5. Goodyear Auto: Site Plan Amendment and CUP.7
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE 0 P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
I TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
Action by City Administrator
Endorsed ✓c� /�
Modified_--
Dat . / O_ „
Date Submitted to Ccmmissiorl
' FROM: John Rask, Planner I Date s bn,;tr d ro council
DATE: October 22, 1996
SUBJ: Chanhassen Goodyear's Request to Amend Conditional Use Permit Conditions of
Approval
PROPOSAL SUMMERY
' Chanhassen Goodyear is requesting an amendment to the conditions of approval of their
conditional use permit (CUP #92 -2). Over the past year, city staff received complaints and
witnessed several violations of the conditions of approval. Staff informed Goodyear of the
violations and requested that they bring the operation into compliance with the conditions.
Goodyear corrected the minor violations, but would like to modify several of the conditions
' which they believe to be overly restrictive. These modifications include hours of operation,
signage, and the requirement to keep garage doors closed or open no more than twelve inches.
' BACKGROUND
On November 18, 1992, the Planning Commission reviewed an application for the construction
of an Abra Auto Body Repair and a Goodyear Auto Service facility. Both uses are permitted in
the Highway Business District with a conditional use permit. The item appeared before the
' Planning Commission and City Council on several occasions. The primary concern revolved
around the design of the site relative to issues of urban design and the Highway 5 corridor.
Concerns over noise, signs and storage were addressed through the conditional use permit. On
' February 8, 1993, the City Council approved Conditional Use Permit #92 -2 for Goodyear subject
to the following conditions:
' 1. No public address systems are permitted.
2. No outdoor repairs to be performed or gas sold at the site.
Planning Commission
October 22, 1996 '
Page 2
3. No parking or stacking is allowed in fire lanes, drive aisles, access drives or public right -of- I
way.
4. No damaged or inoperable vehicles shall be stored overnight on the Goodyear site.
'
5. No outdoor storage shall be permitted at the Goodyear site.
6. Noise levels shall not exceed OSHA requirement or Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
guidelines at the property line. Doors shall be kept closed or no more than a 12" opening.
,
7. Pollution levels shall meet standards set b the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Y
S. Compliance with conditions of approval for Site Plan Review #92 -3 and Subdivision #90 -17.
9. There shall be no exterior banners, temporary signage, flags, or exterior tire displays.
'
10. Hours of operation shall be between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
Staff has attached minutes of previous meetings dealing with this application. Any
discussion pertaining to hours of operation and signage, which took place at these meetings,
has been underlined.
The applicants are requesting the following amendments (see letter from Goodyear dated
September 12, 1996):
1. Condition 4. No damaged or inoperable vehicles shall be stored overnight on the Goodyear
site.
'
Comment: Staff has interpreted this condition to mean that no cars which are beyond repair
shall be stored overnight. Is a car parked overnight awaiting new brakes or new tires
'
considered damaged or inoperable? Staff has allowed these vehicles to be parked outside
overnight. Staff received complaints stating that the intent was to allow no parking overnight
of any vehicles awaiting repair. Under this interpretation, the parking lot would have to be
'
empty at night. The Planning Commission may wish to provide an interpretation of this
condition.
'
2. C requirement or Minnesota Pollution q
Condition 6. Noise levels shall not exceed OSHA re
Control Agency guidelines at the property line. Doors shall be kept closed or no more than a
12" opening.
'
u
J
r
L i
L I
Planning Commission
October 22, 1996
Page 3
Comment: Goodyear is requesting approval to keep the garage doors completely open. This
condition was recommended by the City Council. The intent of this condition was to reduce
noise levels to the nearby residential area. The Planning Commission may wish to reconsider
this condition as a new car wash building is currently being constructed between Goodyear
and the residential area to the south. Further, the applicants have indicated that requiring the
doors to be kept down during the summer months does not allow for adequate air circulation.
It would be extremely expensive and unfeasible to air condition the building. if the Planning
Commission was eeneemed with direetviews fFern Highway 5 into the gar-ages, s
recommends the applicant add landscaping along the northwest poAion of the propeA�'- The
3. Condition 9. There shall be no exterior banners, temporary signage, flags, or exterior tire
displays.
Comment: Goodyear is requesting permission to use banners and temporary signage as
permitted by the City's Sign Ordinance. Exterior tire displays would still be prohibited. It
should be noted that the conditional use permit was approved to the revisions to the sign
ordinance concerning the use of temporary signs.
4. Condition 10. Hours of operation shall be between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through
Saturday.
Comment: Goodyear is requesting permission to be open from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
throughout the week, and 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Sundays. At the time of conditional use
permit approval, the developer of the property indicated that their hours would be 7:00 a.m.
7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. The Council indicated a desire to have limited hours of
operation because of the residential area to the south. Goodyear indicated that they wish to
have extended hours of operation because their new competitor, Tires Plus, is open longer
hours. Tires Plus is located in the same zoning district, but in an area void of any residential
development. It should be noted that the new car wash to the south of Goodyear is proposed
to be open seven days a week. Car washes are permitted uses in the BH, Business Highway
District.
ANALYSIS
The applicants are requesting amendments to their conditional use permit because of difficulties
experienced in operating the business under the current conditions. The existing conditions were
agreed upon between the developer, Al Beisner, and the City. The current management of the
Chanhassen Goodyear was not directly involved in the site development review process. It
appears that some of their concerns and operational standards may not have been considered.
Planning Commission
October 22, 1996
Page 4
It should be noted that this development occurred prior to the adoption of the Highway 5
Corridor Plan. Concern was expressed throughout the review process regarding the image of the
corridor and the impacts that auto related uses would have on it. A second concern was that of
the residential neighborhood to the south and the potential impacts of increased noise, fumes, and
traffic.
Whereas, the City has received complaints from a neighbor and other members of the
community, it appears that several of these conditions, if not all, could be modified to provide
greater flexibility in the operation of the business. With the addition of the car wash building to
the south of Goodyear, a greater buffer now exists between Goodyear and the residential
neighborhood. However, traffic will increase on the private driveway which serves the Emission
Testing Station, Goodyear, Abra, and the Car Wash.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On October 2, 1996, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider an amendment
to the conditions of approval for CUP #92 -2, Goodyear Auto. By a unanimous vote, the
Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendments as outlined under the
recommendation section of this report. The Commission modified Condition 6 to read that the
door may be kept open from May through September. Condition 9 was modified to read that
temporary signs could be utilized as long as they comply with the City's current Sign Ordinance.
Hours of operation were not modified. The Commission was concerned with the violations
which have occurred, along with concerns over additional traffic and the impacts it would have
on the surrounding properties. However, the Commission did state that they would reconsider
their position in a year to review how well Goodyear complies with the revised conditions of
approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Should the City Council approve the requested amendments, the Planning Commission
recommends the following motion be adopted:
"The City Council approves of an amendment to Conditional Use permit 92 -2 with the following
conditions:
No public address systems are permitted.
2. No outdoor repairs to be performed or gas sold at the site.
No parking or stacking is allowed in fire lanes, drive aisles, access drives or public right -
of -way.
Planning Commission
October 22, 1996
Page 5
4. No damaged or inoperable vehicles shall be stored overnight on the Goodyear site. (Cars
awaiting repair such as new brakes or new tires are not considered damaged or
inoperable.)
5. No outdoor storage shall be permitted at the Goodyear site.
6. Noise levels shall not exceed OSHA requirement or Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
guidelines at the property line. "
The overhead garage doors may be kept open from May through September.
7. Pollution levels shall meet standards set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
8. Compliance with conditions of approval for Site Plan Review #92 -3 and Subdivision
#90 -17.
9. There shall be no it banners, tem signage, flags r exterior tire displays.
Temporary signage shall comply with the sign ordinance.
10. Hours of operation shall be between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 3:9$p.m. Monday through
Saturday, 10!00 a.m. t 4.00 p. o n Stin&5 and closed on Sunday.
11. The applieant shall add evergreens and shrubs along the northwest portion of the
site to screen the gar-age doors fFom views from Highway 5."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from Goodyear dated October 15, 1996
2. Letter from Goodyear and application dated September 12, 1996.
3. Public hearing notice
4. City Council minutes dated January 11, 1993 and February 8, 1993.
5. Planning Commission minutes dated October 2, 1996.
E
Chanhassen Goodyear
50 Lake Drive East
Chanhassen, MN 55317
October 15, 1996
John Rask
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mr. Rask,
We would like to address our concerns to you on the upcoming review of one of the restrictions
placed on Chanhassen Goodyear by the conditional use permit.
Our goal has two purposes. First, we want to be available to our customers at their convenience
when they need help with their automobile repairs. This means being open after they get home
from work and on days that they have off, which is the weekend. Secondly, we obviously want to
be competitive in our industry and play on the same playing field as our competition. Since our
local competition is open until 9:OOpm on weekdays and also on Sundays, so should we.
McDonald's is also open late and on Sunday, which is located only two businesses away. The car
wash being built, which is located in- between us and the residential area, has unrestricted hours.
What are the objections? During the planning commission hearing, there were only a total of two
residents in the entire neighborhood who opposed our request. Their major complaint was
squealing car tires this past summer and headlights that shine into one of the residents' home.
Noise was not and never has been a problem. Some of the people are our customers at Goodyear
and we want to find a solution to their complaints.
The main source of the squealing tires in the evening has been removed from our facility. We feel
this is no longer an issue. As for the headlights into windows of a residents' home, we have
offered to plant bushes or trees or to install a solid fence where the existing chain link fence is
located. We have been in contact with the neighbors and the city about a solution to this problem
and we are confident a solution can be found.
1
'
Page 2
The fact of the matter is that the car wash is projected to have pass through it 150 -200 vehicles on
an average Sunday. During the week, between 7 and 9pm, we will wash up to 25 cars in that time
frame. Chanhassen Goodyear will average between 10 -15 vehicles on a Sunday and 7 -10 cars
during the weekdays between 7 and 9pm.
We hope that we have shed some light on questions surrounding this particular request. If you
' should have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please feel free to contact any one
of us.
Sincerely,
Larry Youngstedt
933 -4305
Steve Youngstedt
933 -4305
Dan Smith
975 -0076
Chanhassen Goodyear
50 Lake Drive East
Chanhassen, MN 55317
September 12, 1996
John Rask
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mr. Rask,
We are responding to the conditional use permit on the Chanhassen Goodyear property located at
50 Lake Drive East, which will be reviewed in the upcoming month. The reasons, in which we
will state below, are in the best interest for our customers, as well as just plain business fairness.
The condition states that the garage doors will not be open more than 12 inches. Just the heat off
of the engines, which can be at quite high temperatures, is enough reason to keep the doors open
and allow the fresh air flowing through. When temperatures during the summer months reach 85
degrees and up, the technicians get extremely hot, even with the doors open. So, this little bit
helps to give some relief to our employees.
The permit also states that the hours of business shall be 7am -7pm. Many of our customers work
until 5pm or 6pm and can only come in later at night to have their vehicle fixed. We need the
extra two hours in order to adequately repair our customers cars and to get them finished before
the next business day. The second reason for wanting to be open until 9pm is because our local
competition, Tires Plus, is also open late. This gives them a greater advantage when it comes to
servicing our local community.
The next condition states that no damaged or inoperable vehicles may be stored outside overnight.
First, we do not work on any damaged vehicles. We repair them mechanically. Secondly, we
have many customers that have their car towed to us after they have broken down. They
obviously are inoperable, but hopefully only for a short time. It is especially important for us as a
business to repair the cars quickly because we realize the limited amount of parking we have. We
have also make agreements with Abra and the emissions testing station to park our overflow cars
in their lots under extreme weather conditions, which is our busiest season.
1
Fi
1� '
I Page 2
' We are requesting to be open on Sundays also for two main reasons. First, the competition has
moved into the area and are allowed to be open Sundays. If we are not open, this gives them a
' greater advantage in taking our customers away. Secondly, our customers cannot control when
their vehicle breaks down. Since a majority of them work during the weekdays, Saturday and
Sunday is the most convenient to have their car repaired. Most people need their car back first
thing Monday for transportation to work.
One of the conditions state that no exterior streamers, temporary signs, flags or tire displays shall
be permitted. We only ask that we are allowed to follow the same rules that the city permits for
all other businesses in Chanhassen.
We hope the reasons we have given here may give you some insight as to why we need these
conditions reversed. Thank you for your consideration in these matters.
Sincerely,
Larry Youngstedt
' Steve Youngstedt
Dan Smith
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937.1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION _ f
APPLICANT: _� -� i _t " r 6 a za/ OWNER:
ADDRESS: ADDRESS: <S c,
TELEPHONE (Daytime) r�l i 'y 7 � TELEPHONE:
1.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
11.
Vacation of ROW /Easements
2.
Conditional Use Permit /b,
✓ I' r
12.
Variance
3.
Interim Use Permit
13.
Wetland Alteration Permit
4.
Non - conforming Use Permit
14.
Zoning Appeal
5.
Planned Unit Development
15.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
6.
Rezoning
7.
Sign Permits
S
Sign Plan Review
Notification Signs
9.
Site Plan Review
X
Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost*'
$100 CUP /SPR/VAC/VAR/WAP
$400 Minor SUB /Metes & Bounds
10.
Subdivision
TOTAL FEE $ %�
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must
Included with the application.
Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted.
8'/s" X 11 "° Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet.
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
r 1
L
1
I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
� HANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, October 2, 1996
at 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
t PROJECT: Amend Conditions of Site Plan
and Conditional Use Permit
DEVELOPER: Goodyear Auto
I LOCATION: 50 Lake Drive East
' NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant, Goodyear Auto, is requesting an amendment to their site plan and conditional use
permit regarding hours of operation, signage, and other stipulations of the permit.
' 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 John at 937 -1900 ext. 117. 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 September 19, 1996.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN ALEX & MARILYN KRENGEL
690 COULTER DR 8009 CHEYENNE AVE
PO BOX 147�
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
CHANHASSEN HOLDING CO LOREN R JOHNSON &
14201 EXCELSIOR BLVD 8011 CHEYENNE AVE
MINNETONKA, MN 55343 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MCDONALD'S CORP (22 -157) CLIFFORD L WHITEHILL
AMF O'HARE 6247 INDIAN MEADOW
PO BOX 66207 ORLANDO, FL 32819
CHICAGO, IL 60666
SYSTEMS CONTROL INC CLIFFORD L WHITEHILL
9555 JAMES AVE S 6247 INDIAN MEADOW
SUITE 220 ORLANDO, FL 32819
BLOOMINGTON, MN 55431
KAHNKE BROS INC JAY L & PEGGY M KRONICK
PO BOX 7 8575 TELLERS RD
VICTORIA, MN 55386 CHASKA, MN 55318
KAHNKE BROS INC
PO BOX 7
VICTORIA, MN 55386
CHANHASSEN CAR WASH PARTNERS
4711 SHADY OAK RD
HOPKINS, MN 55343
THOMAS M & KRISTIE A KOTSONAS
8001 CHEYENNE TRL
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JAMES R & JANICE GILDNER
8003 CHEYENNE AVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MICHAEL A & CYNTHIA K KOENIG
8005 CHEYENNE AVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
City Council Meeting - Ja .ry 11, 1993
I_ SET SALE DATE FOR 1993 TAX INCREMENT BONDS.
Councilman Senn: If I understand (i) correctly, what we're doing under (i) is
' we're approving the sale of the bonds?
Don Ashworth: That's correct. Well, you're setting a sale date, but that's
making the assumption that then we get to the actual sale date, that if they
bring back a reasonable bid, that we'll award it. It does give an approximate
30 day period. I can't remember what we recommended in here for a date. The
first meeting in February. Sale date for February 8th. So you would have an
opportunity between now and February 8th to let's say, ask additional questions
in regards to what it is that's proposed to be bonded for in -here. I would
prefer tabling the item to respond to those rather than to get into to actually
preparing a perspectus and telling people what it is we're bidding and then
change our mind. It would be more preferable to take 2 weeks and figure out,
no. I don't like some of these items or yeah, all of those are fine versus
again, putting out an official statement and then saying, you know we're not
really going to make this sale.
Councilman Senn: Rather than take the time or waste the time to discuss
specific items maybe tonight then I'd like to move to table.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a second?
Councilman Wing: Is that what you're requesting?
Don Ashworth: Yes. If there are concerns by Council. We're not going to go
broke if we wait an additional 2 week period of time to make sure that everyone
is up to speed as to what it is that's proposed to be bonded.
' t(ayor Chmiel: I would second that because I had some things here too that, my
concerns were what the rates of interest. What are we looking at? Where are we
going with this? And a few other things too.
' Councilman Senn moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to table setting the date for the
1993 Tax Increment Bonds until the next City Council meeting. All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
GOODYEAR TIRE FACILITY LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY S. NORTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST AND
EAST OF THE CHANHASSEN EMISSION CONTROL STATION:
' A_ REPLAT OF LOT 2. BLOCK 1, CHAN HAVEN PLAZA 3RD ADDITION INTO 3 LOTS
B_ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LOCATE AN AUTO SERVICE RELATED USE IN THE BH
BUSINESS HIGHWAY DISTRICT.
