiiii! \ ' ..----- \ S. i -- :-.. ry,101?.. P I t I ! t 1 ' ' ... ';.: '; n . = • :::: .<;;y1r. &:: i i n -4 2 z 1 = - '. iiS.,s•-51.7.::::. = 1 > C4 01> : :.■,,. '.:ii4' ' : ' 1. :1&:1 11 -...." ::: V) n M M 8 Ol A i - - Z yl A I= i CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 3, 1997 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Allyson Brooks, LuAnn Sidney, Craig Peterson, Kevin Joyce, and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONING 4.27 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED BN, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS, TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW AN AUTO DEALERSHIP AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN 18,494 SQ. FT. BUILDING LOCATED SOUTH OF HWY. 5, NORTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST AND EAST OF THE LEGION SITE, VALLEY SALES OF CHANHASSEN, ARGONAUT HOLDINGS, INC. Public Present: Name Address Carlos Cordavid 8029 Dakota Lane Eric & Deb Waleiski 260 Hidden Steven Peterson 8021 Dakota Avenue Matt Burton 8190 Marsh Drive David Jossi 250 Hidden Lane Shari Lindsey 250 Hidden Lane Stephanie Roy Hatteberg 8031 Erie Avenue Tracey Anderson 8043 Hidden Circle Mark Honnold 8051 Hidden Circle Bev, Sharday & Reza Aghelnyad 88061 Hidden Circle Laurie Sacchet 8071 Hidden Circle Cory Ploen 310 Hidden Lane Nina Cottrell 8044 Cheyenne Avenue Tony Pavlovich 8010 Hidden Circle Todd Michels 320 Hidden Lane Patricia Kelly - Michels 320 Hidden Lane Lisa & Barry Thompson 8000 Hidden Circle Dick Cottrell 8044 Cheyenne Avenue Doug McCarthy 8001 Hidden Court Derek & Siboney Hines 8091 Hidden Court Michael & Margie Buchner 8081 Hidden Circle Sherrie & Shannon McClard 8030 Hidden Circle Christopher Leser 8110 Marsh Drive Jim Paul Excelsior Bernie Wagnild Minneapolis Steve Kaufman New Jersey Quinn Hutson Eagan Gene F. Ernst Chaska Dwight Jelle Eden Prairie Stephen Dang Kansas Rick Van Doeren Edina Linda Fisher 1500 Norwest Financial Center Susan Sullivan 8141 Hidden Court Greg Gmiterko 8121 Hidden Court Richard Donnay 8109 Dakota Lane Ton Lander 9779 Creekwood Drive. Eden Prairie Bob Scholer 7212 Frontier Trail Dan Lorinser 8020 Erie Avenue Carol & Jim Udstuen 360 Hidden Lane Lois Savard 8080 Marsh Drive Brian Steckling 8040 Hidden Court Steve. Lowell & Audrey Swenson 8101 Hidden Court Karen & Steve Klinsing 8090 Hidden Court Laurie & David Lee 8100 Hidden Court Gary Disch 8170 Marsh Drive Rhonda Collins 8060 Hidden Court Jim & Pam Murphy 8021 Hidden Court Linda Giordanni 8120 Hidden Court Cindy Marengo 8150 Marsh Drive Dale & Zola Klabande 8160 Hidden Court Susie & Kerry Blake 8040 Hidden Circle Dave Cameron 8161 Hidden Court Mark Eastvold 8180 Hidden Court Dean W. Brown Family of Christ Lutheran Church Delores Blatz... 271 Hidden Lane Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff. Joyce: Sharmin, what would be the, we're in a business neighborhood zone there now. What would be the appropriate zoning for a piece of property that would accommodate the auto dealership. Would it be the BG zoning? Al -Jaff: Correct. And BF are the zoning districts where a auto dealership is permitted. Joyce: Okay. Did the applicant request the PUD? Al -Jaff: Correct. Joyce: Okay. It wasn't suggested or anything like that. Thank you. Peterson: We have both of those allowable zones available in the city yet? Both business fringe and BG? Aanenson: Yes. Peterson: Other questions of staff? Conrad: Ah yes. If we wanted to change the zoning. what would our rationale be? AI -Jaff: We went through the findings of planned unit development. Staff does not believe that the PUD zoning is consistent with findings... Aanenson: Or your rationale may be that it's no longer...change the comprehensive plan. Conrad: That would be what you'd be looking at. Peterson: Other questions of staff? Sidney: I guess I have a broad question addressing the neighborhood meetings. As a result of those meetings, have any changes been proposed to the application? Al -Jaff: Not to our knowledge, no. Peterson: Okay. Other questions? With that, does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? If so, please come forward. State your name and address please. Linda Fisher: Take me a second to get set here. Linda Fisher, 1500 Norwest Financial Center, representing the applicant, Argonaut Holdings, an affiliate of General Motors Corporation. Let me first introduce a number of individuals who are here with me this evening. Some of them are here merely to answer questions, if you believe there are any to answer, and others are here as part of our presentation. Then what I'm going to do is indicate to you how we would like to organize our presentation and if the Planning Commission agrees, we'll proceed through that. But first for the introductions. From General Motors Corporation I have with me this evening Steve Kaufman and Steven Dang. From Valley Sales, which is the operator of the proposed retail automobile sales store we have Jim Paul and I don't know if Bernie Wagnild has arrived yet. He was intending to come. Project architect, C & H Architects is represented by Mr. Quinn Hutson. And the landscape architect is represented by Ernst Associates, Gene Ernst. Westwood Professional Services, the civil engineers is represented by Dwight Jelle. Dwight's returning. I think he had forgotten to pick up a board that we used. The traffic engineer and firm is Benshoof and Associates and unfortunately they had an unavoidable conflict, a long standing unavoidable conflict with this meeting so no one from that firm is present this evening. Midwest Acoustics did some acoustical analysis for us, submitted with the application and Mr. Rick VanDoren is here from that firm. And let me, as I said, do an overview. We have been working with staff for a number of months on the proposal and of course have reviewed the staff report and in terms of, if I may say to the Planning Commission, we understand that there are two items raised by the application generally in terms of a rezoning and then also site plan approval. We believe that some of the issues are I think connected, and since this is our opportunity to introduce the proposal to you, and since a good part of our thoughts on the appropriateness of the use for this site are linked in our minds to the characteristics of the site plan that we've worked on, we would ask your indulgence to present the entire proposal. And we of course are going to be addressing in our presentation both the land use issue and the site plan issue but in our minds there's some connection and this is really our only opportunity in a public setting to do that. So you will see some overlap in our presentation. First, as an introduction we want to compliment staff. They've done of course a thorough and professional job and a comprehensive job. We also note for the record that we held two neighborhood meetings in July and August. They were very well attended in this Council chamber and we appreciate the attendance and the interest of neighbors. We've also had some discussion with another near -by neighbor if you will, the church property and have been trying to coordinate a meeting with them that would take place in the future. By way of background, we've been working on the project with staff for over 9 months. There's no question that staff was very up front with us and expressed concerns about the land use in the community as a whole and on this site. We've done considerable research regarding that issue but obviously like any others that reasonably differ with a particular position that might be taken by your professional staff we wanted to go through the process and see ultimately what the City Council would determine. However, we wanted to work with staff in a collaborative basis on the site plan issues should the project ultimately be approved, and again because we feel that was the only way we could address some of the concerns regarding the land use. And so we have had many meetings with staff working on complying we think with your exacting Highway 5 design standards and some of the policy issues that are interwoven with those and we'll touch on those. I also just want to say by introduction, this is a very complex issue and I think it's the type of issue on which reasonable people can and frequently do differ, and this is no exception to that rule. So we understand there's some very strong feelings in the room on the issue and we respect those but just want to go forward with the work we've done and present that to you. So again we want to familiarize each and every one of you with all aspects of the proposal and here's how we've had it organized. I'm going to, by way of introduction, address the, tell you a little bit about the applicant and the applicant's experience in the retail automobile sales use. Something regarding the site location process that General Motors went through, and an overview of some key components of the PUD development plan and a summary of some of the consultant studies that are in the record, including some modifications to the submitted plan but not to the elements of the application that we presented at the second neighborhood meeting on August 27` and I'm going to do that by way of overview. We're not going to go through or ask our consultants to present any of the studies in detail. But I am then going to ask our project architect to walk through the color site landscape plan and show you how the proposal lays out on the site and discuss the architecture and again through several work sessions with staff, we did a lot more than just provide high quality building materials. I think we tailor made the design to fit within a number of your standards that and I've, in the record you will see a very detailed narrative we prepared for the submittal. It goes through our analysis of how we meet the PUD findings. How we are consistent with the comprehensive plan findings. I don't want to repeat that but we certainly could if you want. That's a very detailed statement we presented that's in your packet. So in our opinion we think there's an attractive building that's equal to or better than similarly sized projects anywhere in the community and we want Mr. Quinn, Mr. Hutson to show you that. We'll then ask Mr. Ernst, our landscape architect to go through some of the screening and buffering we've proposed and the site sections and some of the modifications related to the fence on Lake Drive that we talked about at the neighborhood meeting. And then at that point, if you would let us, I'd like to come back to me and 1 have just a few ideas on the land use issue, generally. and another issue raised in the staff report that I think relates to both and that is kind of the question of control of the this type of use and so I want to address both of those at the end but I first want you to see what the proposal is. So with your indulgence I'm going to go through a couple of introductory items and then turn it over to Mr. Hutson, and we'll try to go fairly rapidly through this. Peterson: Ms. Fisher, I think I would like to respectfully disagree. I think the commissioners. fellow commissioners would like to see the zoning issue independent of the site plan so if you could re- orient your presentation to that we'd appreciate it. Linda Fisher: Well I can do that in terms of re- ordering but I guess I would very much ask. and request, and would be concerned if this request were denied and would make this part of the record. We've got two applications pending and have spent a lot of our client's time and money on both and we'd like to present the whole proposal. Now we certainly can address one issue first and then come back to the other and I understand that it's very possible you would take a negative action on one and not vote on the other but we still have, you're a recommending body and we still have a right to go to the City Council for a decision and I feel very strongly, having worked on this project for a long time. that we'd like to present, and this is our only opportunity to present, the overall proposal. And we still believe that the appropriateness of the PUD zone we've requested is in part, in our minds, related to the nature of the project and whether it can meet some of your other comprehensive plan criteria. So it's difficult for us to separate the two totally. Now we can separate in the order of our presentation but I can't see that you're prejudiced by our presenting all the material. I would assume you'd like to act with full knowledge of all the facts and that's all we're asking. We're merely asking to be able to present the proposal we submitted to the City in total. That's all we're asking. You will decide what to do with it. Peterson: I would like you to separate the two issues and then we can go to the second one at a later point in the meeting if we should... Linda Fisher: Well I, you know if I'm going to present characteristics of the applicant, the location, which I think you need to hear, it's hard for, you'll have to judge what that issue relates to. But, and I don't know what other Planning Commission members feel but if you forbid us to present characteristics of the site plan that we believe relates to land use, we think we're prejudiced and are not getting a fair hearing. I can't, I can't be stronger about that. I believe we want to present the overall proposal that we've reviewed with staff and the neighbors and will address both the land use issue and the site plan issue. I can't see how that, with a short agenda, there's any, and I guess, maybe I am going to put staff on the spot. I discussed with staff the fact that we wanted to present this overall proposal and we were never led to believe that we could not present the overall proposal this evening so I, I guess I'm concerned about that. We understand that there's a recommendation of denial but I just can't see why we're not being allowed to present our proposal as submitted because we see an overlap of the issues. Peterson: Well let's go through the first rezoning issue first and then if the commissioners feel as though they need more information to make that decision, then we'll move to the second part of the... Linda Fisher: Well I understand that but we feel that some of that the way we have addressed, if you're going to cut me off I have no choice but I'm, I'll take this to the Council about a concern of not being able to present our entire proposal because we don't think that we're getting a fair hearing if we're not allowed to present the overall proposal. We think the two are linked to some extent in our argument and I. again, I don't have the gavel here. We'll have to respect whatever you do but if you're not going to, I don't know what you mean. If you mean that I can't allow our architect to show you the renderings and discuss how we've screened consistent with one standard in your comp plan. If we can't allow our landscape architect to talk about screening, then I. I have a concern because I think that's one of the reasons we requested a PUD zone as opposed to a straight BG zone and we were going to address that. So I think there's some overlap. We discussed with neighbors our request for the PUD zone and I think part of that is related to the control we feel the City would gain with a PUD zoning, whether you agree or not to rezone. So I feel that we would like to present our overall proposal and that's all we're asking for. One hearing before you tonight. Peterson: Again, I'd like to orient it, split it in half and if during your discussion we need more information to make that decision, then we'll begin the second half of the presentation. Linda Fisher: Well I'm, again. Not to belabor it and I'll keep going but I'm still unclear as to at what point you're going to cut us off in our presentation. I don't, I can't even interpret what you say but let me start. I really can't. Peterson: I think the issue that we're looking for is defining, is there a compelling reason to rezone. Very typical for us to review and not see site plans before we see rezoning issues. Linda Fisher: Again, we feel that the site plan proposal is linked to the merits of our rezoning proposal, and you may disagree with that but it seems to me that, and I've been doing this for over 20 years and I'm usually accorded, we're usually accorded the courtesy of letting our proposal be put before you. That's all we're asking but I can see that we're not getting anywhere so let me go forward. Peterson: Please. Linda Fisher: And again I'm, just for the record, indicate that we, 1 think are dismayed that we're not, just not being allowed to present our overall proposal because we think the two are linked to some extent. Let me give you some information, and you'll have to cut me off if you think it's inappropriate, regarding the applicant and our site location process. The applicant is an affiliate of General Motors Corporation. They contracted to purchase the site from a landowner, Mortenson Development Company, who is here and may wish to speak to you, for development of a Pontiac -GMC retail automobile store. We believe it's important in your looking at the land use, generally and whether you wish to allow it in the City at all or else on this site in general, to note for the record that Valley Sales is a good corporate citizen and has been a strong supporter of local activities in the communities in which it's located. The principles of Valley Sales have over 80 years of experience in automobile retailing, and they currently operate in Apple Valley. Hastings and Waconia. The Waconia facility is basically proposed to be relocated to Chanhassen. One of the benefits we see of the facility from a land use standpoint is that it would have a number of employees at skilled, secured and high paying wages, and the majority of employees would live in the local community, or at least in, either within the city or very close to the city. And so that's some background on the applicant. In terms of the location, General Motors has been cutting the number of franchises substantially throughout the country and to emphasize a number of things in your comprehensive plan talks about generally such as service and convenience. Although this is a destination retail establishment, which I will address later. And we did an extensive search, or that is General Motors, principles working for General Motors, did an extensive demographic research and basically narrowed it's consideration to the city of Chanhassen, and working with real estate professionals. spent I think close to a year attempting to find a site zoned in the city of Chanhassen. And I think if you get out and I could do this. If you get out your zoning map you will see that you have a handful, literally a handful of BG zoned sites in this city and virtually none of them are available and we checked each and every one of them. The use requires approximately 5 acres. It needs reasonable visibility but it does not require visibility from the highway for cars as is one of the items we wanted to address in our drawings, and requires accessibility and available utilities. So we looked at multiple locations along Highway 5. Your BF zone is virtually not existent anymore in the sewered area of the city and is in the process. I understand of being considered to be phased out. There was no available zoned site in the community. We then turned our attention to sites designated commercial in the comprehensive plan. Your comprehensive plan, in terms of the map, designates your commercial sites one category C, Commercial. There is text in the comprehensive plan that