C_ SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 5.397 SO. FT. GOODYEAR TIRE BUILDING
Public Present: '
Name Address
' Al Beisner Maple Grove
Chuck Beisner (, 00 j
Vernelle Dayton Chanhassen
12
City Council Meeting - uary 11, 1993
Thomas N. Thompson Chanhassen
Tom Kotsonas Chanhassen Estates
Sharmin Al -Jaff: There are three applications before you. A site plan, a
conditional use permit and a subdivision. Approximately 3 acres are proposed to
be divided into three lots. Lot 1 will contain the Goodyear facility. Lot 2 is
proposed to contain the Abra facility and Lot 3 will be reserved for future
development. The proposal came before the Planning Commission on several
occasions. Planning Commission's primary concern revolved around the design of
the site relative to ongoing issues of urban design and the Highway 5 corridor.
The Abra design still wasn't satisfactory. That's why we didn't bring it in
front of you today, but we kept the Goodyear on for you to,vote on. The site
plan is reasonably well developed. Staff has been working with the applicant
for approximately 6 months now and the design has improved considerably. The
Goodyear building is a split face concrete block accented by a sandable
decorative texture finish structure that will have a series of service bays and
a pitched roof. All services will be conducted inside the building. Parking
for vehicles is located on the north and west side of the structure. This
location is ideal since it places these areas further away from residences south
of Lake Drive. The site landscaping is of high quality due to attention that
was paid to this issue by staff and the applicant. We regard the project as
reasonable, well developed and staff is recommending that the City Council
approve the site plan, the conditional use permit and the subdivision request
with conditions outlined in the report. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is Goodyear here to make any formal presentation or
do you have something for us to view this evening?
Al Beisner: I'm Al Beisner. I'm not Goodyear. I am the developer of the site.
A little history. We came to Chanhassen in May I think of last year. I have a
relationship with Goodyear. They wished to locate in your community. We looked
at several sites. We originally had put money down on an option site further
west. That was a neighborhood zone and would require rezoning. When we came to
staff we were informed that rezoning in this particular area would be very
difficult because neighborhood business is neighborhood business. This
particular piece of property is highway business. I think number 20 under the
proposed uses under highway business fits the Goodyear site and the Goodyear use
very well. Later on in the development of the project, because of some sort of
a glitch I guess, we fell into a conditional use permit requirement which we are
complying by. We have been through, as you probably heard, many, many meetings
and design changes with Goodyear, with Abra and the Goodyear store was never the
problem. It was the Abra store that seemed to be the problem and we are not
asking for approval of that building tonight. We're back doing probably, as we
refer to, our seventh redraw of the architectural in that. Even though
architect and the taste appeared to be a matter of the individual taste of the
Planning Commission, of myself and it's very difficult for us all to agree on
what works. I have some boards, color boards I could put here and show you what
we've done to the site and how it's going to look. In sitting through several
of these meetings with the neighborhood group and hearing feedback from
residents, in reviewing this entire procedure, I'm very, I'm confident that what
we are proposing is a very, very good use for the site. Number one, we are
spending about 2 1/2 times as much on landscaping as the city does require
today. We're putting in some landscape features that are not in your
13
_1 City Council Meeting - Janu , 11, 1993
requirements at all. Number two, we have set back the buildings from the
freeway a good distance so that we don't have a building out on a freeway.
Basically we've also lowered each, or we've lowered the elevation of our site
about 5 feet from the next door neighbor, which is the emission control
building. You'll see from one of the drawings that I have that we're not very
visible, much to the chagrin of Goodyear and of Abra, from the freeway. We've
put in berming. 3 -4 feet of berming in front so that cars that are parked in
the parking lot will hardly bb visible from Highway 5 and /or from the Lake Drive
side. And in reviewing some of the neighbors concerns and what is permitted in
a highway zone. I think fast food restaurants, which are 24 hours. And motels
which can operate 24 hours, that have their lights on and have cars going in and
out all the times of the day. We don't expect any traffic problems. We're
hoping to have 32 cars a day as customers for the Goodyear store. If Taco Bell,
which-is a permitted use in that zone, has 32 cars a day, they wouldn't be in
business there. So I think that we've lost sight of some of the things that
this really is a better use because it's open during business hours. We aren't
open after 9 =00 on any one night. We aren't open Sunday and I think that with
the extra attention that we've paid to the landscape details, that we've done,
we think it will be a very good, compatible use. There will be no outside
storage. There won't be cars parked outside. Those are all in ordinances that
the City of Chanhassen has currently and we expect that they would enforce
those_ I'll try to show you a couple of things. This is basically the color
site plan. landscaping plan of the two sites. We're only considering the
Goodyear site. We're not developing this other site. Right now ... pond in here,
existing stand of poplars that is there. We are set back from Highway 5 further
than what your normal setback requirements are. The berm that we have along in
the northern border here, we're virtually... shield cars. If you can see it
closely. this is the ... car here and a car there. The berm is 3 1/2 to 4 feet.
A normal car height is about 4 1/2 or 5 feet. You won't be seeing that from the
freeway where currently you...emission control building and the McDonald's site,
there really isn't a berming there to screen their parking lot from the highway.
This is the building that we are proposing to have a pitched roof. We have some
gables on the ends. With accent colors and stripes of the Goodyear colors.
This design ... we had two gables here. on your handout, that shows... The same
building with a couple of gables here to break up the long roofline that we did
have at one time. Architecturally speaking, we are not in a historical zone.
Ve don't have sidewalks in front of us. There won't be pedestrian traffic
' walking through there that we can tell. There aren't sidewalks going in and we
think that we've come a long way and we have worked with the city and the staff
in trying to develop the plan, the landscape plan and those kinds of things so
that it would be a nice use here. Unlike many of you perport developers to be,
some of us are very conscience of the community that we are in. We will be a
major taxpayer here. We do not want to develop a slum. It would only hurt our
values as it would hurt everybody elses values. And I know the problems that
people have with developers and designs along the freeway. I, at one time was
the original Commissioner of the Maple Grove Economic Development Commission and
we adapted a highway zone. And we have bricks, glass or better and we aren't so
' sure that's the right answer. Developing your highway corridor is extremely
difficult and architecture is extremely subjective. But we think what we've
Zione and what we've put into this far exceeds what any of the standards were and
we'll be pleased with this once it's completed. If you have any questions, I'm
here-
1
14
City Council Meeting • inuary 11, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Any questions?
Councilman Mason: Do you have anything for the view from the back end? The
Lake Drive side?
Al Beisner: This will be the back. This is the south elevation.
Sharmin Al - Jaff: The residential area.
Councilman Mason: Yeah.
Al Beisner: This way?
Councilman Mason: No. I'm thinking of the south side. In terms of '
landscaping. I know there's that outlot between the two but will their view be?
Al Beisner: Right now they won't be able to see through. I don't know what's
going on here. That will be addressed when this lot is developed.
Paul Krauss: Ultimately there's going to be an intervening building with
additional landscaping but nobody knows what that is at this point.
Councilman Mason: On the southern lot?
Paul Krauss: Right.
Councilman Senn: So that is viewed as a temporary buffer rather than?
Paul Krauss: Yes.
Al Beisner: Originally we had inquiries by other auto related areas for this
Particular southerly site. We've had an inquiry, and I only take them as
inquiries believe me, but from a doctor who wants to, or a dentist that would
like to build his clinic there. I don't know why he'd want to be in this area
as opposed to downtown but that's one inquiry that we do have. But otherwise
there's nothing we have on the board. We do not have that property under
option. We are optioning this property from, I think it's the Mason family, who
coincidentally were the owners and developers I think of the.
Councilman Mason: No relation.
Al Beisner: No, but I think that they were the original developers of the
property. The residential area south of the site. And at that time they wanted
to develop all residential but there was some movement by the powers that be at
that time to create a business buffer zone between residential and a highway.
So that's how it came about.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Where do you expect the traffic flow to come from
primarily?
Al Beisner: primarily from the McDonald's end of it. Whatever that stop light
is there. The stop sign at TH 101. We, Goodyear, would like to do 32 cars a
day. Abra probably, and we aren't talking Abra now but Abra's probably 10 to 15
1
1
�l
is I
1
'.7
u
City Council Meeting - Janoary 11, 1993
cars a day. It's not like it's a high traffic volume that's going to be created
as opposed to if we were to have a fast food or something like that. Then there
could be concern about traffic but we don't see that here.
Mayor Chmiel: What about noise?
Al Beisner: They will, there is a condition in I believe the-Minutes about we
will not exceed, Goodyear will not excee the accept or a per
level. Goodyear is not noisey. They do everything indoors. C ose . Garage
doors down. It's not a noisey kind of business. It's not f ixing auto wrecks at
Goodyear, It's you know, greasing, oiling the car, alignments, tires, that kind
of thing.
Councilman Senn: Two questions if I could. One's a clarification. In our
staff report, there's a section on the hours which leads me to believe that an
agreement was reached with the neighborhood that you'd be open 7:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m. Now I just heard you say a minute ago that they were going to be open
until 9:00 n.m_
Al Beisner: -I'm sorry. We do not have set hours yet. W ha not reached
agreement with anybody. The hours that you have in your Minutes are__#he yp�ca
hours a Goodyear store is open. And they vary from operator to operator. But
there isn't a Goodyear store in the Twin City area that's open past s0 o
that's why I threw out the 9:00. That was a mistake. Right now the p
hours are as stated in that staff report.
Councilman Senn: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.?
Al Beisner: Yes. Yes
f
Councilman Senn: But there's no tie to that basically one way or the other?
Al Beisner: No.
Councilman Senn: Second question is.
tfayor Chmiel: Paul had a.
Paul Krauss He said as to the noise. I think there's an omission here. When
this was before the Planning Commission, in fact we were talking about i to th e
ra people a that they have a company requirement that the
oors be kept virtually shut. No more open than a foot or two off the ground.
And one of the t hings it does is cut down the noise. That was to be a con ition
on both Se were g ng to a o a woul RIP o eep a impac
wrench noise down if it's basically taking pl ace within the ui ina.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, because most of them leave the doors open in the
summertime.
Paul Krauss: Right.
Councilman Senn: Second one is, where will you, and it may just be the plans
that I have so I'd like to know, where is your storage area in effect for your
16
City Council Meeting - .' 11, 1993
trash and your discarded tires and that sort of thing? Especially your
discarded tires, which get to be quite a pile.
Al Beisner: Right here. We're proposing to attach this, this is a 5,200 square
foot building. Square foot site ...is enclosed part of the building. There is
outside, the door is that direction.
Councilman Senn: So it's ( not roofed? It's basically like a trash enclosure?
,
Al Beisner: No, it is roofed too. Not like a trash enclosure. Trash enclosure
is not roofed. Here is that, it does have a roof... with a door that shuts and
it does lock.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions?
Councilman Wing: Paul, it
says they're going to use a split block. It sounds
like a cement block building. Is that right? It might have a fancy texture to
it but it's a cement block building?
Paul Krauss: That's true. The City prohibits unadorned block.
Councilman Wing: But it's a cement block building. Is the one in Eden Prairie,
near the Eden Prairie Center, is that not brick? Isn't the Goodyear store in
Eden Prairie brick? It sure looked like brick to me.
Al Beisner: I don't think so. Block comes in so many different styles and
shapes. It may be the burnished block look that we are trying to achieve here
too.
Councilman Wing: But it matches all their other brick buildings.
Al Beisner: Yes. Goodyear doesn't have as many brick buildings as you might
'
think.
Councilman Wing: I don't care if they've got any. But in regards to this city, '
you're putting a building right in our gateway.
Paul Krauss: Councilman Wing, we do have a photograph of that one. It does ,
appear to be a brick.
Councilman Senn: It is brick.
Councilman Wing: It is brick.
Councilman Senn: It is brick. The one on Highway 7 is a combination . burnished
block and block face block.
Councilman Wing: Just I guess my comment just on that one specific issue is
that, if we're going to place, if we're going to allow automotive use to expand '
beyond the central business district, and start stripping down the highway into
our, the very essence of our gateway which has been a primary discussion for a
year now, the cart's ahead of the horse and I don't think we can do much about ,
it in this case. They're meeting the land use and like it says, it's
17
City Council Meeting - Ja• , ry 11, 1993
' reasonable. It's not necessarily unacceptable but I don't think we should be
looking at any concrete block if other cities are getting brick and it's
certainly a much higher quality building than the one we're looking at. And I
went around and I looked at the different types of burnished block and split
face concrete block and it's still a cement block building and I'm not going to
buy it on this one. Cement block building, I don't care what you call it. It's
a cement block building. The one in Eden Prairie startled me because first of
all it's nicely landscaped,twhich I think this is the case here. With berms but
it was also a real quality building which I was surprised to see. If I go into
the. let me just take a quote here out of the Planning Commission meeting from
' one of it's senior members. Typically with car care type structures you wind up
with a very minimum it takes to do the job. That's the type of light industrial
use that you often see with these types of buildings. This is the designer
saying this. It is not something that I think we would be in the interest of
good planning to be putting next to both the entrance to our city and single
family residents and I agree with his statement. I don't think any type of
cement block is acceptable for this building. Not...I'd just like to, that's
the only comment I have on that issue. I'd like to stop right there for now.
Councilman Senn: Mr. Mayor, is this time to ask Paul questions too or?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure, yes.
Councilman Senn: maul, in relationship to that hour issue then. That is not
something that. it was kind of a point of resolution with the neighbors?
Paul Krauss: I don't recall it as being one Mr. Senn but under the conditional
use permit standards, you can attach conditions that regul hours of
aeration. So it can. zertain y b e reso ve y you there.
' Councilman Senn: And there will be no outside repairs whatsoever?
Paul Krauss: Yes. Condition 2. No outdoor repairs to be preformed or gas sold
at the site. We should probably c ari y t e anguage so it more directl
parallels with what's in the text but the conditions are in there
Councilman Senn: I didn't see a condition at all relating to outside sales.
Flags, banners. all t hat sort o t ing, w is Goodyear is famous or. Is it
I'm just not seeing it or is that something
1 Al -Jaff: It's not in the report.
L�
18
Councilman Senn:
clarify a couple o
Is there, reading through
them on page 12. If I'm
your findings, I just wanted to
reading this correct y, there will
be a condition in
the conditional use perms
which says
ere will a no
unlicense or inoperable vehicles stored on the
Paul Krauss: Yes, there should be. In fact
the ordinance. It should a repeate . Well,
premises
it's one of
it is. No
the standard ones in
O amaged or 1nopera e
vehicles shall be
stored overnight on the Goodyear site
It's condition number
' Councilman Senn: And there will be no outside repairs whatsoever?
Paul Krauss: Yes. Condition 2. No outdoor repairs to be preformed or gas sold
at the site. We should probably c ari y t e anguage so it more directl
parallels with what's in the text but the conditions are in there
Councilman Senn: I didn't see a condition at all relating to outside sales.
Flags, banners. all t hat sort o t ing, w is Goodyear is famous or. Is it
I'm just not seeing it or is that something
1 Al -Jaff: It's not in the report.
L�
18
City Council Meeting - wary 11, 1993
.Al Beisner: I believ that that was an issue that was brought up at one of the
Planning-Commission meetings and we understood then that the C of Chanhassen
has a sign ordinance and what you can do and how you can do it. I'm assuming
that's what we are abiding by.
Paul Krauss: T he sign ordinance would probably allow some of the situations to
exist that you're referring to so it may be wise to, if you wanted to p acp—
limitations on it, put its in the conditions of the permit.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Any other questions?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do you see the development of the Goodyear store
,
preconditioned on Abra going in?
Al Beisner: No. No. It came about because I was doing the Goodyear store and
there was another developer that had an option on this site and was going to put
in an auto mall and he had Abra and they wanted to be there and I said, I just
want to build a free standing Goodyear store. And he said, well I'd like to put
an Abra store in there so we're making two separate legal descriptions. Two
separate loans. Two separate ownerships. The whole thing. So it's not one on
the other at all.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else like to address the
Council at this particular time? Yes sir. State your name and your address
please.
Tom Kotsonas: My name is Tom Kotsonas and I live in Chanhassen Estates. I back
up to Lake Drive East. The gentleman has made some comments and maybe he met
with some other neighbors and not myself but I don't remember being informed or
'
asked to attend any meetings. I've gotten the implication that he's met with the
neighbors. I don't know. No? Okay, so I misread the statement on that. I
would just like to reinforce some of our concerns from the Chanhassen Estates
neighborhood and those of us who back up to that proposed development. Much of
it's been brought up. There seems to be, and rightly so, a great deal of
concern with the north side facing the highway. The berming and the trees and
so forth. They mentioned the parking on the west side. The west side affects
'
us more than parking on the east side of the building. That's the east side is
further away from the houses than the west side is. We have, obviously would
like to see as much berming on the south side and the west side as possible and
as much vegetation, trees that are of some size to start with. 3 and 4 and S
foot trees, especially pine trees take many years and I'm a young man but if
they stage it, some of those trees grow in Minnesota, they'll be 20 or 30 years
from now before they get to a size that will be of any benefit to us and I would
like to stay in the neighborhood that I'm in. .I've been there a long time and I
would like to continue residing there. And I mentioned to other people at tines
that we have seen a number of, I have seen a number of my neighbors move out
because of development that's taken place along behind us.. As long at I've got
the stage here a little bit, we have McDonald's sitting there with spot lights
shining through at nighttime. We have the emissions control, or testing center
'
which we can watch cars coming in and out of there, checking stations, or they
can watch us you know from the same thing. We would like this not to become
similar to that. We would like, if it's going to be developed, whatever is
there we would like to be insured that we have plenty of privacy. We've been
'
19 '
I City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
there a long time paying taxes and we have a right as residents and as taxpayers
to protect our property, our neighborhood and our values as much as someone
coming in and making a profit. Thank you very much for the time.
Councilman Mason: Why wouldn't the parking lot be on the other side there? If
it would help that neighborhood out. Was that addressed at all, do you know?
Paul Krauss: Not specifically. Mr. Besiner might have some considerations
about the parking. This parking is fairly remote from the neighborhood. I mean
ultimately there's going to be quite a bit, and I'm not sure what, but there's
going to be something between there and the neighborhood.
Al Beisner: This is the west side. This is the east side and this is
residential down here so... Also, a problem that came about with the
development of the emissions control site. This site will be, it is right now 4
1/2 feet higher than this... Coming from the ... natural drop. We have a 4 1/2
to 5 foot drop from this elevation to this elevation. There will be no cars
visible from the west. It became more, originally we had the Goodyear building
over here but we couldn't put in the... I don't know what happened to that when
the emission control building ... if the site was raised...
' Paul Krauss: Now, in the duration, you do have that clump of willows over here
which are not great but in the summertime do offer ... a line of trees along what
will become the north property line there and at least that would give them some
time to grow. But again, we're still uncertain as to what's going to happen
there. I assume it will probably take access off the driveway here someplace,
kind of right across from that and in that case those trees won't be in the way
and could be allowed to stay.
Al Beisner: On our final plan, and ... we do not have any illuminated lighting
for Goodyear on this end of the building...
Councilman Mason: I did note that there are going to be some trees that are 16
feet in diameter on the report. That's great. I want to see them.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else wishing to address this at this time?
Tom Thompson: Hy name is Tom Thompson, a Goodye e mployee and perspective
wne1 of this facility. Fir some c onc e rns abou h ours. Mos o the s tores
that are open until 9:00 are near malls. So this store more than likely will,
7:00 will be sufficient. Secondly, the flags and signs. Goodyear oesn't can
towards the carnival effect. They wor — towards professionalism and look s o tie
building, which it handles well. So as far as the ags an t e carniva
'effects, wou d e on an a nnual, possibly a permit type thing. a es, suc as
- anniversay sale. Minimal weekend things. So I don't think that would e,
shouldn't be a concern. As far as noise. 25 to 30 cars a day is the normal
and less than 10% o t ese vehicles are being operated during repair time.. So
' exhaust, revving engines or whatever you want to call it, they're sitting idol.
They're not running. The only equipment that would be making noise are air
tools which probably more than 50 to 60 feet away you wouldn't hear them anyway.
They'd all be within the building. So the noise level's minimal. The looks of
the building, someone had recommended or had mentioned Eden Prairie. I managed
1 20
City Council Meeting - :, iary 11, 1993
Eden Prairie for 7 years and this building far exceeds the looks and outlay of
the Eden Prairie building. It was set up very well. Thank you for your time.
Councilman Wing: I just have, one thing in Chanhassen we're certainly
interested in good corporate citizens and liquor stores who don't sell liquor to
minors and cigarettes to minors at the grocery stores, and Mr. Beisner I don't
want to put you on the spot here necessarily, but didn't Goodyear get a lot of ,
really negative media coverage recently on quota systems and, didn't they
recently get caught in a sting operation?
Tom Thompson: Yes, that was the corporate stores which was, it was one sided.
It was sensationalism in journalism. It was a one sided store. I work for a
corporate store right now and I can honestly say the independents could be as
much a spot as a corporate but sensationalism in journalism. No one's going to
deal with one man. They want to go for the corporation. And my store, which I
work in Wayzata, we had been visited several times. Nothing was said. What
little highlighted segments you saw on the television were sensationalized. They
panned out to be nothing and it fizzled out real quick.
Councilman Lung: So that problem, both between Sears and Goodyear, that's been
resolved? I can feel comfortable.
Tom Thompson: Sears was a much more complicated issue. The government was
involved with that and government also did come to Goodyear and ask for their
advice and their help and Goodyear declined because they didn't want to get into
mud slinging.
Councilman Wing: So there's no question I could come to your store in full
trust?
Tom Thompson: 100% guaranteed. That's been Goodyear's warranty all along.
100% customer satisfaction.
Councilman Wing: Okay.
Councilman Senn: Are you individually going to be owning and operating this
business?
Tom Thompson: Well, I don't know. It's a franchised store which means Goodyear
will hire on the owner, just like applying for a job. So whoever's best suited
for the position of owning this facility will be taken on. And each individual
who applies for ownership has to meet certain requirements, so it's fairly
strict.
tlayor Chmiel: Do you still live in town Tom?
Tom Thompson: Yes, I'm a resident of Chanhassen.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions of Tom? Thank you.
Tom Thompson: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: You had some specific questions that you wanted to bring up.
21
7
Ll
1
I City Council Meeting - Jane - ry 11, 1993
Councilman Wing: Whenever it's convenient. Are you looking for...
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Wing= Mr. Biesner, my comments tonight I want to make sure are not
directed at you, and this is the first time as a Councilmember I get a chance to
' react to this. It goes through Planning Commission and we have preliminaries
but all of a sudden here it is, and last time I showed some concerns I got a
letter from a corporation that kind of came after me. So I'd like to put my
comments out but necessarily be attacking you or your company whatsoever. And I
want to back up and just comment that these are really permanent installations.
Kind of one shot deals and we either do it right or we're stuck forever. The
real concern I've got is this is our gateway. I'm going to suggest that this is
our front door and we're kind of developing it using 15 year old standards and
ordinances that are just in the process of being updated and these lots on this
east end are sneaking by the program here and I'm going to suggest that in 6
months, or if this was to be held for a while, that this development might not
be occuring in my opinion. I was hoping we could zone and limit fast food and
auto centers and kind of centralize their automotive centers and not spring them
Lip on a strip basis running out to our east end right down our gateway. So I
guess I'm recognizing that this is meeting our standards and maybe there's very
little to be said or done and my voting no would not even be a legal vote no if
they're meeting our ordinance guidelines. But on the north side of the street
we've just taken out a taco stand and a cement plant. Now we've turned around
and added an auto body shop and a Goodyear tire store, and I don't see those as
necessarily complimenting each other. It seems we're trying to clean up this
side but then we're letting kind of what I see as an inappropriate land use come
in for the south side now, and I have nothing against Goodyear. My last set of
tires came from them, but again we're talking land use and what's best for the
city. And I think if the Highway 5 corridor study were in line and if our
landscaping and our land use ordinance were up to par where I'd like it to be
tonight, that we probably wouldn't be addressing this. My concern is that
there's probably a few more lots out there in this area that are going to slip
through unless we do something really rapidly and that's what I want to discuss
under Council Presentations. I think we need to move to prevent additional
automotive or fast food uses at the entryway to our city. Reasonably well
developed. Reasonably well developed for our gateway. ...come to terms with
this in the staff report has been like trying to hit a moving target because we
don't have any rules in place. Cement blocks I don't approve of. Reasonable if
on exceptional land use. You know none of this is making me feel real good
' about this. Eden Prairie is brick. I'm going to suggest that we have brick
here_ The building architecture meets the standards of the site plan ordinance
requirements. That's back from 1978. Not the new corridor study that's coming
through. Just quickly going back to where we're winding up here and why I'm
really afraid of approving this tonight without a lot more information. The
Planning Commission who has looked at this night after night and week after
week, said they're really worried about it. Senior Commissioners are, there's
one comment off of page 11. I think Ladd you flit it on the nose. We pass this
up to Council tonight and let them take a hack at it. Probably the best thing
to do. Five more opinions. Well I think we're less informed than the Planning
Commission and we're not designers either. So I really, I guess I don't know if
we've got any justification to say no to this but they slip through the crack
and what we're trying to do on Highway 5 and I'm really concerned about the
22
City Council Meeting - 'anuary 11, 1993
neighbors comments about the negative impact these businesses will have. I
don't think they're positive quality business. Again, nothing to do with
Goodyear. I'm talking strictly land use and do we want our corridor, the
gateway to be auto body shops and tire shops and so on and so forth. I think
the neighbors comments about the degregation of their neighborhood and the type
of land use that's going in here is very pertinent and I really am concerned for
the neighbors and I wish we had been a head of this by another 6 to 8 weeks. 6
months. This probably wouldn't have happened. I think the neighbors have very
'
valid points and I think that once again, staff and City Council are sitting
here with all our hoofs dug into the ground, pulling backwards but the carts got
all the developers going westbound and they've got more people than we've got.
They've done everything right. They're given and yielded. I think staff has
done an excellent job on this. I'm real disappointed that Planning is saying,
we don't like it and I'm saying I don't like it and I don't like the land use
and I wish we were ahead of this and I hope that no more of these are going to
slip through the cracks. I can't be any more negative than that. I'll turn it
over to somebody else. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank for
you your positiveness. Colleen, do you have any?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yes. I think a reocurring theme that we're going to
see tonight is the Highway 5 corridor task force and where they are and being a
freshman on the Council I'm not completely certain where they are in the
development of the plan but I'm concerned that we are letting things come
through without an overall plan for what we want to do for Highway 5 and how
businesses will relate to that development. So I'm concerned about allowing
businesses to build or do anything until we have that long range plan in focus
for Highway 5. Particularly, as Dick said, with it being the gateway to our
city. I appreciate all the work that's been done by the Planning Commission and
by Goodyear but it sounds like nobody's completely thrilled with it and I have a
lot of faith in staff and in the Planning Commission. They're not thrilled. I'm
not particularly thrilled. As Dick said, it does meet our standards as they sit
today but as City Council we have the authority to put the brakes on this one
until we have more current standards to have it live up to so I guess right now
I'm uncomfortable with it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: Being uncomfortable with it and which way we're going to vote
I think are two different things. I find myself being in kind of an unusual
position here. I'm not sure at this point that we have much choice. I agree
with your comments about I wish this was coming 6 months later because I suspect
,
we'd be done with our Highway 5 overlay. Just out of curiousity Paul, how much
longer do you think we'll be going with that?
Paul Krauss: Councilman Wing asked me that this afternoon and I always hesitate
to give a date where you have citizens involved because you're never sure which
way it's going to go. We have an intent to try to wrap it up in about 5 -6
months, or at least get the ordinance out. In fact, there's a separate
subcommittee, well you're aware of that. A separate subcommittee has been
established to work on the ordinance aspect under an accelerated way and their
first meeting is Wednesday. So I'd give the 6 months as a reasonable timeframe.
23
City Council Meeting - Ja ry 11, 1993
' Councilman Mason: I guess my question would be, and maybe this is to the legal
end of this. Is there anyway, and also I want to share what Councilman Wing
said too. I think clearly there's been a lot of work done on this and I
appreciate that. That to me is not the issue at all, but we are talking about
what Chanhassen is going to look like for the next, as long as I'm going to be
here, and I'm curious if there't anything we can do to hold this off until that
gets done. I mean what happens if we vote this down?
Elliott Knetsch: Well, part of this is a preliminary plat and you're obligated
to act on the preliminary plat but then I believe it's 120 days after it's
submitted to you from the Planning Commission so I don't think you could wait
until it's done to act on this. You're legally required to act in a certain
amount of time.
'Councilman Lung: Mike, the other comment along that line, and I don't, you have
the floor but the central business district which this falls into, is not
necessarily anything that the task force is dealing with. They're primarily
dealing with the western two - thirds and so this is the eastern part which may or
may not have any reflection on that task force at all and their findings.
Excuse me.
tlayor Chmiel: Anything else Mike?
Councilman Mason: No. I guess we could drag our feet and see if we could prod
the committee along but I don't see that. I guess we're asking Goodyear and
people to act in good faith and I think we need to act in good faith too. So at
this point I don't have anything more to say.
?layor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: I guess two different levels of comments. One is if we do
proceed with this I would, I'm in real agreement with Dick that I'd like to see
some upgrading of the building materials. I also like to see some
stipulations that relate to hours and banners, flags and outside sales. And I
guess those are the kind of, if it goes comments. I have I guess a real overall
concern just in relationship to the land use. You know I know this is highway
business but a lot of things under it require conditional use permit. You know
if you go out and drive, let's call it the eastern section of Highway S. It's
kind of amazing. I mean you see an emission center, 4 gas stations, 1 oil
change place, 2 auto service places, 2 carwashes, 1 auto parts place, and then
go on and on and on. I've seen this happen before in other cities. I'll call a
wonderful example, Hopkins which 20 years ago became gasoline alley. 20 years
from then which is now, they're still working to get rid of that reputation and
that image. You know I'm not sure I have as many problems with the Goodyear
building itself if it's done properly but again I have a real problem with
Intensification of this type of uses on our main corridor because it seems to me
the handwriting's on the wall. We're becoming another gasoline alley and I'
' think that's not in the overall benefit of the City of Chanhassen. I don't know
I guess totally either what the solutions are and again, I haven't been involved
in the year's discussion on this, if that's what it's been. But I'd really
rather than see us proceed with approvals on this, I'd really rather see us take
an action to do something like put a moratorium on it for 6 months so we can sit
back and get where we want to get in relationship to land uses on that corridor.
24
City Council Meeting . - anuary 11, 1993
Now I'm not sure that's expanding the study that's going on out west because I'm
not sure I want to take the efforts away from that that are going on but maybe
this becomes an east end study of the same thing. But I get real concerned
because any time an area first opens for development, these are the pressures
that are put on it. The question is whether you're going to allow the pressures
to take over or whether you're going to sit back and take your time and get a
good balance. And I guess I underline that word balance of development.
Balanced uses in the arha.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Richard.
Councilman Wing: Don, I'd just like the City Manager to address this. Don, in
laymen's terms, I agree with Councilman Senn. I think the land use has gotten
ahead of the, has gotten ahead of us here and we're stung. To put it bluntly,
isn't that a tough bounce. Have they not met our standards in our current
ordinances and is there in fact, we have no choice? There is nothing to deny
here? They've gone the extra mile with staff and with our ordinance. There's
nothing to deny. There is no moratorium that he's put on here. Hasn't this
simply slipped through the cracks and it's a done deal?
Don Ashworth: I would request that the City Attorney respond to that.
Elliott Knetsch: Thank you Don. I would agree with what you're saying to a
certain degree. I think the bottom line is, however, that the use that they're
considering here is a conditional use. If it was a permitted use and they met
all ordinance requirements, then you are, there really is no discretion. But
with the conditional use, you have discretion and the staff report contains the
factors to consider in looking at a conditional use. The staff has made
recommendations on findings but the Council is not bound by those findings. If
you go through those and determine, in your opinion, that they don't meet those
standards, then you could deny the permit. Or you know, if you come up with
other standards that relate to the wording of these standards that you don't
think they meet, you could deny the permit. In other words, you're not totally
restricted to the specific language of the ordinance. If you have other traffic
concerns, other land use concerns that may impact adjoining properties or the
city in general, that could form the basis for denial of the conditional use
permit.
Councilman Senn: That addresses this specific action but I think Dick's
question was coming back to more what mine is. Can we put a moratorium on
consideration even of projects in this area until we have a chance to catch up
and get a new land use plan in effect in place?
Elliott Knetsch: The answer is yes. You're allowed to have what's called an
interim ordinance while you study the area in question.
Councilman Wing: So you're saying we could deny the conditional use permit and
put an overlay, temporary overlay to get, we could get an ordinance on line real
fast that might make it undesireable to put this type of business in or make it
so attractive that we wouldn't care what they put in. But we could deny the
conditional use permit?
25
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
f
1
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
Don Ashworth: If you would consider denying it, what you previously have done
is to act to have the City Attorney's office draft the, I guess you call them
" Findings of Fact. Basically it provides the basis under which this is being
denied. If you are going to go with the moratorium, I would ask that you
similarly table the item to allow the City Attorney to draft those findings as
1 well_
Councilman Senn: Excuse me Don, if we table it though, doesn't it pass by, I
mean doesn't it just pass because of that time period you referenced earlier? If
we don't act by that date, it goes forward?
Elliott Knetsch: Right, but I don't believe that we're at the end of our time
limit on that date. I don't know when the application was filed or when the
Planning Commission acted on it.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: The Planning Commission acted 2 weeks ago.