your staff has read from and that we have reviewed, that talks about different types of commercial uses, and I'm going to address that in the moment. But does not map sites for different types of commercial use as obviously you zone for different types of commercial uses. And we recognized initially that this site was zoned BN. But in looking at a commercial zone site, when we couldn't find a site zoned BG, we thought at least that we could look at trade -offs in the impacts between the allowed uses under an existing zone commercial site and the use that we were proposing, and that then got us into looking at characteristics of the site plan and of the land use in general, and again I don't know how much of this you're going to let me present but it's in the record in terms of our application. So we then came to the site, after having reviewed every BG zoned site in the city, and there were some advantages regarding this site in addition to the fact that obviously it was sized accordingly and was available. There's an existing landform on the north which aids in screening the parking, which you may think is a site plan issue but we also believe relates to the appropriateness of the land use in this location. There were no trees or significant wetlands and the site, there's suitable access and the use at this location, the use at this location. regardless of the site plan layout, doesn't require road improvements as perhaps might be the case at some other location. So all of that told us that there might be, could we meet some of the other comprehensive plan criteria, and you have a book, an appropriate use for this site. Other uses that are allowed on this site, as you know, are a convenience store with or without gas, shopping center, neighborhood oriented retail, if that can be defined, drive -in bank, restaurant, health services, office, and we thought many of these uses would in all probability, in some cases draw customers from a much greater area than the neighborhood. So that was some of what we looked at when we tried to come up with a site that we could propose to develop on in the city of Chanhassen. Now here's where you need to tell me what I can or cannot do. We wanted to go, describe for you what the proposed use is. other than just saying car dealership. I'll just tell you what I want to do and you tell me if I can do it. Peterson: I think Linda, the only thing we're looking, we don't need to see is building materials and structure used so if you have a narrative that goes. Linda Fisher: Okay, so I can describe for you the use. Okay. Because I think again it, in our mind relates. I'm not trying to be argumentative but I don't know exactly what you mean in terms of what we can or cannot present. Okay. Let me describe for you, because I think there might, may be some confusion what the specific characteristics of the use is that we're proposing. I'm going to get to your comp plan. Okay. We are proposing a retail automobile store. but there are a lot of characteristics of those. What were proposing here is again a one story, low profile building. I won't address the design. New and used cars and personal utility vehicles and General Motors service and parts, which we might add there is no current General Motors service in the city of Chanhassen, to my knowledge. I think Mr. Wagnild by the way has arrived. and we, this is a subjective opinion but some would think that having the availability of service in reasonable proximity to those who might use it as a benefit. Others might disagree. That's a subjective consideration. But it was one of the things that we looked at in providing the service. There would be no heavy or medium duty truck sales. There would be no body work at this facility. No quick lube so some services would not be provided. The hours of operation that are proposed would be more limited than a typical retail shopping, or potentially more limited than typical retail shopping which could be open 24 hours or at least on Sundays. The hours of operation proposed are Monday through Thursday, 7:00 to 9:00 or 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Fridays 7:00 to 6:00. Saturday 9:00 to 6:00. New car delivery would be restricted to normal business hours and off loading would be internal to the site and we've established a general area for that. We've talked about no overhead paging of employees and communication by cell phone, and no balloons, flags or pennants in terms of other characteristics of the use. Now, let me ask you another question. Are we allowed to characterize in words the architecture, landscaping and screening or not? I don't know what you, may I do an overview or not? Peterson: Give an overview. Again, details aren't appropriate right now. Linda Fisher: Okay. Again, a picture tells a thousand words and so that's normally not what we'd like to present to a Planning Commission. But, and I think the staff report indicates and agrees that it's a very attractive building. We have come up with a building that we believe is compatible with your Highway 5 corridor design. A huge part of your comprehensive plan is design oriented. We spent an inordinate amount of time on your Highway 5 plan and the materials are outlined in the record and it was not just materials review we did. We went through a very exacting work session with staff on the design and we're very proud of it but it's easier to show so I'll go on. On landscaping and screening we thought the appropriateness of the use for this site was in part dependent on whether it could be screened from Highway 5 because there are many elements in your comprehensive plan that discuss that in terms of the parking. And whether we could do some reasonable screening from the neighborhood. That's why we think again there's some relationship. I will summarize Mr. Ernst's drawings we spent a lot of time on. I'm disappointed you won't let us present them but I'll summarize it. There is an existing landform on the north, and our drawing shows, and the staff has seen, that the landform alone, together with supplemental plantings, screens the parking totally from Highway 5. So there will be no views of any of the cars from Highway 5. There will be filtered views of the building and there's no questions an attractive building that meets your standards, so earth berm and plantings on top of the berm screen the cars from view and we have illustrations of that. The perimeter has been substantially landscaped and buffered and we did extensive sections of these so that through a combination of measures, the parking would be screened from residential view and would be really no different in impact from any other neighborhood business zoned use. Again, a picture tells a thousand words. I want to indicate for the record that again you, but just for the record, that at the second neighborhood meeting we did propose. since we relied in part on the existing fence. We did propose and I called staff about this. That if the project is ultimately approved, that General Motors would replace the existing damaged fence, even though it's on residential property, with a new solid board on board fence, and we have a, and I can pass it out. We have calculations from our noise expert that that would reduce the noise levels from Highway 5 and from Lake Drive by 5 to 6 decibels in the neighborhood so it would be a benefit. And we're still proposing that. We also proposed, and Mr. Ernst has illustrations, to add additional plantings along Lake Drive and increase the size to substantially improve the buffer. I won't go into detail on the traffic study and noise study that were submitted in detail other than to indicate that the traffic study shows that the project would generate the land use. The land use. Not the site plan. The land use. Would generate substantially less traffic than other land uses allowed under the existing zoning. Again, a trade off. There's always with land uses a trade off but it was we thought pertinent that that was the fact and there are, there's a substantiation for that in the record. We did a very detailed noise study because that's a concern. It was a concern in the past. I'm barely going to summarize that because I think there's a lack of interest in hearing about it but it's in the record. Suffice it to say that this land use on this site as proposed would generate substantially less traffic noise than other allowed uses and in terms of service shop noise and one thing that's site plan but I think is important, is we have oriented the site plan, but I think it relates to the land use, such that all the activity is on the north. There is only one overhead door and it's on the north side away from the neighbors, which we think is important in terms of the land use. And our studies show that we will meet State noise standards, and in fact post development noise levels will be very comparable to existing noise levels and that is all we need to say on that. Again assuming, I'm going to keep going because it sounds like you don't want to see drawings so that's what I'll do. I'll keep going. In terms of a couple of other items I was going to, well. Again, we have information on lighting and signage which you may not want addressed at this meeting. In terms of land use, as I indicated before, we've spent a lot of time with your comprehensive plan and it can be read in a lot of different ways. And I think there's a number of issues here, just to lay it all out. Does the City, from a practical standpoint, given what little BG zoned land you have left, want to allow this use anywhere in the City? Under any circumstances, no matter how sensitively designed. No matter whether it's in proximity to a residential area or not. We don't know the answer to that question. That's one question that maybe the