Paul Krauss: But the item was filed.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: In May.
nayor Chmiel: I think everybody's concerns are establishing the Hingway 5
corridor with the regulations that we're looking for and I think some of the
things that I had too is something that were not addressed fully but we're
looking at now with that adoption for the Highway S corridor. The standards for
architecture as to the exterior of those buildings. What they're really going
to look like. I think that's one of it. We could also go for that moratorium
on a 6 months basis and I think within that period of time we might have enough
gathered to put that through. I see a puzzled look on your face Paul. I'm
asking that question.
Paul Krauss: If it was just a matter of staff working with our consultants and
going off and writing this thing, we could have it to you in 2 weeks. But the
fact of the matter is, we're working with a citizens task force and we need to
bring them along and then we need to go public with it and get feedback and then
we need to bring it through the Planning Commission and then ultimately to you.
' Now at the end of that process, what you have is a new development ordinance.
An overlay ordinance in all probability for the corridor. You haven't gotten to
1 26
i
' City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
Elliott Knetsch:
I think that if you consider an interim ordinance, you
would
have to consider
how the interim ordinance is going to effect pending
applications. Do
you want the pending applications to go through or do
you want
them put on hold
applications again?
until you, until you lift the ordinance and allow development
Councilman Wing:
okay, we talked about moratoriums before and Woodbury
got shot
'
down so we chose
not to go that route.
Elliott Knetsch:
Yeah, but Woodbury was upheld in Court within the last
month.
Councilman Wing:
Was upheld?
Councilman Senn:
It was upheld a week ago as a matter of fact.
Don Ashworth: If you would consider denying it, what you previously have done
is to act to have the City Attorney's office draft the, I guess you call them
" Findings of Fact. Basically it provides the basis under which this is being
denied. If you are going to go with the moratorium, I would ask that you
similarly table the item to allow the City Attorney to draft those findings as
1 well_
Councilman Senn: Excuse me Don, if we table it though, doesn't it pass by, I
mean doesn't it just pass because of that time period you referenced earlier? If
we don't act by that date, it goes forward?
Elliott Knetsch: Right, but I don't believe that we're at the end of our time
limit on that date. I don't know when the application was filed or when the
Planning Commission acted on it.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: The Planning Commission acted 2 weeks ago.
Paul Krauss: But the item was filed.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: In May.
nayor Chmiel: I think everybody's concerns are establishing the Hingway 5
corridor with the regulations that we're looking for and I think some of the
things that I had too is something that were not addressed fully but we're
looking at now with that adoption for the Highway S corridor. The standards for
architecture as to the exterior of those buildings. What they're really going
to look like. I think that's one of it. We could also go for that moratorium
on a 6 months basis and I think within that period of time we might have enough
gathered to put that through. I see a puzzled look on your face Paul. I'm
asking that question.
Paul Krauss: If it was just a matter of staff working with our consultants and
going off and writing this thing, we could have it to you in 2 weeks. But the
fact of the matter is, we're working with a citizens task force and we need to
bring them along and then we need to go public with it and get feedback and then
we need to bring it through the Planning Commission and then ultimately to you.
' Now at the end of that process, what you have is a new development ordinance.
An overlay ordinance in all probability for the corridor. You haven't gotten to
1 26
i
' City Council Meeting - January 11, 1993
City Council Meeting m ivary 11, 1993
uses at all. I mean that involves the City initiating rezonings and they're
probably going to be contested rezonings. A property owner isn't going to want
to concede it in a number of cases up and down the corridor: Changing land uses
also involves getting often rubber stamped but approval by the Metro Council,
which adds more time. That whole, you're going the whole 9 yards on that thing
probably takes the best part of a year.
Councilman Senn: But
from the west end and
in the first place?
fl
can't we undertake that process, separating the east end '
shorten that process back to what you were talking about
Mayor Chmiel: They're not addressing the east end.
Paul Krauss: That's not true. No. The corridor starts at Dell Road and ends
technically past the Arboretum. The work schedule in fact, when we've targeted
sites that needed special study, we started out with the area in front of Data
Sery and then we've got the next site we've targeted is the Ward property so
we've picked up parcels in and around, completely through the CBD. Also,
Richard you mentioned something that the CBD and the corridor are not
necessarily the same thing and that's true except to the extent the CBD has
exposure on Highway 5. There was never an intent to look at anything
specifically. You know, is the CBD a different area? Yeah. I mean preferrably
we'll deal with that, with the Highway 5 study but you're not going to get
answers to land use questions on 78th Street from a Highway 5 corridor study.
That probably gust adds confusion to the whole thing but I think you have to be,
one of the things about moratoriums is you need to know that you have a date
certain at which time the thing collapses or you're striving to attain that.
Again, I think 6 months may be reasonable to establish an ordinance but it's not
going to change the uses in that timeframe.
Councilman Senn: So you'd need a year is what you're saying?
Paul Krauss: I would think so.
Councilman Wing But perhaps if we did have this delay, we would at least, if
Target was suggested to be our minimum standard, we did fairly well with Target.
If that was our new minimum standard, I'd like to get that minimum standard in
the ordinance so that then applies to these lots that are sneaking in the east
side, which is going to increase the landscaping a little bit and maybe setbacks
and building types, architecture standards and so on and so forth.
Architectural standards, that's so nebulous we can hardly touch that in the next
10 years maybe but the types of businesses, I guess we can't change but at least
what we did with Target, it ought to be in an ordinance form and on line before
we let anymore development on Highway 5 into our gateway. This Mr. Senn, he
sounds like this troublemaker Wing from 2 years ago. My first meeting I came
and I said, here's what Highway 5 looks like to me with umpteen filling stations
and this and that. It was a cement plant, a taco shop and a McDonald's and then
we've got this little building that's the American Legion and I made it clear
that I didn't want that to continue to the west end so this corridor study got
started. Now you come in saying, you know it isn't a very pretty picture but
yet we're allowing more of it and we're expanding it. It just doesn't sound
right- I mean he's hitting it right on the head. I'm stunned that suddenly
we're expanding this automotive center out to the east end of our city. We're
27
,7
LJ
a
t
�I
II
LJ
1 City Council Meeting - Janv;kry 11, 1993
Paul Krauss: You do have a fair amount of latitude under the conditional use
permit to get better than normal development. So you could probably come up
with something similar to the Target. In fairness to Mr. Besiner and Goodyear
though, one of the problems here is nobody has ever been able to, well thus far,
I mean we haven't been able to articulate consistently what will make everybody
happy. You know when the Planning Commission talked about architecture, we had
5 different opinions and you've got Mr. Besiner sitting there saying, I will do
what you want but tell me what it is.
' Mayor Chmiel: That's right. Yeah, I agree.
Councilman Senn: Mr. Mayor, I don't consider the issue here to be architecture.
I mean that :s a sub - issue.
tlayar Chmiel: That is a portion of it.
Councilman Senn: That's a portion of it but I consider the major issue here in
front of us is land use in relationship to that area.
tlayor Chmiel: Well, on the other hand you could put another taco shop or a Taco
Johns in there and they would have 150 cars in a day or 200. Is that going to
better it? I don't think so from the neighborhood's standpoint, or from the
city's standpoint.
Councilman Senn: But delaying, doing a study, the moratorium would address
both. I mean I guess I'm not going to turn around and say that that's better
than a Goodyear because I think the Goodyear's better than the Taco and I'm not
saying I wouldn't come back and say the Goodyear's fine. But my fear is, we
approve a Goodyear tonight, then Abra's going to be in right next to it. And
the third lot back there is going to be something else. Before you know it,
there's going to be 3 more automotive things in here in front us. It seems to
me we ought to bite the bullet and get at the job we really want to get at,
uhich is get it straighten away.
Councilman Wing: Quick question for Paul. Direct question. I'll apologize
later. The way things are happening, with our existing ordinances Paul,
' you've been struggling to get these things on line and the things that are
happening and your available staff, could you use some breathing space right now
to get revamped and look at some of these issues and not have the pressure of
people coming in the door all the time? If we gave you a moratorium of x weeks
or months, would that give you some needed breathing room right now to really
look at these issues and attack some of these issues we're concerned about?
1 28
to encourage Eden Prairie to
do a good job at
their west end and not cut
' trying
all those trees down so we can come
barging in from
the west and you know really
do kind of the opposite of what we're
even talking about
so. I don't want to
be, I hope I'm leaving Goodyear out
of this because
Mr. Besiner I have no axes
with. The issue is strictly to me
is land use. Our
gateway and permitted uses.
Councilman Senn: But the ordinance
takes that now.
I mean the ordinance allows
us to take the Target standard and
make it the standard
for this project or any
other use like this in the corridor,
correct Paul?
I mean by simply attaching
those conditions to the conditional
use permit.
Paul Krauss: You do have a fair amount of latitude under the conditional use
permit to get better than normal development. So you could probably come up
with something similar to the Target. In fairness to Mr. Besiner and Goodyear
though, one of the problems here is nobody has ever been able to, well thus far,
I mean we haven't been able to articulate consistently what will make everybody
happy. You know when the Planning Commission talked about architecture, we had
5 different opinions and you've got Mr. Besiner sitting there saying, I will do
what you want but tell me what it is.
' Mayor Chmiel: That's right. Yeah, I agree.
Councilman Senn: Mr. Mayor, I don't consider the issue here to be architecture.
I mean that :s a sub - issue.
tlayar Chmiel: That is a portion of it.
Councilman Senn: That's a portion of it but I consider the major issue here in
front of us is land use in relationship to that area.
tlayor Chmiel: Well, on the other hand you could put another taco shop or a Taco
Johns in there and they would have 150 cars in a day or 200. Is that going to
better it? I don't think so from the neighborhood's standpoint, or from the
city's standpoint.
Councilman Senn: But delaying, doing a study, the moratorium would address
both. I mean I guess I'm not going to turn around and say that that's better
than a Goodyear because I think the Goodyear's better than the Taco and I'm not
saying I wouldn't come back and say the Goodyear's fine. But my fear is, we
approve a Goodyear tonight, then Abra's going to be in right next to it. And
the third lot back there is going to be something else. Before you know it,
there's going to be 3 more automotive things in here in front us. It seems to
me we ought to bite the bullet and get at the job we really want to get at,
uhich is get it straighten away.
Councilman Wing: Quick question for Paul. Direct question. I'll apologize
later. The way things are happening, with our existing ordinances Paul,
' you've been struggling to get these things on line and the things that are
happening and your available staff, could you use some breathing space right now
to get revamped and look at some of these issues and not have the pressure of
people coming in the door all the time? If we gave you a moratorium of x weeks
or months, would that give you some needed breathing room right now to really
look at these issues and attack some of these issues we're concerned about?
1 28
City Council Meeting - nuary 11, 1993
Paul Krauss: Yeah, it certainly wouldn't hurt. I mean having more time to sit
,
back and complete. If our only job was to push paper and bring permits to you,
I mean it would be pretty straight forward. I mean the more interesting and
more complex part of our job is to work with you on a vision for what the city
should be and on planning. Fundamental planning. There's no question that
we've known all along on Highway 5 that we're under the gun. We told the task
force that when they were set up. That we're going to try and bring you along
as quickly as possible but there are going to be things that you may be able to
influence but not totally change. I think they were pleased when we explained
the Target process to them and a little bit concerned when we showed them the
Abra plan. But that was a limitation they were willing to accept. I don't want
to dissuade you. You know if moratorium is the way you're. going to go, I've
worked in a community where we did that. I think it was done effectively.
There were some outs built into the moratorium for some sites. For example, one
important site I think to the city may well be the corner of Target which is
part of that PUO and which had the standards that you spoke of already embodied
in it. That's also in the corridor. So you may want to be able to exempt some
sites if they meet some kind of criteria. There's a lot of things to think of
so how you exactly define the corridor, how you handle that, what's the duration
of this thing, it's not as black and white an issue as it might seem. I mean it
is one solution. It is effective but there's a lot that goes with a moratorium.
Mayor Chmiel: okay. Any other discussion? Go ahead.
Councilman Wing: I'm only going to move tabling until the first meeting in
February to allow some time to look at these issues and clarify where we're
going. Especially with staff. I wouldn't want to act on a moratorium. I think
it's too severe and I'm not sure that this isn't the choice we want and they
haven't done the best job possible.
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, do you have a question?
Paul Krauss: If a moratorium ordinance is to be brought back, it would be
reviewed I think directly by the City Council. It wouldn't necessarily, well
I'm not sure. Would it have to go to the Planning Commission?
Elliott Knetsch: No, it would come back to the Council.
Paul Krauss: And for us to officially bring you an ordinance we have to publish
it 14 days. 10 days? 14 days in advance.
Elliott Knetsch: That's by your own rules of procedure. You can waive your own
rules of procedure.
Mayor Chmiel: I would just as soon not waive rules when it comes to doing
things as such. I'd like everybody to know exactly what's happening.
Elliott Knetsch: You would still provide, you know publish it and put it on the ,
agenda and so forth so the public would be aware of what's going on. I'm just
saying if it's a matter of missing by a day in applying to the rules, you could
waive the day. '
29 1
City Council Meeting - Ja ry 11, 1993
Paul Krauss: You would also have an obligation to define the corridor and then
notify all the property owners who would be effected by the moratorium. So
we'll sure try to bring it back to you by February. That's February 8th?
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe that's what we're looking at is tabling it for a 30 days
Period with to do what? '
r Councilwoman Oockendorf: To achieve what, yeah.
tlayor Chmiel: To gather just what Paul had indicated.
Paul Krauss: We could bring you a moratorium ordinance and some guidelines for
flow it might be effected. One of the questions I have though is, should Mr.
Beisner be working to resolve. I mean is the direction that you're to give Mr.
Beisner are the things that he could do that would resolve your concerns in the
short term?
Councilman Mason: I think Councilman Wing has stated his distaste for concrete
block. That might be one thing to look at. But on the other hand, why should
they spend any more time on it if we're examining this? Again, I'm finding
myself in kind of an unusual position here tonight. Are we, by looking at a
moratorium, is this kind of de post facto? I mean why, and I'm not saying we
shouldn't do it. I'm just saying this has all been done in good faith with
everyone concerned and we accuse developers and the like of not acting in good
faith. Are we doing that now? I think that's something, I'm not making a
judgment_ I think that's something we need to look at.
Councilman Senn: But this is the first time we've seen it and we're the only
body to consider this type of an action, isn't that true?
Mayor Chmiel: True.
Councilman ding: Well the Planning Commission has by their comments, every one
of them, said we don't like it. They said, we're uncomfortable. Let's get rid
of it and give it to the Council. So here it is.
Mayor Chmiel: Get 5 more votes.
Councilman Cling: But I agree with Mike. I'm not supporting a moratorium. I
don't a moratorium is necessarily the way to go but I think we have to decide
what we expect out of this. On the other hand, Mike also pointed out that they
have complied with the existing ordinances and exceeded those limits. Sharmin
has wrung blood out of turnips if you want. I mean both sides have worked hard
to do everything possible to make this go. We can add brick to it. I mean I
don't think we ought to have block in our gateway to the city but that's a
standard that's simply got to be met head on.
Councilman
Mason: I hope it's vote time here pretty soon on this to tell you
the truth_
I'm okay with tabling
this but I'd really,
I'm not going to take a
moratorium
lightly because there's
just too much going
on in this city right
now_ Paul's
mentioned Target. Paul's
mentioned that area. That's something
'
that would
really, I'm not saying
I'm against it but I
certainly think that that
would really
need to be looked at
very carefully.
'
30
r
i
a
1
City Council Meeting - - dnuary 11, 1993
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I'm not sure what we could accomplish. Say we put
a moratorium for the next 6 months, what's our plan for that 6 months? The task
force certainly already has a full slate.
Paul Krauss: There are some of these sites that are going to be problematic. I
mean there's the second and third site here. There is what is in front of Data
Serv. There's the site adjacent to the Press. Once you move out of that,
everything that's going to be done either requires a rezoning that gives you a
lot of latitude, or is in a TIF district which gives you a lot of latitude.
That's one of the, I mean really the zoning is only one of the tools the city
has in the arsenol. Unfortunately it's the only one we have here really. I
don't want to tell you that without a moratorium everything will turn out just
hunks dory. You do have those 5 or 6 sites where you're going to be posed with
similar problems if somebody brings in a proposal. But for the balance of the
area. you can bring pretty much all the tools to bear that you did with Target.
tlayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I think I'll entertain one more and I think we'll call
the question after that because I think we're just grinding here and coming to
no conclusion.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. I think we're grinding too and I think part of it is
because we don't have a good feel for what the moratorium and stuff would mean.
So I guess what I would like to move is that we direct, that we table this for
30 days and that we direct staff to come back in 30 days with a proposed
ordinance on moratorium. That's the only way we're going to get our hands on
it. Touch it. Feel it. Know what it means. Staff can provide the
professional expertise to doing that and at that point we can decide which way
we move from that point. It may not be to go ahead with the moratorium but at
least at that point we know what we're. I guess talking about.
T1ayor Chmiel: Yeah. At the same time should we also, in that aspect have our
attorney go through and look at that moratorium with some draft findings?
Councilman Senn: That would make sense, yes.
Councilman Wing: Now was that a motion? Did you make a motion?
Councilman Senn: Yes, I did make a motion.
L
r
f
Councilman Wing: I would second it just for discussion. Because the moratorium
I still don't feel comfortable with and I don't support.
Councilman Senn: Dick, don't get one wrong. I'm not suggesting a moratorium.
Councilman Wing: Well I know. First of all we're tabling this for 30 days. I
still don't think it effects Goodyear. They have a proposal on the table that
seems reasonable. It's gone beyond the norm. I think we almost have to'act on
that. But then this moratorium is going to effect the lot next to it and the
lot next to that one and subsequent things coming in so I don't think we're
going to see them slipping through the crack here quite as easily and we'll get
an ordinance on line fast with landscaping that meets the Target standards. Why
are we going to delay it 30 days? We can't change the land use and what they've
done with Goodyear. I think this, your motion I can go along with but I still
31
f
' City Council Meeting - Jan -y 11, 1993
think we have to address Goodyear tonight and make a decision on denying it or
not denying it.
Councilman Senn: Well Dick my motion was to delay it 30 days for the reason
that, okay here's the reason now. The reason that, at that point we can decide
whether this property should or should not be included in a moratorium. But
' until we define the moratorium, I don't think that's fair to make that judgment.
Nor is it fair to treat this property I think any differently at this point than
we're going to look at surrounding ones.
t Councilman Wing: Except this land use is established and it is meeting
ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. And it's of those standards but nonetheless you can still
table it for those 30 days.
Councilman wing: Well, I can go with the 30 days tabling.
Mayor Chmiel: And to come along. My understanding of your motion, restate that
motion as such.
Councilman Senn: The motoin is that we table this item -for 30 days and in that
time period staff and City Attorney come back with a draft or proposed
moratorium ordinance for consideration and with all the definitions.
Mayor Chmiel: With the findings?
Councilman Senn: With the findings and definitions that we need.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. And you seconded it.
Paul Krauss: If I could clarify that. Should this be an ordinance that we get
together, publish it and do everything else so that if you wanted to, you could
' take action on it that evening? Or did you just want to review it.
Councilman Senn: If that's possible, that'd be nice to have as an option.
' Mayor Chmiel: If it's possible. I don't know how you could do it but.
Councilman Senn: That's something you have to answer maybe more than us.
Paul Krauss: Well part of what you would have to do in creating the ordinance
is establish the corridor. Establish what it covers and I guess it's difficult
to notify people if we don't know exactly what it is.
Councilman Senn: Do we have time to wait? I mean do we have time if we wait 30
days, come back, get our hands on an ordinance and then do we have time then to
turn around and do that publication?
Paul Krauss: Then you're looking at probably another 15 -20 -25 days beyond that.
So I guess we'd like to shoot for it. If we take a shot at defining a corridor
and notifying people, you can make it smaller at that point but you can't expand
it without going through a re- notification.
32
E
City Council Meeting - ` °ivary 11, 1993
Councilman Wing: Can you make sure that an update is on the next agenda.
Mayor Chmiel= I'm going to call a question.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table action on the Goodyear
Tire Facility for 30 days and direct staff to come back with a proposed draft
ordinance on a moratorium and findings. All voted in favor, except Councilman
Mason who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL, GATEWAY BUSINESS CENTER SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TH 5 AND TH
41, OPUS CORPORATION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Michele Foster
Opus Corporation
John Uban
Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban
Paul & Carol Paulson
3160 West 82nd Street
Henry Wrase
Chaska
Rick Wrase
Chanhassen
Peter Olin
Minnesota Landscape Arboretum
Jim Andrews
Park and Recreation Commission
Larry Schroers
Park and Recreation Commission
Jan Lash
Park and Recreation Commission
Harry Adams
115 West 82nd Street
Kate Aanenson: Opus Corporation is requesting PUO conceptual approval of 170
acres of property. This proposal includes 22 lots with approximately 950,000
square feet of building. The buildings would be an office /industrial mix. This
proposal also calls for some support or ancillary commercial included in the
project. Lot 1, which is this lot right here, is being shown as being held out
for future development. This property is zoned A -2 but the Comp Plan guides it
for office /industrial type uses. This item appeared before the Planning
Commission twice. First in October and then in November and the Planning
Commission discussed it at length. They had numerous concerns with the project.
I think what we're trying again is the Highway 5 in a conceptual envision of
this development and where we're going with that. We have shook out a few
issues I believe. Paul Paulson's property here and the Wrase's property there
were both shown as exceptions. We're hoping now that they can be included and
it appears that they may, are working towards being included into the
development project itself. One of the other issues is the Park dedication.
This project does not reflect what the Park and Recreation Commission, their
recommendation. They are showing two lots. Lot 17 and 18, which would be these
two lots right here, as open space. These lots also include the more
significantly wooded area and the wetlands, both of which would be required to
be preserved under the PUD anyway. So what the Park and Recreation Commission
is looking for is more of a community park and that acreage does not meet their
needs. They're looking at something separate from that. At the time of the
Planning Commission, there were 4 proposals. It got tabled the first time. The
Planning Commission asked that they come back and show some alternatives for
that Lot 1. There was a great discomfort in what the possibility of that would
be. So they came back with 4 proposals. Those being office institutional,
f
1
f
33 1
City Council Meeting - lebruary 8, 1993
Councilman Wing: I think this needs to be in a workshop and I think it needs to
be addressed aggressively and more intellectually with a lot more time on this
Council's part but until then I'm going to stand by my motion to deny the
Interim Ordinance for development of the Highway 5 corridor. With all due
' respect to Mr. Senn's concerns.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
t Councilman Mason: Second.
' Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to deny the Interim Ordinance
Temporarily Prohibiting Development in the Highway 5 Corridor. All voted in
favor except Councilman Senn who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4
to 1.
' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you for coming this evening. Appreciate your input and
we'll take about a 5 minute recess.
' GOODYEAR TIRE, LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, NORTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST, AND EAST OF
THE CHANHASSEN EMISSION CONTROL STATION:
7 lJB
A. REPLAT OF LOT 2. BLOCK 1. CHAN HAVEN PLAZA 3RD ADDITION INTO 3 LOTS
}� B. CON DITI O NAL USE PERMIT TO LOCATE AN AUTO SERVICE- RELATED USE IN THE BH
? �<<' BUSIN HIGHWAY DISTRICT.
C_ SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 5.397 SQUARE FOOT GOODYEAR TIRE BUILDING
Public Present:
I Name Address
Jim Larkin Larkin, Hoffman
Al Beisner Maple Grove
Neil Hartman 1841 Center Drive, Centerville, IL
Vernelle Clayton Chanhassen
James Benson Abra
Herb Mason 1589 Highway 7, Hopkins
Thomas Thompson 1011 Butte Court
J. Harding 530 West 79th Street
Tom Kotsonas 8001 Cheyenne Avenue
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Approximately a month ago you reviewed the subdivision, site
' plan and conditional use permit request for the development of a Goodyear auto
service facility. Tabled action on the proposal as architectural and site
design issues surfaced. Staff was directed to investigate the possibility of a
' moratorium along Highway 5. The applicant was directed to revise the plans by
providing additional landscaping along the south portion of Lot 1, and change
the exterior finish from block concrete to brick. The applicant has not
submitted the requested changes. However, staff changed the conditions of
approval for the site plan review to reflect your recommendations from last
month in conditions 10, 11 and 12. The additional landscaping is reflected as
well as changing the exterior materials to brick is also reflected. There were
some additional concerns such as noise level. We changed the conditions of the
conditional use permit as you had requested and with that we are recommending
23
City Council Meeting - Febru. 8, 1993 1
approval of this application. Thank you.
'
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is the applicant here?
Jim Larkin: I'm Jim Larkin and I'm representing the owner of the property, the
Mason family and asking that the Council vote approval of the conditional use
permit without requiring the two conditions which have been added since the last
meeting. That is the brick and the additional landscaping. Mr. Beisner, the
developer who has spent over 10 months trying to work with the city and it's
,
staff and has made significant and multiple designing changes over that period
of time in order to meet the requests of a variety of constituencies, will speak
to what he has done and show you what are the latest drawings and we ask you
'
that you consider them for what they are and not for a particular type of
material that is being used. I would note to you that if you look at the Target
store which is presently under construction, the exterior material on the
'
Beisner project, or excuse me, the Goodyear and Abra project are as good or
better than that material. If you look at the buildings immediately to the
north on Highway 5, which would be where a driver coming into the city would
logically look first, they are of material that is no better than and probably
'
less than that will be proposed. The result of continually changing the
requirements is to impose what eventually becomes an uneconomic burden or such a
strong economic burden on the development that it can no longer go forward
'
because who pays for commercial developments ultimately are the members of the
public whose prices are raised. These two developments between them will create
some 10 to 20 jobs per unit, or at least based on the information that has been
'
made available to me, 25 jobs at a time when the economy is not creating a great
number of jobs. So given all of those factors, I would ask that you listen to
Mr_ Beisner as he goes through what he has done and shows to you the current
views of the property as it would appear upon completion. Thank you for your
attention.
Al Beisner: I'm Al Beisner, the developer. I'm the one that caused all the
commotion before and we are here basically again with probably not a change in
our design from last time. Not a change in the placement from last time. But
this time with some more answers to some of the questions that we may or may not
have been aware of back when it was presented at the earlier meeting. Some of
'
the considerations that I want you to know and what we've done in this process.
Basically we start out, and we started this project about 10 months ago and we
did go to the City. We located the site. We found that the original site that
we wanted to build a Goodyear store on was not properly zoned. We went to
staff. Went to the City and they directed us to the location where we are
currently proposing these developments. We submitted all of the information
'
necessary to staff in September and at their request we did virtually everything
that was in the requirements for a conditional use and a BH zone. In fact we
went further. We put in twice the landscaping that was required and throughout
the last 4 or 5, 6 months, we have made no less than 8 changes to the Abra store
'
and 3 or 4 changes to the Goodyear store. When I talked earlier about levers
that you have, you have some of those levers and we went above and beyond. We
have spent almost 2 112 times as much on architecture to get to this point than
'
we had originally proposed. Just making all the changes that were requested.
We followed, so that this was not a rush job to get through here, we followed a
very slow procedural process here. The first meeting that we were to attend was
October 21st. That was a Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission
meeting was cancelled because there was a lack of a quorum. The next Planning
24
—
City Council Meeting - February 8, »
Commission meeting was November 4th. That meeting was cancelled because staff
failed to give proper legal notice to the residents. On November 18th we went
to the next Planning Commission. That Planning Commission meeting was, or the
item was tabled. At all three of those meetings the staff had recommended the
plans we had. The fourth Planning Commission meeting occurred on December 2nd
' and the staff recommended our project and at that meeting it was approved
unanimously. On December 14th we were to have the first City Council meeting.
We showed up at the first City, or we were on the agenda for the first City
' Council meeting and then staff pulled us off the agenda because staff didn't
like the design at that time. We were rescheduled for the January 11th meeting
which was last month and that's when we decided we'd go through the moratorium
' business. And so we're back here now in February and we have been patient and
have done I think as much as we could within the requirements of the conditional
use permit and the BH highway zone. A couple of things that you should be aware
of that we go through. When I got into the process early on in the game, it's
' important that I number one arrange financing. It's important number 2 that
I have a lease signed. For prior to signing a lease with Goodyear we have to
have the project costed out, as Goodyear will sign a lease based upon a multiple
of what the costs are and Goodyear does approve the costs and Goodyear, and a
representative from Goodyear is here this evening, if you care to ask him any
questions_ But Goodyear has built many of these and they know what their costs
are. They are like many of the other large major retail corporations. They
know the economics of the area by the demographics of the area. They know that
they can afford to pay so much in rent in this location because they feel this
is what the business will be. anything more than that might not be economically
' viable for the operator and for Goodyear. A lot of the businesses that you see
vacant back and forth on the strip here between here and 494 that are vacant,
don't look very good when they're vacant. They went out of business because
' they couldn't handle it. Their projections were wrong. In the Goodyear store,
with the design that we had with the split faced block, the economics are so
that we think the business can make it and we think that that is more important,
or I shouldn't say more important but that is a very, very important
' consideration when you go forth with any venture. The last thing I think you
want is to have us build a building that looks good on the outside. Have
Goodyear sign a lease. Have the operator come in and can't make the lease
' payments because the business is not there. He folds up. Closes the door. It's
vacant. Even though Goodyear's still paying the rent, it's a vacant building
and so there's more that goes into the whole process and let's just have some
cost here and cost there. We may not have been here today if in fact back in
' July that brick on a building would have been a requirement. We would have said
Neil, this is how much more cost for brick on the building. This is how much
more your rent is going to be, and he would have said, we probably can't afford
it or would have cut down the size. He also went through his process to get
this lease approved in Akron, Ohio and that was no small feat either because
we've just recently received the final signed leases back, and that took about 4
' months. So it's all a very slow process. I guess I wanted to show you that so
you don't think we come in here and can slap up a building here or there,
whatever. A couple of things I wanted to address about uses and why I think
this building is good for this location. Number one, there's an emission
control building there. Theoretically, x number of cars have to go through that
emission control building every year, every month, whatever to be inspected. If
there's something wrong with the emission control or with the car that goes to
' the emission control building, they need to have it fixed. You can have them
1 25
drive right next door 50 feet and have it fixed, or you can have them drive 2
miles through town to the other end of town to have it fixed. What you're doing
is just creating more traffic. I think when you talk about a land use that we
had talked about previously, this is a good use for the property and we think
that having a Goodyear there and hopefully having the Abra right next to it,
will concentrate all of those uses together. I was also a little concerned
about some of the comments that were made about the gateway and I'm still
uncertain where the gateway is because from the west it's Target and from the
east, I would have thought the gateway was down there, I think it's on Dell
Road. I understand there's going to be a bus garage there or, that's not the
'
gateway? People have told me there are different gateways and I wasn't sure and
these buildings that we are proposing and the Goodyear building tonight, I think
is as good a looking building as you will find on all of Highway S. I'm not
'
Particularly pleased with the looks of the emission control building. To me it
looks, and I know it's been well liked here I guess, I'm sorry, but it looks
more like a smaller Menards to me than it does you know a good building. There
are things wrong with the McDonald's. For one their parapets don't go up high
'
enough to cover their rooftop HVAC units. I can see the green. That's not
good. A couple things that we have done with that in the Goodyear building I'd
like to walk you through. Is we first recessed the building, we've recessed the
,
building. We moved the building further away from Highway 5 because we thought
that Highway 5 was a sensitive area. We were told that and so we moved it as
far away from Highway 5 as we possibly could. We've also on both buildings, to
'
show you the detail we put into this. We staggered the buildings. We don't
have a straight building. We don't have a straight face there. One building is
staggered behind the other one. We do not have the doors facing, on the
Goodyear building, there are 4 doors on each side. They aren't facing the
freeway. They're facing Abra and they're facing the emission control. Something
else that you can't see here but if you walk the property, you'll be able to
see. This site is about 5 feet lower than the emission control site. I don't
know why it was engineered as such but this is higher, our elevation is 5 feet
lower. So virtually from the west we will be almost, I shouldn't say it in
front of Neil, the Goodyear guy, but we might be invisible because of the
emission control blocking the view of this building. We basically, as I
'
mentioned, spent twice as much on landscaping in this location as your ordinance
requires. Lie did that because we think it looks better and we did it because we
have underground sprinklers in the green area and we think that will make for
'
good looking green area all the way around. This is a bird's eye view from
Highway 5, if you will. We have a 3 112 to 4 foot berm that surrounds, or is on
the north border of the site. Over on this side we virtually have a 5 foot drop
'
so we aren't visible. The parking lot will not be seen from Highway 5 in this
design unlike the emission control and unlike the McDonald's and unlike many of
the others. Those are the details that we have gone to on the site plan. On
our building plan. This is a colored rendering. The ones that you have, we
'
have two more gables in here to break up even further that roof line. We've
introduced this blue element to break up the one color sameness of the entire
building. Keep in mind too that this building is only 5,200 square feet where
'
Target's 113,000 square feet. I mean this building is probably maybe smaller
than many of your homes and the end facing the freeway is only 52 feet across.
People are rich out in Chanhassen aren't they? There's the two gables here.
'
And this we changed again because staff wanted to break up that roof line but
you're only looking at 100 feet along here and you're only looking at 52 feet
along here and that's not a very big building. It's not significant. If we
'
26
,
City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993
were 3 or 4 stories, or 6 stories, or in the middle of an intersection, there'd
be something. I brought along samples. This is a split faced block that we've
used and there are probably 30, 40 different kinds of architectural block that
you can use. This is one of the architectural blocks that we plan on using.