City needs to look at. We don't see a prohibition on the use, in the comprehensive plan. I mean generally now. We don't see a prohibition on the use in your Highway 5 corridor plan. A direct, express prohibition. We looked at the comprehensive plan language staff has cited and a number of questions are raised. Just questions and I throw these out as questions for you to consider. Getting to more specifically. It talks about downtown commercial. This site is not downtown, but you have a nixed use planned development for Villages on the Pond and I've reviewed the PUD agreement in detail, that has a substantial retail component that's not located downtown and I'm going to come back to that in a moment. Is that downtown commercial? Is it neighborhood commercial? Maybe yes. Maybe no. You have some language about large scale users. Mid size shopping centers and larger free standing specialty stores. Where does this use fit? Why shouldn't it fit somewhere in the community? And those are questions you need to ask as well as again, could it be compatible with this neighborhood. There's discussion in your comprehensive plan, which as I look at it was done in 1991. I know the Highway 5 plan came later. About after 1995, if development continues, maybe you need to re- evaluate commercial land use in general and 1 assume, I don't know where you are in your Metropolitan Council comp plan revisions but it might be something you might want to consider. Also there's a sentence in the staff report that an automobile dealership has a regional draw and does not cater, nor service neighborhoods only. We ask this question. What is a regional draw and what in today's commercial environment services neighborhoods only? And I underscore only. What is a neighborhood? Is it one block? Is it 5 blocks? Is it 10 blocks? Is it one mile? Is it in some communities such as Chanhassen perhaps the whole city? Can one land use, even under allowed under BN. serve both the neighborhood and the community in general and also region? You're talking about a site on which we propose PUD zone that is on a highway and if we are denied. you may hear from the landowner on going forward with BN zoning, but I think a number of those uses, and they may very well be preferable to the neighbors and the City and that's fine, but I think some of those uses would serve more than the neighborhood. And convenience store with gas, restaurant, some shopping uses. So all we say is, should a distinction be made on whether something does serve a neighborhood only and what really serves the neighborhood. We know you're not, we know we're not a drug store where your maybe needs for that sort of thing are served. But there are benefits to the community from this use, we believe, and so there's questions that need to be raised. There's a blurring of distinction between neighborhood retail and others. There was an article in the Sunday New York Times this last week that talked about, something that I found very interesting. The changes in grocery stores. You look at the uses that you allow under neighborhood business, and I've read them. You know you may hear a bank. You may hear a print shop. You may hear convenience food, going in and getting a hot meal. What's happening is those are available in some small strip centers but more and more the grocery stores are doing them. Kroger's is the largest national grocery store, and I took this right out of the article. What are they doing and Byerly's and others are following. They have their bank. They have their fast print. They have their Boston Market foods all allowed under your neighborhood business if alone. They have fitness centers. They have cookies. And obviously the scale's different but what I'm saying is, what really is neighborhood retail only and should that or should it not be a distinction. We're just asking. When you talk about the region now for metropolitan planning, there's talk about expanding the region. Maybe the region should be more than the seven county metro area. Maybe it should include 14 counties. So there's a whole lot of different ways to look at the language in your comprehensive plan. I'm not going to tell you we're an absolute, perfect fit but we do think that sensitivity in the design relates to the appropriateness of the use on this particular site. Again, I looked at Village of the Pond and I think their PUD agreement is instructive. Again, it's a PUD. It's a mixed use PUD. But there are a number of uses allowed. Entertainment, hotel. restaurant, apparel, that are going to serve more than a neighborhood, and the uses in that PUD agreement say, serving the neighborhood and the community. So we're saying there might be a lot of different ways to take a look at this. We also. and again this point I'm going to make would be a lot better illustrated by a drawing Mr. Jelle has but I don't know that you want me to show it so 1'11 take a shot again, letting you know I think I'm hampered without being able to show you a drawing. I think most of you have been on the Planning Commission for a few months. You know you had before you, you know the site adjacent to us is zoned BN. The Legion site, and you know there was a proposal by a developer. I think the project was called Chanhassen Commons, for a use on that site, and it did include. and staff supported it. what you think and we're not debating, perhaps is more close to BN. But remember, we're not trying to say we're BN zoning. We're requesting a rezoning. I'm going to come to the PUD in a second, why we requested it. We spent a lot of time when that proposal was still viable, we spent a fair amount of time trying to coordinate with that developer and we have a drawing we wanted to show you, and we know that plan's not out there now. We know that. But envision for a moment one mixed use PUD. Envision those two sites combined and envision a project that might include some of what you, I'll call it the Chanhassen Commons project. which by the way had a free standing restaurant which is now being proposed in the Village on the Ponds. Had a neighborhood component. We were proposing a connection with that site. which we didn't need but it would have worked. And then our project. Again, if I can't show you the site plan. Think of it as one PUD. And one of the things we were talking about. you're talking about pedestrian circulation. We're not saying someone's going to walk to buy a car. We'd never say that. I'm not sure someone would walk to do some other things that were in Chanhassen Commons, but what we were trying to work on is pedestrian circulation through the two projects, and then ultimately to the pedestrian bridge so that if for example you were in GM and you brought your car in and they said it would take you an hour in the morning to have it serviced, you might go to the bagel or the coffee shop on the adjacent site. Have a cup of coffee and come back. You had an hour. Maybe you'd walk across the pedestrian bridge to Byerly's. We're saying there's a bigger picture here, and that's still a possibility. We don't have that proposal this evening but envision that, and in my mind there starts to be a little bit different view of the entire, of how this thing might work together with the adjacent zoned site. Shopping center linked by internal circulation. Some of those sort of things. Again, separating you know the strong opinions of people in the room, and they're valid but I'm just saying talking in terms of land use. We wanted to show you that drawing. In terms of why we requested the PUD zone, because I was asked at the neighborhood meeting and also I think it relates to, and a question was raised earlier. On this particular site we had two choices. Again I kind of addressed, we looked at other sites. With this land use. We could have requested a rezoning to BG. And that obviously would not have been supported but we could have requested that and seen what the vote would have been at the Council. Or we could have requested a rezoning to PUD, and here's why we requested the PUD zone and that gets back into the site plan. We looked at the uses that were allowed in BG and there are a number of them that are fairly intense, and we were concerned that there would be justifiable concerns from the community that if this use went away after 25 years, or whatever, that other uses would then be permitted and you would have little control. We didn't think this would fly that way. We didn't think the community was entitled to that. and I talked to my client about it and said, that's not going to work. But certainly we wanted flexibility out of the PUD. We're not going to lie about that. There's no question about it. We've got a setback of slightly, of not under the ordinance. By the way so did Village on the Ponds. So did Chanhassen Commons. I can address that if you want. Yes. the PUD gives you flexibility, but it also gives you control. So what we wanted to do was propose a zone that is a rezoning but is not an overlay zone, and I've looked at that in your zoning ordinance. Becomes a zone on your map with a PUD agreement that we would agree even could be recorded against the land that would specify uses and that would have a number of very detailed restrictions that we have proposed and that obviously if this were ever approved, would be conditioned. And could provide more control than a permitted use. So we thought that that was important in looking at whether this use could fit on this site. That's how we see the two together. So that's the reason we went with the PUD zone, because there are potential off site effects from virtually any land use. And again on the land use, a question was raised and I think it's a good one. It's alluded to in the staff report, and addressed by the neighbors, that perhaps this use is