Something else, and I was going to run a quiz. This is what we all think is
brick, and this is brick. But, and it's a gamble that I was going to take but
I decided not to. The block on the bottom, that's brick. Believe it or not,
' that's brick. They've come out now with what they call an atlas brick. It's
the same size as a concrete block and they're using that, the contractor Ox,
down the road distributes this and sells this. There are only 3 or 4 choices of
that but we in the architectural group thought that a solid faced of that kind
' of brick is just one flat solid sheet wall that doesn't have any interest to it
and really is not in good architectural taste. I wanted to, I have a comment
here. I have a quote here that I have to get in and it's basically, this is
what Frank Lloyd Wright, who we all know was a wonderful architect, says about
architecture and building materials. I quote, "It's not what the basic material
is as to whether or not it's good or bad, it's how you use it." And we can
' build a brick building that looks bad and we can build an architectural scored
block building that looks great. We plan on doing that. We hope to do that and
I think it will be a building you'll be proud of. I don't know if many of you
are familiar with Summit Avenue area and Crocus Hill, but I've done some work in
' that area and Crocus Hill, Summit Avenue area in St. Paul has the largest
concentration of Victorian homes in the United States and they are
architecturally sensitive to everything that goes on over in the Crocus Hill
' area. Several years ago they got together, there were some homes being built in
the area when the old ones were torn down. The new ones were put up, that
didn't adhere to their "Victorian standards ". They have about a 28 page
' standard book that if you are going to build a home in that area again, you have
to adhere to all 28 pages of directives and they get down to material type. They
get down to arches and peaks and whatever. They do the whole thing. About 5th
and Summit Avenue, an architect and a public relations person built a duplex.
' They met with the architectural control committee and they did everything that
there was in that 28 page ordinance, and then what they did is they painted it
Purple and it's still there and you can go see it. It met everything
' architectural there is to do and I was aghast by it and I go by it about once a
year to show you that you can impose some things. If it's not done in good
taste ... from the beginning, it's not ever going to be done right. There is
nothing that the Summit Hill and Crocus Hill area people and architectural
' control committee could do. We aren't planning on painting this purple. We
want it to be in good taste. Good quality ... show you that we all aren't as bad
of developers as some people think. We're trying to do some business in South
St. Paul and I wrote and asked for some information and this was an unsolicited
letter back from the City Administrator. So in talking about us doing a quality
development and quality building, we mean it... Sorry we weren't aware of brick
' before. We weren't aware of a lot of things that we found out later and we've
been patient and I think that staff will tell you that we've worked as hard as
we could and be as nice each of us could to each other under the circumstance.
I'm here for questions.
' Councilman Mason: Al, one real quick one. Now this color that we see now is an
accurate reflection of what you have?
' Al Beisner: Yes. It's sort of like that with the Goodyear...
27
City Council Meeting - Feb ry 8, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing
'
to address this? Please come forward and state your name and your address
Please.
Tom Kotsonas: Tom Kotsonas, Chanhassen Estates. Very quickly. The building
may be architecturally fantastic but I think it's very important to keep in mind
that if Goodyear goes in, Abra goes in, there's another lot that could be
Champion Auto. It could be Rossi Auto. It could be whatever. I mean how do
'
you say no to the last one that goes in there? We have an emission station. We
have McDonald's that, excuse me. I'm a little emotional but was shoved down our
throat and as he said, architecturally is an eyesore on that corner. It's got a
'
wall that's falling in. We have a Sinclair gas station next to it. You go up
the highway. We have an auto something with boats stored outside that you look
at from going along the highway. You have the Rapid Oil we've talked about.
We've got the Brown Standard. Go around the metro area and you find me a site
'
in the metro area that has this many, this concentrated type of activity and
look at the neighborhood around it. The neighborhood that's there now is a fine
neighborhood. It's an older neighborhood. I'm also a 20 year plus taxpayer in
'
Chanhassen and I have, and so do my neighbors, have as much right to our
protection as a developer who doesn't live here. None of these people live
here. They're going to develop and they're going to be gone. Thank you.
'
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else? If seeing none, I'll bring it
back to Council.
'
Councilman Wing: Could I just ask that we start, I asked Sharmin to draw up a
sketch of a possible option here that I'd just like to show the Council just for
information. And I guess this was prompted by Bill Morrish stating that maybe
it's desireable to kind of keep parking off the road and keep the greenway
spaces as wide as we can and I just suggested that if we moved the building
north, kept the greenway and kept the parking off of Highway 5, and moved the
trash bins to elsewhere on the property, and I don't know how this turned out or
'
what Council thinks about this but this is just a suggestion I had. And by the
way, I want to just, Mr. Beisner's been a very, a real quality gentleman and
I told him. I called him to comment on my suggestion here that I wanted to
'
bring this up tonight but I wanted to point out that we don't get to see this
until now and then it's dumped on us and it's really awkward. You know last time
we were really stunned by it and the neighborhood's concern about land use and
'
you know it's kind of done and so then all of a sudden you get confronted by the
Council that is really looking at this for the first time and I can't apologize
for that. It's the system but at any rate, Sharmin can you go on with what we
had talked about. gust for Council's information.
'
Sharmin Ai -Jaff: With this design the building is pushed to the north. You get ,
a 50 foot depth of green space versus the 35 that was there before. The parking
was moved to the south. They're losing one parking space but still exceeds the
Ordinance requirements. Again, it pushes the parking away from Highway 5 to the
south and we get additional green space. ,
Councilwoman Dockendorf: With the berms that are currently proposed in front on
Highway 5. Will we really see the parking? Driving along or is the berm going
to be high enough where if it stays where it currently is platted?
28
I
fi r should be high enough to where
S a min Al -Jaff: It you won't be able to. s g g y
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: So we're pushing the building further back and.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: We're bringing the building closer.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. My concern is if we can keep the building back
off the highway and not see the parking.
Al Beisner: One of the other concerns too, and these are all sorts of great
suggestions and some of the suggestions... so there's three sides I think to
everything in here that we looked at. You will not be able to see the parking
' lot. If you look closely, these little things here are cars ... and that's what
you should ... you can see the tops of them. If they are small foreign cars, you
won't see the tops of them and that's from the freeway ... The berm is 3 1/2 to 4
' feet.
Mayor Chmiel: We know what the topography is on the highway as opposed to the
' proposed construction site?
Paul Krauss: Well we do know what the elevation of the highway is. We've got
the as -built drawings.
Mayor Chmiel: Looking at a sight line is what I'm saying. Sitting in a
position of a vehicle.
' Paul Krauss: We have not verified it from that standpoint. What you'd want to
do is pick a point on the highway and then go 4 feet above it because that's
' where the driver's eyes typically are.
Al Beisner: The freeway is 935 according to this drawing.
I tlayDr Chmiel: 935? What's your contour on the site?
Councilman Senn: 935. It drops down to the drainage ditch.
Councilman Mason: How would moving the building effect the neighborhood behind
it?
J
Paul Krauss: I understand it's a sensitive issue for the neighborhood but I
really don't think it effects it one iota. I mean you've still got an
intervening site that's going to have a building on it at some point.
Mayor Chmiel: Some type of building is going to be located on the vacant lot.
Councilman Wing: What are you going to do with that one, just out of curiosity?
That could be another automotive center under the present ordinance right?
Paul Krauss: It's very likely. That is one of the allowed uses there. Not to
play devil's advocate but also one of the allowed uses is another fast food
restaurant. Now I think this is really casting the die where they don't have
enough parking to do anything like that so you're talking about a lower
intensity type of use. It doesn't, I understand it doesn't make the neighbors
29
City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993
feel any better to know that it could be worst if that's the perspective. But
I'm hoping that enough is gleaned from the direction of the Council here that
before they come in with that third building, we will have more information to
tell them that do it this way and we can,give you better assurance of it's
smooth passage through the Planning Commission and Council.
Councilman Wing: How about to the east? Same situation.
Paul Krauss: Well east is the Abra building.
'
Councilman Wing: Okay, after Abra.
'
Paul Krauss: There is nothing left. Then you go over to the IOP property. The
DataSery property.
Councilman Wing: So this is the specific area the neighborhood's going to be
'
effected with?
Paul Krauss: This is the end of that commercial use, yes.
'
Al Beisner: One other thing that I found out in doing a Goodyear store as
opposed to others. Goodyear, because they are basically very, very full
'
service, will probably eliminate from use the competition of a Midas Muffler,
Meinke this or those kinds of uses because Goodyear does do all of those. And
once you have Goodyear in a situation, the others probably won't come in. There
are a couple that are complimentary but there will be less of an option for any
,
servicing going on in a third site is Goodyear is there because they are so full
service. If we don't do a Goodyear there and do a Meinke Muffler, then there's
a be'. chance that there would be another servicing kind of thing being there.
Righ we have no plans for anything on the other site, and as I mentioned
last time. At one point in time, yes. Rossi Big Wheel, we were in contact.
We've also had a contact as of late with a dentist in town who's thinking about
'
maybe building a little clinic there. We also had a conversation that Sharmin
sent out way from the Dance studio. They wanted to put a dance studio there.
It's hard to project right now. We have nothing that we're thinking about
beyond these two sites.
'
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
,
Councilman Mason: So real quickly, what's the benefit to the city to moving the
building?
Paul Krauss: Well, if I could touch on that. One of the proposals in the
'
Morrish program is that highways, frontage roads, parking lots, when they're
done in the typical sense, it will take you about a quarter mile wide blacktop
strip. And Bill wasn't the first guy to come up with this. There's been
'
articles, a famous one, Jonathan Barnett. And one of the things that he
proposed is that you seek to do the opposite. That you focus development on
roads such as Lake Drive, you know that run parallel to Highway with a remote
'
location. And that you seek to put as much unencumbered green space, ideally
landscaped green space between the highway and the use and that you put the
building up close and bury the most obnoxious, the more high intensity aspects
of the site away from the frontage. So that's basically what you're striving to
30
'
a
I City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993
' do if you push the building up closer and it's a trade -off. The building is
closer and assuming it's not an unattractive building, it's not a very big
building, it's still going to be set back SO feet from the property line and
' it's more than that from the traveled right -o•f -way because it has a ditch
section through there. But the green space, the area of green space is widened
out by an additional 15 feet.
' Al Beisner: To move the Goodyear building forward, and had we done that 8
months ago, it would not have been a problem. Not too big a problem. Right now
we've engineered the site for where it is right now. We've taken soil tests for
' the site for where it is right now. We've done all the architecture for the
site for where it is right now. We find out two things. Number one, if we do
move the building, we have to pay more for re- architecture. Re- engineer and new
soil tests, and that's only another $15,000.00 - 517,000.00 that we can add to the
cost. I mean it doesn't seem like it, plus the front of the freeway, as you go
further north on the site, our soil tests are worse, which we didn't know until
we actually took them but it will substantially, you know cost more.
' Mayor Chmiel: Do we have soil borings on this site Paul?
Paul Krauss: No. Mr. Beisner I'm sure could provide us with it. We haven't
seen it.
7
Al Beisner: The worst spot that we have is right here. And it gets, as it goes
this way it gets better and that was just dumb luck because ... so that's an extra .
cost for soil correction there...
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion.
Councilman Mason: I think we've got to move on it. It seems to me with this
being a conditional use permit, they've done everything they need to do. I
understand the concern about raising the cost. However, I certainly think the
city would gain quite a bit by moving the location of the building. So with,
boy I'm going to need some help getting through this one I think. I would move
approval of the conditional use permit with the caveat, or I guess it would be
number 9, and it sounds like it would probably entail some further discussions
with the city about moving the location of the building to create more green
space.
Mayor Chmiel: Could I just back up one? Could we go back up to item (a),
replat Lot 2, Block 1 and get that.
Councilman Mason: Oh, I'm sorry.
Mayor Chmiel: Then move into the conditional use.
Councilman Mason: Alright, yeah. I'm sorry. I'd like to cross whatever I said
and move to replat Lot 2, Block 1 of Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition into 3 lots.
Roger Knutson: Is that subject to the conditions set forth in the report that
you have?
Councilman Mason: Yes.
31
City Council Meeting - Febr °Zry 8, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you for clarification. Is there a second? '
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Which? But what conditions?
Roger Knutson: You have them in your packet, under Subdivision. The list of '
conditions. I
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. I
Mayor Chmiel: They aren't in sequence. They're a little out of sequence but
the subdivision is with the approval of Subdivision #90 -17. '
Councilman Wing: I'll second that.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
'
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the preliminary plat
for
Subdivision #90 -17 for Chan Haven Plaza 4th Addition as shown on the plat
dated September 21, 1992, with the following conditions:
'
1.
Park and trail dedication fees to be assessed at the time building permits
are requested.
'
2.
Provide the following easements:
a. A standard 5-foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated
'
along the common lot line between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1.
b. Drainage easement located over the drainage pond.
c. A drainage and utility easement along the easterly 20 feet of Lot 3,
Block 1.
,
i.
Enter into a development agreement acceptable to the city.
4.
A driveway or cross - access easement for use of the existing and proposed
'
street shall be dedicated in favor of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1. The
easement agreement shall be drafted and filed concurrently with a private
maintenance agreement acceptable to the City.
,
S.
The developer shall obtain and comply with all necessary permits from the
Watershed District, Health Department, etc.
6.
If construction of public improvements proceed beyond freeze -up, special
modifications to construction practices shall be incorporated as directed
by the City Engineer, i.e. full depth select granular material for trench
'
backfill, etc.
7.
The developer shall construct the sanitary sewer and watermain improvements
'
in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specification
and Detail Plates and submit final plans and specifications for formal City
approval.
32
'
1 City Council Meeting - ebruary 8, 1993
' 8. Outlot A shall be included with the replatting of Chan Haven Plaza 4th
Addition. The outlot shall be replatted /combined with Lot 3, Block 1.
' 9. The developer shall revise the detention pond to accommodate 0.95 acre/
feet of runoff below the 927.0' contour line.
' 10. Erosion control measures (silt fence -Type I) shall be shown on the grading
Plan. Type I silt fence shall be installed along the north, east and
southeasterly perimeters of the plat.
' 11. The applicant shall reimburse the city for all engineering consultant fees
associated with the storm water study.
' 12. Compliance with conditions of approval for Site Plan Review #92 -3 and
Conditional Use Permit #92 -2.
' d_ Termination of Permit_ The City may revoke the permit following a public
hearing for violation of the terms of this permit.
S. Lapse. If within one year of the issuance of this permit the allowed use
has not been completed or the use commenced, this permit shall lapse.
6_ Criminal Penalty_ Both the owner and any occupant of the subject property
' are responsible for compliance with this conditional use permit. Violation
of the terms of this conditional use permit is a criminal misdemeanor.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: Second item would be conditional use permit to locate an auto
service related use in the BH, Business Highway district.
' Councilman Wing: I guess we've decided that. I'll so move.
' Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. With conditions as indicated
within staff report?
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, would we want to, there was concern about banners.
Temporary signage. Flags. Exterior tire displays and I believe this would go
un er the con itiona u permit. I — would "F —an a i ion here a ere a no
banner, exterior banners, temporary signage, flags, or exterior tire displays.
' And a second one of, I think this is the recommen a ion ol council, o ours o
not earlier than 7:00 and not later than 7:00. Hours of 0
Mayor Chmiel: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Councilman Wing: 7:00 a.m, to 7:00 p.m.
' Councilman Mason: Do we have a second on that yet?
Mayor Chmiel: No, not yet.
' Councilman Mason: I'll second it.
33
City Council Meeting - F uary 8, 1993 1
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Conditional Use I
Permit #92 -2 as follows:
1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of '
Chanhassen hereby grants a conditional use permit for the following use:
Auto Service Facility.
2. Property. The permit is for the following described property ( "subject '
property ") in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota: Lot 1,
Block 1, Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition.
3. Conditions. The permit is issued subject to the following conditions: '
1. No public address systems are permitted. '
2. No outdoor repairs to be performed or gas sold at the site.
3. No parking or stacking is allowed in fire lanes, drive aisles, access '
drives or public right -of -way.
4. No damaged or inoperable vehicles shall be stored overnight on the '
Goodyear site.
5. No outdoor storage shall be permitted at the Goodyear site. ,.
6. Noise level shall not exceed OSHA requirements or Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency guidelines at the property line. Doors will be kept
closed or no more than a 12" opening.
7. Pollution level shall meet standards set by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency. '
8. Compliance with conditions of approval for Site Plan Review #92 -3 and
Subdivision #90 -17. '
9. There shall be no exterior banners, temporary signage, flags, or
exterior tire displays.
10. Hours of operation shall be between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. '
Mayor Chmiel: Item (c), the Site Plan Review for 5,397 square foot Goodyear
Tire building. And that would be Site Plan Review #92 -3 and conditions 1 thru
13 and there's been some objections about item 12.
Councilman Wing: 12 I support. I like the store in Eden Prairie and I don't
think we should step below that with the brick so, and as far as moving the '
store, I'd like to see that left to Council. I don't want to be impulsive on
that. It didn't go through the Planning Commission process and suddenly here we
are tonight making a major change. I want to make sure that's fair and in the
right order and I don't want to see that passed over too rapidly. It's my only
opportunity to bring that forth and it's somewhat impulsive to both the
34 '
' City Council Meeting - February 8, 1993
developer and us I think. I think it's a good idea. It seems to have met with
' staff's approval. There's some advantages to the setback. There's some
advantages to having it up front and I want to make sure that's clarified.
' Councilman Senn: Did the Planning Commission consider that?
Mayor Chmiel: I don't believe that was a part of their recommendation.
' Councilman Wing: No, and that's my frustration because unless I address them,
which I choose not to do normally, it doesn't get brought up until it gets here
and then it's, the process gets difficult.
' Councilman Senn: Should they? Should it go back to them?
' Councilman Wing: I'm not going to send Mr. Beisner back.
Councilman Senn: I'm just asking you. You're the one raising the question.
Councilman Wing: I suggested that based on Mr. Morrish's comments, that he has
been working with the city on, that there was some credibility to expanding the
green space. Doing away with the trash bins on that north side, which by moving
' it up the trash bins would have to be moved to the side. Getting that element
off of Highway 5. That's all. I mean this is a start in the right direction.
' Mayor Chmiel: I would probably support that. The question that I have in
compliance with that requirement, as their counsel indicated, is that can we
substantiate that portion of it.
' Roger Knutson: It seems like a, it's within your discretion to impose that sort
of condition on a conditional use permit. You design the site to a better, more
compatible with the area and is more aesthetically pleasing. But if you want to
impose that, you should impose that as part of the conditional use permit and I
don't think you should leave it to staff to decide whether it's further out.
That's something you really have to decide.
' Mayor Chmiel: Right. Strictly up to Council. Bring it back to the Conditional
Use Permit, that would make that item 12 into item number 9? Is that correct?
' Roger Knutson:
Mayor Chmiel:
' Roger Knutson:
exterior flags
' Mayor Chmiel:
operation from
You have 10 conditions down now?
On the conditional use you have 8 requirements.
But conditions were added. Hours of 7:00 to 7:00 and no
tires, etc.
No banners, temporary signage, flags or tire displays, and
7:00 to 7:00.
' Roger Knutson: Right. And this would be number 11.
Mayor Chmiel: 10 and 11. 9, 10 and 11. Okay. Alright, but that should fall
back under the conditional use which we already had voted upon.
1 35
City Council Meeting - FeF ary 8, 1993
Roger Knutson: You can put it in the site plan I guess because you've adopted
the conditional use permit.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's where it's at is under the site plan review. Okay.
That was my question.
Councilman Mason: The question I just asked here is would we see more or less
if we pushed it back further because of the angle of the berm and all that. I
mean if we're going to see more of it I don't.
Mayor Chmiel: The building in itself?
Councilman Mason: Yeah.
Councilman Senn: You're creating, in effect what his suggestion does is create
more green space, which allows you to still address the berm just as adequately.
And all you're doing is shoving the building forward.
Councilman Mason: Right. Right.
Councilman Senn: So you won't see any more or less. I mean I think what Dick's
suggestion is more of a consideration of what do you consider more important.
The highway side or the neighborhood side.
Councilman Wing: Well the neighborhood side's going to be blocked and that's
going to.
Mayor Chmiel: It's going to be blocked by another building once that comes in.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would just as soon keep it as far off the highway
but definitely move the trash. One thing I don't like when I'm driving on
Highway 5 is I see Festival Food's trash.
Councilman Wing: Tell you what, being that the brick is a new condition and
it's fairly costly, I'll go along with the present position with the brick and
item number 14 I think goes under this would be that the trash receptacles be
moved to an off highway side.
Mayor Chmiel: As item number 14?
Councilman Wing: Yeah. The northern trash receptacles would have to be moved
to preferably a west, the west side of that building. Or at least off the
Highway 5.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: East wouldn't you think?
Mayor Chmiel: Well, if you're not going to see a car facing Highway 5, you're
not going to see the trash containers facing to the north.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm not so sure about that though. I mean that's
further back than where the cars would be parked. The cars would be parked
right up to the berm. The trash would be.
36
1
7
M
i
I
1
City Council Meeting - cebruary B, 1993
Councilman wing: It won't be a straight facade. It will be the north side with
the trash receptacles what, up to 5 feet or 6 feet? I don't have that.
Mayor Chmiel Depending on your sight line as-to what you're looking at.
Councilman Mason: Along with trash what, I don't remember and I'm sure it was
in the report. What's the trash receptable? Are there going to be doors?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: It's going to be covered with.
Councilman Mason: That's right. Yeah, it's covered. It's totally enclosed
isn't it, as I recall.
Paul Krauss: It's going to be made out of the same materials as the building.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, right.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Chainlink door though.
Paul Krauss: But that faces to the side.
Mayor Chmiel: That's covered. That's taken care of. So that would mean that
item 14 would not be on. Leave it up to 13. Okay, call for a motion.
Councilman Mason: So the motion is, to accept the site plan review #92 -3, items
1 thru 13?
' Mayor Chmiel: Very good.
Councilman Mason: Is that correct?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Mason: I will move approval of Site Plan Review #92 -3 with the
' conditions as stated in the staff report.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I will second it.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussions?
'. ouncilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve Site Plan
review #92 -3 as shown on the site plan dated November 30, 1992, subject to the
following conditions:
1. A 4 foot variance to achieve a 12 foot high monument sign. This sign which
will face Highway 5 shall contain only the names of the occupants of Lots
1, 2 and 3. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any
signage on site. Provide a detailed sign plan for staff review prior to
the City Council meeting. The monument sign may not exceed 12 feet in
height. Sign covenants are to be submitted outlining the use and limit of
one common sign and allowances for its use by the remaining undeveloped
lot.
i 37
City Council Meeting - Febrv 8, 1993
2. The applicant shall provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of
landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees.
These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance.
3. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and
Provide the necessary financial securities as required.
4. The applicant shall provide a flammable waste separator as required by
Building Code.
5. Provide a complete, final set of civil engineering documentation to staff
for review and approval.
s_ Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal's memorandum dated October
8, 1992.
7. The applicant shall post "No Parking -Fire Lane" signs along the south curb
line on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. Signs shall be placed at 100 foot intervals
and the curb painted yellow.
B_ Concurrent with the building permit, a lighting plan meeting city standards
shall be submitted.
9_ The applicant shall pay $7,580.00 into the Surface Water Management Program
fund for water quality treatment downstream of the site. This fee will
cover Lots 1 and 2 only.
10_ No signage will be allowed until sign plan approval is obtained from the
Planning Commission and City Council.
11. The applicant shall provide eight additional evergreens along the south
side of Lot 1, Block 1, Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition.
12. Brick shall be used on the exterior of the Goodyear building. Plans shall
be developed to staff approval. The brick shall be designed to incorporate
highlighting treatments similar to the or better than the current proposal.
13_ Compliance with conditions of Subdivision #90 -17 and Conditional Use Permit
#92 -2.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel= Mark, do you have anything you want to say? Okay. Thank you.
38
L
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 2, 1996
L
Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Ladd Conrad, Kevin Joyce, Bob Skubic, Nancy
Mancino, Jeff Farmakes and Alison Blackowiak
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director and John Rask, Planner II
PUBLIC HEARING:
GOODYEAR AUTO REQUESTS APPROVAL TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL FOR THE SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REGARDING
HOURS OF OPERATION, SIGNAGE AND OTHER STIPULATIONS OF THE
PERMIT, LOCATED AT 50 LAKE DRIVE EAST.
Public Present:
Name Address
Steve Youngstedt Goodyear Auto
Dan Smith Goodyear Auto
Alex Krengle 8009 Cheyenne Avenue
Tom Kotsonas 8001 Cheyenne Avenue
John Rask presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Okay, John a couple questions that I have. Complaints. I'm assuming that Goodyear,
I'm not sure when it was open for operation. Was that in 1993?
Rask: Yes. Well I think the building was finished.
Mancino: In '93.
Rask: Yes.
Mancino: How long have these complaints been coming in?
Rask: From about the time shortly after it's been open.
Mancino: So there has been a record of a couple years when the conditions that were placed on
them to begin with have not been followed, is that correct?
Rask: Correct.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996
Mancino: And in what particular areas? I mean the ones that are in bold that we're changing
tonight or are there other areas?
Rask: Correct. The only real, well there were a couple other areas. The ones involved have
certainly been ongoing problems. Obviously the doors are in the summertime only. A tire
display was outside at various points. We had talked to Goodyear about that and I haven't
noticed that out at all over the last several months.
Mancino: There were tires out yesterday. Okay.
Rask: Okay. And then the other one was parking in drive aisles. As you can see in some of
those pictures that I'm passing around, it appears that there's a lack of parking on this site and
they are parking in the drive aisles. We have talked to Goodyear about this and we have tried to
make some arrangements to do some shared parking with Abra and with the Emission Testing
station there to use some of their parking for that spillover.
Mancino: Okay. And has that been done?
Rask: Not to my knowledge. I have no evidence that it has or hasn't.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff at this point?
Conrad: Yeah, the complaints. How many?
Rask: Primarily, just a handful of people. I'm not really at liberty to say who they are.
Mancino: Is it mostly during the summer when?
Rask: All times throughout the year.
Mancino: During the year.
Conrad: So help me to know who, but have there been five official complaints filed or how
many?
Aanenson: Can we say that there seems to be one person complaining more than others, if that's
what you're getting at.
Farmakes: Can I ask a question?
Mancino: Sure.
P
I Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996
Farmakes: In the analysis it says that the current management of the Chanhassen Goodyear was
not directly involved in the site development review process. Does that mean that the
management's changed for the company?
Rask: Yeah. The people that were involved in the origin4l site plan, are not the operators of the
Goodyear now.
Farmakes: How does that work exactly?
1
Rask: That I'm not sure. My conversations have always been with the manager of the building,
who's here this evening. I'm not sure when that ownership actually changed.
Farmakes: When the condition of approval is agreed to and the building is erected and business
is conducted, is that a performance contract?
Rask: Yes, it runs with the property. It's not depending upon owner or even the business that's
there. If Goodyear was to vacate and some other auto repair came into that site, they would be
required to operate it under the same conditions.
Mancino: Unless they come in and ask those to be changed.
Aanenson: Right, and that's what we did tonight. It wasn't... conditions are reasonable for the
staff to try and enforce. Whether or not they're reasonable for the business to operate and I guess
that's what...
Farmakes: So their approval, if the management changes, is not relevant?
Aanenson: Absolutely.
Mancino: Okay.
Joyce: I've got one last question. Has there been any complaints about the hours of operation?
Rask: Well part of the noise and the squealing of the tires is related to the hours of operation
because it seems to be of a concern of a neighbor who has to hear these things at 9:00 at night as
it appears, I don't know if it's employees leaving or who, but they squeal their tires as they leave
the site. Also if you're out to the site, as you leave that driveway, obviously your headlights are
shining right on the properties to the south there, which is of a concern also.
Joyce: The only reason I ask is that my understanding the conditional use was for them not to be
open on Sundays or that kind of thing and now they're open on Sundays now.
Rask: Correct. They are open on Sundays now.
3
Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996
Blackowiak: I have one quick question. Could you please explain the difference between
numbers 4 and 5 on the recommendation? You talk about no damaged vehicles stored overnight
and number 5, no outdoor storage. How do you differentiate between those two?
Rask: Yeah, the no outdoor storage could be, well would be the tire rack. It could be car parts
It could be.
Blackowiak: But not specifically cars?
Rask: Anything other than a car.
Blackowiak: Other than a car, okay.
Rask: And then of course, 4 is where we're looking for an interpretation. What was meant by
this condition? That they can't have any cars outside overnight or has it meant that they can't
have any damaged or inoperable vehicles out overnight.
Mancino: Bob, did you have a question for staff?
Skubic: Yes John, there's a gas station just to the west of this property. Much smaller than this
business and they do automotive repair. Do they have restrictions on their garage doors or hours
of operation?
Rask: No. That is a non - conforming use. They were before you for a site, recent site plan
amendment to add a canopy, at which time we attached conditions of hours on when the canopy
could be lighted and so forth. So no, when the building was built it was, I assume a permitted
use and they were able to operate without restriction of the doors or outdoor, well outdoor
display's covered in the general ordinance but no other operational standards.
Mancino: Thank you. Is the applicant here and do you wish to address the Planning
Commission at this time please?
Steve Youngstedt: Sure. My name is Steve Youngstedt. I'm the owner and here tonight is Dan
Smith, the manager. I guess what we're just asking is some of these restrictions on us we feel it's
somewhat unfair and it's hard to do business under when it's 100 degrees outside and you've got
to have your garage doors open only 12 inches, it's pretty hard on the people that work in that
facility. That's one of the more major things that we'd like to get approved. It's unrealistic to try
to get air conditioning in this building, or any kind of air. To get enough when you bring hot cars
in and try to keep these doors open. The other thing is, you know we've had competition move
into town recently. They have basically unrestricted hours and we feel somewhat, when we first
originally were doing this plan, there was going to be the 5 year moratorium. That there would
be other tire or auto service places in the city of Chanhassen and how that got, you know I don't
know how that got in or how that worked but you know, now we have competition which is
probably one of our top competition and they really don't have any hour restrictions so that kind
of brought a lot of these issues up too. So that's really basically I think we've done a really good
In
1
u
P
Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996
' job compared to other retail stores that we have. We do have three other Goodyear stores in the
western suburbs here and you know, we've kept window signage out. As far as painting the
garage door, the glass garage doors, we could put advertisement. You know we've asked and it
' was recommended that we didn't so we don't. We don't do outside sales. We try to keep
everything as confined as we can. I think the tires that you might have saw yesterday, we just got
a shipment in. That was a tire shipment. We just had to get them moved into the building. So I
am trying to, we're here in Chanhassen. We want to conform to what you know, you guys what
and what the city wants and be a good neighbor to our neighbors behind us because there's also
the possibility that they're going to be our customer. So we don't really want to get too out of
' line on it but there are some things that we think that are real hard for us to do business. So
that's some of the issues here.
' Mancino: Okay. Steve, couple questions. What about on parking? You do not have enough
parking. That's very obvious the few times that I have gone over. That there was not a place to
park.
Steve Youngstedt: We're trying to work and actually have a work with Abra. We give them free
' oil changes to let us use some of their parking. The traffic emission testing center so we try to
have all our employees park over there and do some of those things. It's, in some ways it's a
good problem to have because we're so busy and I guess we can't tell people that you can't, we
' can't take you in because there's no more parking. So we try to get the work done as fast as we
can and keep those places open.
' Mancino: So do you have a formal agreement with Abra? With them so that you can park over
there.
Dan Smith: Can I speak to that?
Mancino: You bet. If you could just please say your name and your address.
' Dan Smith: My name's Dan Smith, Manager of Chanhassen Goodyear and I might be ... answer
that. Jeff, the manager, I've talked to and, the manager of the Emissions Testing Station and we
' have a formal agreement. It's verbal.
Mancino: And what is it?
Dan Smith: Pardon me?
' Mancino: And what is that formal agreement.
Dan Smith: We can park in the last, or the parking row facing Highway 5 for our employees cars
' on Highway 5. So that's 8 cars.
Mancino: Is that at Abra?
Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996
Dan Smith: At Abra. And then at the Emission Testing Station, the manager over there, the
young lady said we can use the row facing east facing our lot.
Mancino: Okay. And how many spaces is that?
Dan Smith: There's about 6.
Mancino: They have 6 spaces there. Okay, so you have an additional 14.
Dan Smith: 14, yes. I don't like to park too many customers cars over there because they don't
want traffic obstructing their customers either so we try to put our employees over there so we
get there in the morning. We keep them over there and then they just move once or twice.
Mancino: And what is the toy hauler that is parked outside of your shop?
Dan Smith: That is a customer, a local customer who has an electric brake problem. Going out
of town and he needs wiring on his trailer. The part didn't come in for him. It's tough to fit that
thing inside so my only option was, we try to fit as many cars inside. There's eight spots and
then we try to keep them on the farthest, or the south side of the parking lot so nobody can see
them from the highway but that one is just temporary until our customer, we've got to get the
right brake part for him and again now, we couldn't find the parts so it took an extra day or two.
Mancino: Can I noticed that you didn't have parking space even for that so.
Dan Smith: Yeah, for a double trailer it's real tough.
Mancino: But you do have a little light trailer that's been sitting there for many days that has a
flat tire on the south side facing TH 5 and it's been there, not 1 or 2 days but many, many, many
days.
Dan Smith: I can address that.
Mancino: Thank you.
Dan Smith: That trailer has never had a flat tire. It is there for re- wiring the trailer. There is a
couple there and some brake parts needed for the trailer and that will be out tomorrow. It's been
brought inside I would say realistically 95% of the time ... inside the building by hand. So it's not
out there after operations. Once or twice my night guys did forget to pull it in.
Mancino: Okay. Another question that I have. You know you have new hours on your door.