somehow harder to control than other uses, and I'll just give you our opinion. It's an opinion. I don't think that's the case. If, and let me see if I can address this. Any land use has potential off site impacts. You're Planning Commission members and I've worked for virtually any land use. In Plymouth right now you can call the staff. They have an office tech project. They've had terrible complaints about and they thought it was an excellent use, and probably still is but there have been problems. You've had multi - family with problems. You can have a single family neighborhood with problems. Any number of uses can have off site impacts. You can have a shopping center approved, neighborhood shopping center. You can have a change in tendency and a change in management, which is some people said these are good fellows. What if it changes? You would have no more or less control over that. We think less because we'd have a PUD agreement, than you would with this use, so I guess we don't see anything about this use that given the structure we've proposed, could not be controlled to any greater or less extent that really, particularly any other commercial use allowed under the BN zone. That's our general view. And the other thing, again it gets back to the site plan. We wanted the design for the land use on the site to minimize off site impacts and to minimize the human complying. So rather than saying we'd have overhead doors facing the neighborhood but we'd keep them closed, and humans don't want to do that, we didn't want to bother with a human having to follow an order so we put the, one overhead door on the north screen, and opposite the residents and there are other issues so on the control issue, that's our view on it. Again, I'm overstaying my welcome, I can sense it. And so I'm going to stop at this point and we can address any questions you have. But again. we believe that we have a proposal that can be compatible with your overall comprehensive plan, with your PUD zone and with a number of your other criteria and that minimizes off site impacts and has some benefits and you'll have to judge from that and we thank you for your patience and are available to answer any questions. And I'll try to do the best I can but if you shoot a question to me, but I may have to refer it to one of our other people, and I don't know whether you want questions now or after the public hearing. Thank you. Peterson: Questions of the applicant from fellow commissioners please. Conrad: Yes Mr. Chairman. You obviously know that we're fairly comfortable with the zoning. We've done a lot of planning. Not that we haven't. Therefore your job is to come in tonight and give us a compelling reason to change, because as I said, we're pretty comfortable with what we've done. We've been doing our comprehensive plan. We understand how we protect neighborhoods. We understand how we forecast where we're going to our residents. So when we change a zone, we have to persuade them, not only the residents that are neighbors, but the rest of the city, that it's for their good. And you've talked for a while, and 1 haven't heard a reason yet. So before we open it up to the citizens, I did hear one thing about noise and traffic. That there would be less traffic. If you have quantifiable things like that. I would sure like to hear it. If there's somebody in attendance that would quantify those things. Linda Fisher: That's in our studies. 1 can read these. Conrad: Do you have a chart of those reasons? Linda Fisher: I can go through that. There was, and you know we hoped you reviewed that packet. There is a very detailed traffic study with a generation table that 1 can pull out and review right now. Conrad: But just summarize for me. Yeah, I don't need the details. Summarize for me the reasons that we should tell our citizens... Linda Fisher: Well and I thought I did that but I will do it again. Conrad: No, you did not. Linda Fisher: We don't think this can be reduced other than traffic to a quantifiable numerical calculation. On traffic it can. Now let me just, without giving you, because I will, you've asked for that so I've got it here in my notes. We generate, and this was based on a detailed study, 43 p.m. peak hour trips and 590 weekday daily trips. An alternative allowed under the existing zone one, and I'm not going to go through the details because it's all in the report and your staff I think concurred in the analysis, generates 189 p.m. peak hour trips, so significantly more, and 2,493. 4 to 6 times I think more traffic on the weekday basis. It's one of those trade -offs in impacts that I was talking about. Another alternative, because you know that you have many uses under your zone so there are many alternatives as to what could go on the site. I think you know you understand that. So we did another alternative, taking a slightly different mix that included a restaurant, because that was proposed next door, and taking that mix we had an even greater disparity between this use, which is probably the, I think it's virtually the lowest traffic generator for commercial use you could find. I think virtually the lowest for commercial use. 315, that alternative. 315 p.m. peak. 4,062 weekday daily. So it's significant disparity. Traffic noise does the same thing. You have, and we didn't run those numbers because it, and Mr. VanDoren can address but your traffic noises is directly related to the amount of traffic generated by a land use. and so it's substantially less traffic noise. And then in terms of a benefit, again it's tied to the site plan for the neighborhood, and for the community, we're on record as saying if approved we would replace that fence and, well I'm just going to repeat it and it has a substantial benefit in terms of screening and not just screening our site. Screening traffic on Lake Drive and a5 to 6, and I will pass this out and introduce it into the record, a 5 to 6 decibel reduction in noise from, in the neighborhood, from Highway 5 and from Lake Drive. From traffic that is already on those roads or is projected to be on those roads, whether or not we're there. So again, we are proposed that, and I will, I'm going to pass it out just so it gets into the record because that analysis was just done because we just proposed that at the August 27`" neighborhood meeting. I also have this evening a property value study that was just completed this morning that I will also pass out and introduce into the record, that is based on a study of a real estate appraiser, with his qualifications attached, who went to the neighborhood and also interviewed assessors in a number of communities listed that have car dealerships, and also interviewed real estate agents in communities that have, some communities that had car dealerships. Also did a study with actual sale prices of two homes near the applicant's facility in Apple Valley. Compared them to a control group of comparably valued homes, not adjacent to the facility to see whether there was an impact and found no negative impacts. And again that was just completed this morning and our client hasn't even seen it so I'm bringing it to you hot off the presses and I will pass that out. Again. a benefit. I can't say that you would say that these other uses would have a negative impact. We haven't studied that. I can't, but I can tell you that we don't find on a factual basis any negative impact. And so we think that the, where I think the land use starts to get related to the plan. that's why we proposed PUD, and a lot of cities have looked at this differently. With all due respect. And I understand everything you've been saying about your comp plan, but when you look at the overall benefits of the proposal, if you wanted to talk to your community in general about it, I think the quality of the building has a lot to do with it. We really do and that's why we worked on that. It's part of the land use we have to offer. You had leverage over us. You wouldn't necessarily have leverage over the next person under a BN site. Take a look at the architecture on the project that was proposed and take a look at this architecture. We've done more with this building. We had to just to meet your standards. We felt we needed to, to do exactly what Commissioner Conrad said. Have any basis for coming before you, in addition to kind of the arguments I outlaid before. What really is neighborhood retail that you're going to have to wrestle with. So we think what we've done in screening, what we've done in landscaping, what we've done in the land, in the plan and since we proposed a PUD zone and not a straight zone, relates to whether or not you ought to amend your zone. That's why I tried to put it together, in addition to some of these others. That's what we can tell you. It's a package in our mind. We came to you with a package and we said, what you see if you choose to approve, is what you would get. Not that we zoned to BG, come back with a site plan and play games with you. We could have come in with a BG zone. You probably would have denied it. Or let's say you approved it. The plan could have come later. I don't think you'd get the plan. We know we've got to go much higher here. The City deserves it and we know we have to. So we think it's a package. That's why we've tried to combine... We understand you're going to vote on one maybe and not get to the other but in terms of our looking at it. you know as a package, that's why we went with the PUD. I'm not the only person with a stake in this. If any of our team have something to add that I haven't answered, please come up. I don't want to monopolize. but that's kind of how we looked at it. And the landowner may want to talk. I asked the landowner at some point when you open the public hearing to discuss a little bit about what his plans are for the site and I think that's pertinent also in terms of trade -offs of land use. Because I don't think the site's going to remain, I think you know... So I'm thirsty, I need some water. Yes. Brooks: I want to go back to one of your arguments. On the one hand you're trying to argue to us that your business is a neighborhood service because you're providing GM car service. In the next breath you're asking what is a neighborhood. I think it's here. And then the second question you're asking is what is a neighborhood service anyway. So 1 guess you're confusing me. Linda Fisher: Yeah let me. Brooks: No. Linda Fisher: Okay, go ahead. Brooks: Are you proposing that you are a neighborhood service or is your argument that nothing is really a neighborhood service anymore? You are part of regional service just like everything else. Linda Fisher: Well you know, you may at one point want to get the comments from the actual operator but the way, I think there's a lot of different ways to look at it. No, no. no, and Fm going to try to answer your question from my standpoint. I don't think we can stand here and tell you that a retail automobile sales use we're proposing provides the same type of daily shopping need as some of the uses that are allowed in this zone. I can't say that. I don't think any of us can say that. So if neighborhood retail means that, well certainly we're not saying we're that fit. Again we're asking for a rezoning. We can't say that and I wasn't saying that. What I'm saying is that those functions are being served in a lot of different contexts nowadays. We're just asking based on reading that narrowly in terms of neighborhood retail only as being what's allowed and what exactly that means. That's a different, a little bit broader issue. Now having said that, a car purchase isn't something you do on a daily basis. However as I said, if you talk about a service to a neighborhood or to if someone had a GM car in the neighborhood and if this were approved and wanted to bring some vehicle over to be serviced, and I tried to put the PUD, I think you might call that aspect of the use a neighborhood service, but no. We're not saying it's the same type of daily shopping need as something else and we can't say that. It's destination retail. It's not pull off a highway retail, and that's why we didn't need the visibility of the cars. A lot of people thought we needed that. This dealer, and again because we can't show you the pictures, we need to be a major roadway but they wouldn't have even applied if they needed the car. The old style car operation is not what they're proposing and I know you don't want to hear that tonight but if you wanted to get interested in that, that's a separate discussion. That's not what were looking at. So there's no perfect answer, you know to your question. and again, if there's interest in the. well. I'll leave it at that. Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Thank you. Linda Fisher: Thank you. Peterson: This item is open for a public hearing. May I have a motion and a second please. Conrad moved, Joyce seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the Commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Before we do that. Yes, just hold on one second. Let me make a couple comments. I think that clearly over the last few weeks, myself and fellow commissioners have gotten phone calls and received letters that we appreciate. We are in receipt of the 120 plus names on the petition so I would ask for your somewhat indulgence. If you have. we want to hear every point and every issue but if it's repetitive to the person in front of you. I ask that you take that into consideration before you make your presentation. So we want to hear all the points but we also want to take into consideration the time of everybody else here too so, thank you. Please. Richard Donnay: My name is Richard Donnay. I've been a citizen, resident of the Estates for about 18 years and I was impressed with her presentation. Got to give her credit for doing a lot of work on this. You know we've seen things come in to intrude upon our area. We've lost some of the beauty, a lot of the beauty's been lost to McDonald's and Total and other kinds of public services. I guess you forget about the beauty that you lost and you start getting used to the conveniences and I think that's a major point with this situation where the conveniences to us are not going to be probably appreciated. It's just going to be a major business. The point 1 have is that these kinds of dealerships grow. it's going to be a growing business and 1 don't know if that area is going to be large enough. A good example of that is Waconia Ford where they moved out on the highway. They didn't have enough room and they've got new cars and trucks parked on the ditch right up to the road. These things grow and I don't know if you can get that to look good or not. But I do encourage the Planning Commission to hear the rest of the presentation for the benefit of citizens such as myself. The entire picture I think needs to be listened to here because I'm wondering about what the options are if they're not granted this development. What are we going to wind up with instead of that? I'm really impressed with the idea that if we have a neat, well groomed, well developed, professional, clean business, you know with good landscaping and so forth, maybe that's going to look a lot better and be a lot quieter than some of the things that we might get later. So we've got to look at that and I'm willing to, I would like to hear the whole story. I would not like to see us separate and control too much. I'd like to hear the whole thing. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Why don't we open it up for questions. Anyone else wishing to address the Commission? Eric Waleiski: I'm Eric Waleiski and I live at 260 Hidden Lane. That's right across East Lake Drive from where they're proposing to put it up. And I guess I have a couple of concerns with regard to the traffic study that they did. I think that with the amount of service bays that they're proposing, along with the number of new cars that they intend to sell at the site, that it could really increase the traffic flow through our neighborhood. You know if you just do the math and figure they want to do 600 cars a year. Figure 3 have test, or 3 test drives per sale. That's about 1,800 test drives. They have 15 service bays. Figure 3 cars through each service bay every day. That's another 45 cars a day. 300 day business year. You have about 15,000 cars driving through our neighborhood. The other alternative would be to go up and down Highway 5. I don't think that they're going to be, they can guarantee us anyway that that will be the case. And it's a concern to have those people coming through our neighborhood, mainly strangers so I just wanted to make that point. Thank you. Peterson: Anyone else? Cory Ploen: My name is Cory Ploen. I sent each of you a letter. I believe it should be in the packet. Hopefully you read that. A couple points I wanted to bring up is that I was really impressed what the staff put together. They're the ones I heard that 9 months heard this story. Heard the convincing arguments and all that. Yet after all that they still recommended to deny it. They probably know more about this project than anybody here and they still are against it so I'd like to make sure that's heard. The other thing is, we heard about the resale. I've done my own, not real scientific checking with real estate agents. People I know. I know a car dealership out in Glencoe. He stated that you can have valuations, devaluation up to 20% so I guess. you know there's many, many variables but to hear their side it helps a lot. It can hurt too and that's my concern from where I live. Convenience is just the last point I want to bring up. I think the convenience side of things, a dry cleaner. a coffee shop, those types of things, ice cream store, we can walk to with our kids and all that. Go to the Villages on the Ponds. Cross the pedestrian bridge into Chanhassen. Help that. The car dealership, there's nothing to walk by there so for the beauty of the neighborhood and all that, it looks good and I heard they have great pictures and all that but for what we would use on a daily basis, would bring us out of our homes into the community. I don't think this serves that purpose. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Steve Peterson: Hi. I'm Steve Peterson. I've been a resident of Chanhassen Estates for 13 years and a business owner in town here. What you would be doing by granting this application would be to sacrifice the safety, welfare and the lifestyle of the neighbors through this proposed development. I would submit that your duty is to the residents of this community and that denying the application would be supporting the residents. There's no doubt that it would be an increase in traffic. One thing that was not discussed was the type of traffic. The people who would be corning in and out of here on a daily basis to buy, test drive cars. Come in and look at cars. Would primarily be non neighbors. They don't know the intersection of Lake Drive East and Dakota Avenue, which is already very dangerous. It's the one where you go turning into McDonald's. If you've ever looked at that and watched the traffic there, it's horrible. It's amazing we haven't had a lot of accidents, and we'd be increasing the traffic at that intersection. It's only a question of time before somebody gets hurt there as it is. We don't need more strangers coming in on a regular basis. Some of the other uses that would be permitted on this property would probably draw people from the community who knew about the traffic flow. the traffic patterns. One lane ending without any signs, right by Ivan's Sinclair. And I think it would be a lot safer for the people, both in the community and those traveling in that intersection. In my opinion, the applicant has not shown a necessity for a zoning change and in my opinion they didn't even show good reason for one. I would urge you to stick with the planning that you've already, and the City has already put into this and not grant the change. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Tony Pavlovich: Good evening. My name is Tony Pavlovich. I live on Hidden Circle, adjacent or across the street from the proposed property. And you know we carne out here about 9 years ago and built our home in that area. We were moving from Chicago, corning here with a job transfer and as a result of coming to this area, previously I was in Plymouth. And when we came back we said originally well let's go back and look in the Plymouth area again, and we liked it up there and so on and so forth. We had an opportunity to take a look at other areas and spent a significant amount of time deciding where it was we wanted to settle long term and raise our families. And when we carne out to Chanhassen here, and liked what we saw. We had an opportunity to take a look at exactly, we actually reviewed the comprehensive plan ourselves at that point in time. And very specifically we understood what was happening with the city. What the plans were. We liked the idea of coming to an area that has a, what I'll call a small town atmosphere. I grew up in a small town and it's something that we've always appreciated. When we came here and we understood what the development of this property was proposed to be. we were excited about that and chose to build here. Now, in my opinion. what we have proposed before us is a change to that and I'm not exactly sure if this was granted. that is fair to us as citizens. We cane here with an understanding. We appreciate what the city Planning Commission. the City Council members, the Mayor, where we've gone so far with our city. I've had relatives come from out of town. I've had relatives come from the Chicago area, come to visit. They take a look at what we've got here and are very impressed with what the City has done. And based on that, I think we should hold true to that and keep it as neighborhood business. And not grant what the proposed applicant is suggesting at this point. We like, each of you I think have received a letter from me that discusses everything from the safety issues and noise issues and lighting issues and so on and so forth, and these are all important. But bottom line I guess for me, I came to Chanhassen. I could have built in many areas in the Twin Cities. I came to Chanhassen understanding what Chanhassen was going to offer me, and I hope that now the rules haven't changed and I hope that we stick with the original plan. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Commission? Bernie, do you want to address that one issue of cars? Bernie Wagnild: The point about the number of vehicles is a valid one because it concerns us as well as it should concern everyone else. Cadillac at this time has a pilot program going on in different parts of the United States. They're rolling it out as they're able to, which allows the dealers to stock many fewer cars. They keep the cars in regional holding pins. GMC Truck has I believe three test areas that this is going on. That's working out well. They're starting to fold that out. It's getting to the point, like someone said, over $30,000.00, the air gets a little thin up there. And not only for the customer but for us trying to floor plan those. The other thing I'd like to comment on. There were a lot of concerns voiced in the first neighborhood meeting, and the second neighborhood meeting, regarding test drives, safety, noise, those types of things. And I understand that those are really concerns. I've been an automobile dealer since 1975. Prior to that I ran a metropolitan dealership from 1969, and all those dealerships that I've been affiliated with or owned, have been as close, except for one, Hastings, have been as close or closer in proximity to many of the people that were at the first meeting. And we have not had, in all those years, calls regarding safety, road testing, noise, and those type of things, and I don't think we'd have them here. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Any further comments? Laurie Sacchet: My name is Laurie Sacchet and I live at 8071 Hidden Circle. which is also adjacent to the proposed property. And I just wanted to bring to you attention that 7 or 8 years ago we had to really get together and work against the TH 101 proposed routing. They were thinking of bringing that through Lake Drive and that we didn't feel was really appropriate. And we. you know really worked together. We were very collaborative. We all put our heads together. There was a tremendous amount of neighborhood interaction at that time. Maybe some of you remember that. And we came up with a solution or helped propose a solution that stands today. And now we know that TH 101 is routed in a totally different way and has in effect by- passed our entire neighborhood and I think everybody's happy about that. So we just want you to know that we're very, very adamant against the proposed development. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Before we close the public hearing, I'd just like to go on record by asking that sometimes in a group that has strong feelings like this, people who are for the project quite often don't feel comfortable coming up so I ask that anybody that is for the project that would like to speak, please come forward. Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Joyce moved, Brooks seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. 1 guess the first question that I would ask of each of us is do we have enough information to make a decision tonight or would you like more information on the structure and the site plan, or anything etc., etc.? Joyce: I think it comes down to the zoning. I have enough information. Sidney: Yeah I do too. Brooks: I have enough to make... Blackowiak: I too went to the open house and went through this very thorough packet so I feel I'm ready to make a decision. Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: I'm okay. Peterson: With that okay would you like to share your comments on the presentation this evening'? Conrad: And I wouldn't mind. I haven't attended the meetings and I wouldn't, I think a gentleman stood up and asked to review the rest of the story. I'm not opposed to that but I will. I've been around here for a while and probably more than everybody else here combined so that's probably why he led off with me tonight. I'm probably part of the reason that the zone is the way it is. It made sense when we put it in. We knew we'd have residents living close by so the zone we put in literally did make some sense. But when I try to decide whether we should change the zone, you look for a couple things. Usually is it a bad zone to begin with. or did something change that we couldn't anticipate because boy, when you zone. When you plan, you make a guess based on the wisdom of the staff, but you still don't know what's really going to happen but you look for, you know when you make a change you look for a bad zone to begin with. You look for a better zone. Better. Not the same but better. You look for benefits to improve the community. Tonight we heard one or two, but you really want dramatic benefits because for 5 years, for 10 years you've been forecasting where you're going and you're telling the neighbors where you're going. That's probably the one thing government can do that they owe the residents forecasting. Even forecasting to those that are coming into town. The businesses. What are our requirements and you hold to then and I think that's what any citizen that comes in here wants to see is, tell us what you're looking for so we know what the rules are. The other thing I look for is not just the neighborhood. They're important but it's also the rest of Chanhassen. Is there something that they're not getting? Is this an opportunity that they're missing? And then you look at the neighbors and you say. have we persuaded the neighbors yet? Are they demanding a change? And sometimes we don't care. But most of the time when they show up we do care. Tonight. and so I wanted, that's some standards that you should follow when you rezone. Not just that everybody wrote us letters, but that there's some things that you feel comfortable with and how you planned the city and I have a feeling that the applicant has done a, based on what I've seen in the staff report, they've done a good job. They'd be a benefit to the community but in this particular case, there was not a persuasive argument made for a zoning change. There really wasn't. Not close. And I think it's real important that I say that. Not close. I heard the one benefit. which is real. The noise and the traffic. I think that's real. That is, the residents you know, there are things going to move in here and from a noise and traffic standpoint, they're going to be worse than this. But overall, you know I didn't hear a compelling reason that would make me feel that we should entertain this from a city standpoint. So my bottom line is, I'm real comfortable with the current zoning. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Alison. Blackowiak: I have to be with just about everything Ladd said. 1 will try not to repeat but again I did not hear any compelling reasons to change the zoning, and I think that that's one thing that really needs to be present before we go in and change any zoning. Ms. Fisher listed several characteristics about the land use that she thought were favorable to a car dealership but I would argue that they are favorable to any business or anything that would be going in there as well. They're not exclusive to a car dealership. The issue is zoning right now. Do we need to change the zoning on this parcel? And I feel that what we need, instead of changing the zoning is to really look at what a neighborhood is. What a neighborhood business is and to work on improving neighborhood businesses in Chanhassen. Especially so that we, or the City had leverage over them and saying that, implying that we would be able to exact some more high quality materials from them. But I would argue that we apply the same high standards to anyone that comes before the Planning Commission or before the City. We look for high standards and we would hold everyone up to those standards. We need good neighborhood services. We need to foster a sense of community. We've got a pedestrian bridge. We've got Villages. There will be something going on this parcel, but I feel that the transition from Villages. to the neighborhood, to the pedestrian bridge would be broken up by an auto dealership. I think we need a neighborhood business there. Something where, a place where people can meet. A place where people would use services and be able to go and see their neighbors on a regular basis as opposed to an infrequent purchase and hopefully less frequent return to the repair center. In short, I did not hear a compelling reason to change and I'm comfortable, like Ladd said, with the current zoning. Peterson: Thank you. Allyson. Brooks: Well I agree with everything that Ladd and Alison said and I don't see any reason to change the zoning. I don't think the, I agree with Ladd and Alison that there is not a compelling argument at all. l just, a car dealership is just not a neighborhood business and I don't really feel that there needed to be a philosophical argument about what a neighborhood business is. 1 think we really do understand it. And I think that we have to take into consideration the concerns of the community which are that they are not comfortable with changing the zoning of that parcel. They have safety concerns, which I think are valid. And concerns about quality of life such as Chanhassen is trying to be, like we discussed, more pedestrian friendly and have more community oriented... And that area, having a car dealership in that particular spot just doesn't fit with what we're trying to do with that area. So I guess I am going with not changing the zoning. Peterson: Thank you. LuAnn. Sidney: I think my comments are very similar and I'll try not to be redundant. I think in general I see in this case just too many things have to be changed to, or compromised to make this work. And specifically as a commissioner we're looking at zoning, land use and also the elements of the PUD ordinance. And what we're finding is that the applicant has proposed a use that doesn't meet the intent of the neighborhood business and one thing as a commissioner that we do is to look at the comprehensive plan and also the Chanhassen City Code and it's spelled out for us what a neighborhood business is. And this does not fit the classification in the Chanhassen City Code. I think another important thing is that I want to acknowledge that the neighbors. the neighboring property owners have purchased their property with the expectation that this parcel would be zoned neighborhood business and because of that, one of the reasons I can't support the request for a rezoning. 1 understand the applicant's strong desire to do business in Chanhassen. Certainly as a property owner in Chanhassen we were very drawn to this community. However. as a commissioner again, I think the major point is that there's no compelling reason to change the current zoning and I'm comfortable with how it's zoned right now. Peterson: Thank you. Kevin. Joyce: Well I think it was a unique proposal to begin with. My concept of a PUD is a partnership and that partnership is between the City and the developer. And I think you have an immediate problem right here because you didn't have the City, or at least the planning staff on your side. Then you have the neighborhood against you and now, since I'm the last guy here. it sure doesn't look like you've got the Planning Commission on your side either. And I guess that's the reason for my question initially is who decided on the PUD and since you went that avenue. I think initially you have to have some sort of backing from the community. from the city. some direction from the planning staff and it's just not there. So everything else that was said I agree with. I do want to give a little direction though to the City Council from at least my opinion. Ms. Fisher asked the question, do you even want this use? And I was here when you folks brought forth the McGlynn property and initially I was, I was against it just because 1 think car dealerships have a bad reputation. I mean ifs something that. it's an uphill battle for you folks, obviously. And I went to one of the neighborhood meetings and I agree with you. I think it's a retail auto store. I think what I saw as far as some of the site plans. and that's all we're discussing here, okay. Maybe I'm out of line but I just want to say that what I saw in that scale I liked. I think it's a good use for Chanhassen. So in response to Mrs. Fishers, I think it's a use that we need in Chanhassen. I don't think we need any more coffee shops or bagel shops. The problem is you picked a site that just wasn't adequate for this use. Now you used a lot of resources and energies to put this thing together. I feel sorry that we had to give you all this bad news, but I still think you can find a suitable place in Chanhassen. I really do. 1 know it won't be easy, but as a direction to the City Council I think we could possibly find something on Highway 5. A thought. This is just a thought. Maybe something in the Gateway project. I don't know. okay. Highway 41 and Highway 5. The southwest, east corner. Okay. You know that's a big project out there. It's all industrial office and that kind of thing, but I did see your renderings and once again I'm saying in this scale, I think it's a good project. And also this would be an opportune for you to work with the City because we are reviewing our comprehensive plan. Right now. And I don't, Kate's looking at me. Aanenson: But you have to understand we went through this whole process. We explicitly told them that under no circumstances would we support Highway 5...commercial. So in defense of the applicant, this is the only site they could find, and in defense of the applicant, the PUD is what the staff advised them would be their best chance even though we wouldn't support them because we suggested if they changed the BN district, allow you, that opens up the BN district. So again, the staff led them in that direction...to go with the PUD...but we told them the staff would not support commercial along Highway 5. It's guided industrial and once we changed our comprehensive plan to say we're allowing commercial on Highway 5...open it up for other commercial. We went through that process over a year ago, so that's why we're at this point today and there's a whole history of that process which we slightly... in the staff report. That's why they're here today spending this amount of energy because we eliminated that option. Joyce: I appreciate that but I hate, I think it would be a good business in town here and I just hate cavalierly saying well, just because it didn't fit here we can't figure something out. Aanenson: Well they got that earlier from the Planning Commission that we wouldn't support that and that's why they decided to take...take the commercial, existing commercial and try to work it in, in defense of them. That's what they were given as direction. That's what they... Joyce: I just think they'd be a good tenant in Chanhassen and 1 just, and I would hope that they would come back with something that we could, this isn't going to work. Okay? Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. My comments are also not dissimilar to my peers. We are clearly tasked to listen to developers and the citizens and try to really interpret how the plans or put into the City Code and how they're interpreted. And obviously the applicant is of the perspective that this does fit within the Code and the PUD. You've heard my fellow commissioners say that they don't feel that way, and obviously we will pass it on now to City Council with that opinion. and mine is not dissimilar to that as I just don't see a compelling reason to rezone. And the only new item that I bring forth would be. I think the City has made a major commitment to pedestrian traffic and specifically as the pedestrian bridge is right there, that I think is also another pretty significant area that the City has made an investment in and doesn't necessarily in my eyes fit at all with the use of the car dealership, again more, less pedestrian oriented than we're looking for. So with that. may I have a motion and a second please. Joyce: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends denial of Rezoning 4.2 acres of BN, Neighborhood Business, to PUD, the preliminary development plans. parking lot, hard surface and sign deviations as shown dated received April 4, 1997. Peterson: Second? Blackowiak: I'll second that. Peterson: Is there any discussion? Joyce moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of rezoning 4.2 acres of BN, Neighborhood Business to PUD, the preliminary development plans, parking lot, hard surface coverage, and sign deviations as shown in the plans dated Received April 4, 1997, based on the rezoning to PUD and site plan findings. All voted in favor and the motion carried.