You haven't been here yet but you do have new hours on your door that I noticed and when I
came in the other night I asked Jeff, who was very friendly, Very nice, polite young man, what
your hours were so that I would know if I wanted to bring my car in and he said that they were,
right now you were operating under Monday through Friday, 7:00 to 9 :00. He wrote it down for
2
1
1
7
F1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996
me on your card. And on Saturday you're operating right now from 8:00 to 5:00 and on Sunday
you're operating right now 10:00 to 4:00. How long have you been operating under those hours?
Steve Youngstedt: Three weeks.
Dan Smith: Three weeks probably.
Mancino: Okay. Otherwise have you been following the conditions of approval from the city?
Up until three weeks ago.
Dan Smith: We've been working with Sharmin and John. They have contacted us when the
problem did arise. We have been trying to stay within the regulations. Somebody made a
comment, one of the complaints was squealing wheels at night and we did have an employee that
had a nice fast car. A local Chanhassen resident. We have dealt with that gentleman so you will
not be hearing any more noise. If I can add on one thing. When this became all public—and
we've had three or four phone calls from the people right behind us. One gentleman was ... no
noise at all. Fine with what we're doing... squealing wheels. We have taken care of that
problem. He will not hear those squealing wheels again. And I didn't get their name and phone
number but I just wanted to add that.
Mancino: Okay, very good. That's nice to know. Thank you very much. Anyone else have
any questions for the applicant at this time?
Joyce: I'm just curious. Why would you change your hours three weeks before a hearing like
this?
Steve Youngstedt: Well basically because competition. We've got numerous customers that are
saying how they would leave ... and go over to your competition and you know we've been in
business down here for three years and we've worked really hard to get a customer base built and
you know, that's kind of scary when people start talking about going...
Joyce: Did you notify someone from the city that you were changing the hours?
Steve Youngstedt: I don't believe we did.
Joyce: Okay, thank you.
Mancino: Thank you. Very much. May I please have a motion and a second to open this for a
public hearing.
Farmakes moved, Joyce seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
7
r i
Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996
Mancino: Thank you. This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the
Planning Commission at this time, please come up and do so. State your name and address.
Love to hear your comments or any questions that you may have.
Alex Krengel: My name is Axel Krengel, 8009 Cheyenne Avenue, Chanhassen. I am the
resident that lives immediately to the south of Goodyear. The driveway from the pollution
control testing and Goodyear. The lights flash into my house so I know what's going on over
there... I'm not against Goodyear. I'm a customer. It's very handy for me. I'm alone. I can take
my car over there. Walk home. Walk back and pick it up so don't get me wrong. I'm not
against Goodyear. But I am against the late hours and I'll tell you some of the reasons why. This
sign, their hours may have been written that it was 7:00 to 9:00 for only three weeks but they've
been open much longer than that through the summer because this squealing wheels has been
going on most of the summer. I didn't call through the summer because I did see a patrol car
over there so I knew other people were complaining about it. I did call over though just recently.
I was informed that they had taken care of some of the problem. However that same night about
8:30 the squealing was there again. Why they burn rubber down that little trail I'm not sure but it
must be for testing cars or something. Another reason I'm against these hours is the agreement
years ago was that they would restrict their hours because it was a residential area. And my
feeling is that they should abide by those rules and regulations and also I know they've been open
for later hours for quite some time and to me that's either illegal or dishonest, and I guess I don't
appreciate that. I think some of you also do not appreciate that. Again I'm not against Goodyear
but I am hoping that we will keep the hours restricted so I can have a little more peace in my
backyard in the evening and on Sundays. Thank you.
Mancino: Now Mr. Krengel, you understand that when the car wash comes in, those hours can
be later. And may be later. And so that you will get traffic from the new car wash that's going
in.
Alex Krengel: No doubt about it but this summer has been the worse squealing since I've lived
there. I've got to believe it's due mostly, maybe not all, to the later hours of Goodyear. So, and 1
understand. I don't understand why the car wash can have 24 hours a day open but.
Mancino: It is a permitted use in that area. Are there any restrictions John to the hours for
permitted use in that area?
Rask: No.
Mancino: None whatsoever? So the car wash could be open 24 hours, if they choose to?
Rask: Correct.
Alex Krengel: I'm just hoping that it won't get any worse. Thank you.
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission?
N.
� I
I
I' I
u
Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996
Tom Kotsonas: My name is Tom Kotsonas and I live at 8001 Cheyenne in Chanhassen Estates.
I live several houses to the west of Krengel and I mainly ... the same things that he's saying. I
haven't specifically called a number of times because I live closer to the emissions and down and
it's difficult to know which and where the noise is coming from but my main concern is summer
time hours, late hours when the residents behind this business and Sunday. The one day that we
thought that when this was being built, that we would have where there would be a limited
amount of traffic going down the street. And it's been definitely increasing, and obviously now
with the car wash coming in and there was nothing we could do as a neighborhood to stop that
evidently. It's going to bring a fair amount, but this adds to it. It's like saying... little bit of
something and it's not good and all of a sudden it's a greater amount and this will add even more
to it. It makes life difficult in our neighborhood. Or at least a little more difficult in our
neighborhood and the quality of life that we have. We agree with ... I mean we had many
arguments about Goodyear going in in the first place 3 or 4 years ago.
Mancino: Yes, we read those.
Tom Kotsonas: If you go back to the Minutes, Goodyear was agreeable to all kinds of things.
Let us build here. Sure, we'll stay closed on Sundays. We'll close early in the evenings. We'll
keep the lot clean. I still question the interpretation of what can be in the lot overnight and
what's can't. Our interpretation I think is that those lots would be clean of anything. But three
years ago, or four years ago there was all kinds of yes. We'll abide by these things. Just let us
come in and of course we have different owners... management and we have competing business
so gee, we have to be able to do these things. Their competitors are not backed up to residents,
where we are in their situation and so, I ... so much that they had extended ... but if they're
extending hours against the law or whatever, nobody's enforced that, that's a little scary. And if
they knew three weeks ago that these people were operating...
Mancino: I think that's why they're here tonight.
Tom Kotsonas: But who do we go to as residents? It doesn't sounds like we're being considered
that much. They talked to the Goodyear people. They never talked to us ... and speak and this is
our opportunity. So there are a number of concerns here that seem to be forgotten about... And
' granted, there may be 6 or 7 or 8 houses that are affected but we still live there. I'm a 20 plus
resident. This man has been there for maybe more than 25 or 30 years. We need to be
considered also in the total picture... development. Thank you.
Mancino: Thank you for coming and speaking. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning
Commission tonight? On this issue. Seeing none, may I please have a motion and a second to
' close the public hearing?
Skubic moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996
Mancino: I'd like to have commissioners please make some comments, or if you still have any
questions to ask that at this point. Not so much as Goodyear but as that land use and looking at it
that way and not for one particular business. Craig.
Peterson: I agree with a majority of the points that staff brought up with the exception of a
couple. I think that the, in order to address some of the needs of the business and the needs of the
residents, perhaps excluding Sunday operation may be a reasonable in- between that we can offer
as far as a resolution as far as the traffic, so they can have one day where they can depend upon it
being quiet and "peaceful ". I am to a certain degree worried though that with the car wash
coming in, will that really help. Where the traffic would be ... commissioners comments on that.
With regard to adding landscaping I would, my only concern about adding it just on the
northwest portion to cover the garage doors is that, in doing so you're worried about creating one
area on the Highway 5 that would be heavily green and more towards the east all of a sudden it
would be all dramatically changed as far as the density. So I think that I would be concerned
about the balance in that as they add the evergreens particularly... All of the other conditions I
guess I see as reasonable. That we could go ahead and approve.
Mancino: You feel comfortable with the doors being open, etc.?
Peterson: Yes. I think that was overly onerous originally personally.
Mancino: Okay. And I'm sorry Craig, on the landscaping. That the landscaping should be all
along the south side or?
Peterson: Yeah ... I think from the Highway 5 corridor aspect of it still being there, to just have
them all clumped together as you walk out the doors, as you drive by there, would seem to be
unbalanced. I can just see going in and pushing in 25 evergreens... then all of a sudden you've
got one...
Mancino: So you'd like to see it balanced? Okay. Ladd.
Conrad: Yeah, I pretty much agree with Craig's comments. The tough one that I have problems
with is number 10. The hours of operation and I'm not sure I can find a right solution, but I'll go
through the, my interpretation of cars and the lot was as staff has worded it. I think we were
talking about cars that were inoperable that couldn't move, and we didn't want them there but I
think point number 4 is okay. Point number 6, in terms of doors, for sure the doors to the east
don't count anymore. They're totally blocked so that's not even an issue. The doors to the west,
I'm pretty convinced that we should let them stay open. I'm not too convinced that there's a
visual problem for point number 11. I just, doors being open. Visual problem. Putting in some
evergreens. I'm not sure that's a solution that I need. Maybe somebody else who's committed to
that can talk me into that. For sure Goodyear should come under the new sign ordinance.
There's no doubt about that. That's real clear. So the only one that I have a hang -up on is point
number 10. I think the neighbors, we restricted the hours of operation in the beginning. It was a
condition. I'm sensitive to competition but in this case I think we have told the neighbors we
10
1
r�
t
Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996
were going to restrict those hours. Like Craig I think Sunday is probably off limits, based in my
mind. I think I probably can stretch the hours during the rest of the week.
Mancino: Okay. So you would keep it 7:00 to 9:00, Monday through Saturday?
Conrad: I think so, and you know Madam Chair the thing that, noise was an issue with me and
the neighbors. We should protect them. Yet we do have noise makers up and down the road
there, including with McDonald's so I don't want to penalize one business when there is several
there that don't have to come under these fairly tight regs. I guess if I had my druthers, I'd
probably throw out number 10 right now. Take a look at what happens when the car wash goes
in and then I'd review it. Or else I'd like to see some method of managing or reviewing the
sound. Again, I've got squealing in my neighborhood too, and you know, but what I probably
don't have is it consistently every night at certain hours so I'm saying maybe we can defer the
review of 10 for a while. Again I throw that out as we see what the effect of the car wash has on
noise levels. Maybe that's a possibility.
Mancino: Some direction from staff on that. As far as you know, doing a preliminary period
when we allow new hours and seeing how that works. The noise and everything after the car
wash goes in. Is that something that?
Rask: Yeah. Basically in a conditional use permit you can't do temporary conditions. Once a
condition is attached, it runs with the life of the property. What you could do possibly, if I'm
hearing you correctly, is leave them more restrictive at this point. See what impacts the car wash
has. See how that all kind of plays out and see if in a year it warrants longer hours but in order
to, you can't limit it, or you can't extend it now and give it a trial period. It has to be.
Mancino: Okay, thank you. So that answers that question, okay.
Conrad: Well my point would be not to allow it. Let them come back in a certain number of
months and amend this condition. Yeah.
Aanenson: You can put whatever time frame you want for review, sure.
Mancino: And stay with the original?
' Conrad: And stay with the original or modify it to the degree we want to but you can't, like John
just said, you can't give it away because you'd never get it back.
' Mancino: Okay, thank you.
' Farmakes: When's the car wash opening up?
Joyce: It's pretty far along now I guess.
Mancino: Okay, Kevin.
I 11
Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996
Joyce: Really just kind of echoing what Ladd and Craig have said. I wish that Goodyear had not
taken it upon themselves to extend their hours without discussing it first with the City or through
some sort of process. It'd make me feel more comfortable and going up to bat for them. I agree
with Ladd to a point. If I was to, I wouldn't strike item 10. I think I might extend the hours to
hours Monday through Saturday to 9:00 and from Saturday from 7:30 to 5:00, then Sunday not
have any. Not have it open. That would be my opinion. What complicates this is the car wash.
If the car wash wasn't there, I'd strike the whole item 10. With the car wash coming in, I think
that there's going to be a lot of activity down there to begin with and I think it'd be onerous on
them to keep these, or keep the hours that we have right now, or supposed to have right now. So
I think it'd be a good compromise here to, for me at least, to know that they're not open on
Sundays but to let them open later during the week. One of the things they mentioned in their
letter was that people were working and things like that. I think that's probably important to
them. I can imagine that they need that to be competitive. I think they can get around not
working on Sundays, or being open on Sundays. So of all these conditions, number 10 1 would
leave Sunday off and leave the hours extended to 9:00, but I'll listen to the other commissioners
on that so. Basically the rest of it I'm fine with. ...the doors. If they abide by the sign ordinance,
that's fine. And as far as the screening, yeah I do agree with Craig. It'd be nice to have another
tree or two there but I don't want to go over more than that either so I'll kind of leave it at that.
I'll listen to what the other commissioners have to say about either extending the hours during
the week or not having the hours on Sunday or some combination thereof.
Mancino: Okay. Bob.
Skubic: Well I largely agree with the previously commissioners statements. Related in terms of
the Planning Commission and City Council when this went through several years ago, and they
were certainly concerned about putting auto type uses in the corridor ... and that's why they put
out some of these conditions on here. Unfortunately some of these conditions are kind of
piecemeal and with the addition of the Abra and the car wash, which won't have the same
restrictions. I'm not sure what good it does to single one business in this area. They were
concerned about the adjacent neighbors, and certainly we're concerned about the ... for the city.
My feeling on the, regarding the doors being open or closed, and I saw the photographs. I didn't
think it was appearance wise, I don't think it was offensive to having the doors open. And it
doesn't appear that noise is emanating from the source ... so I have no issue... And like I don't
feel that we should impose hours on one particular business when others are operating at another.
Mancino: Jeff.
Farmakes: I was here at the time that the developer came in to develop that property. As I recall
Goodyear and Abra were the two developmental forces behind that development. There were
people from the neighborhood, Chan Estates here at that time. And the issue was, do we expand
car use into that particular area. It was a good location. It was on Highway 5. The car people
wanted to be on Highway 5, and as I recall, that was an instrumental issue of their building.
They wanted to be off Highway 5. This took place prior to us doing the Highway 5 corridor
study. The central issue came back to business use in that particular part of Chanhassen. When
12
F
fl
J
1
L
I Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996
that area was developed, the city made an error. There was no buffering there. It was a very
small little strip up here of commercial and single family residences right up to it.
' Mancino: Actually wasn't that whole area single family to begin with? Where it's now.
Farmakes: It changed it's use a couple of different times, as I recall. There was originally
supposed to be a buffer there. It did not turn out to be a buffer of different houses. It became
single family. That's happened in a few areas up here, but in essence what happens is that we
wind up today living with that problem. So what we have is, we have some car businesses that
want to be in that location. Then we have virtually no buffer for a single family residence.
Typically if that was coming, when we were considering that zoning now, we would not permit
them. So there are different areas of Chanhassen, because it developed at different times, that
are going to have that kind of problem because at that time, let's just say the city wasn't quite
along on the growth process to predict some of those problems. ...our commitment to single
family zone. They had special considerations in that development of business in that particular
area. We're sort of saying well we want this to conform to the rest of the businesses so they can
be compatible. And that's basically the comments that were made here tonight. Tires Plus,
saying ...compete with Tires Plus and all that's well and good but the situation is such is when
does the city and the issue of controlling in it's ordinances say, even though we may have made
an error, in putting, expanding that zone there, do we years later say well all bets are off. Now
' we're going to make everything the same so it's consistent. The reason that these restrictions
were on there was part of the negotiating process between the neighborhood and these
developers, as I recall. And the driving force behind that, because essentially you go up to single
family residences 200 feet away from you. The issue of the doors and so on, they seem silly now
but when those doors are open and you're hearing noise levels that come out of the car shop
versus say a car wash, and I missed the meeting on the car wash issue but the issue of hours of
operation. All these things were an issue when all three of these uses came. The two car uses
and then the air standard. The car emissions testing. The car wash came in later. That was a
much later issue and actually when these buildings, when the actual developers came in and they
' started these businesses, the idea was that that was going to be a car area. There was going to be
an auto parts store there and things kind of changed over the interim. I think Goodyear and Abra
were the first. Abra came in a little later but they were part of the initial process. If you compare
Tires Plus, two blocks away from single family residence, to a business use that is 200 feet away
from single family residence, I think there's a difference there. And I think that the
neighborhood has an expectation that the city should give it some consideration there. Part of the
conditions of the use and in building there were in place and Goodyear and Abra and many of
these other businesses, they decided to build in that location accepting those restrictions. If
competition is an imposition or they believe that they were going to be the only business like that
in Chanhassen, that wasn't part of the discussions as I recall. That there was a commitment that
there's only going to be one tire store and it's going to be Goodyear because at that time I believe
' Gary Brown had a tire store here and he was concerned about the competition coming in. That
really isn't our consideration here on this commission. Issues of competition are part of the
marketplace, not us. My concern here is, with any of the expansions, of changing and setting
' precedent, although I think some of it may be the issue of sign ordinance and so on, I think is not
really a problem because the end result is the same. I am concerned however about the issue of
1 13
Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996
protecting that neighborhood and acknowledging that it is a different situation. And I think the
city should be more concerned about that, rather than just trying to make everything consistent.
Because there are areas of the city that were developed prior to some of the things that we
consider now and those areas are vulnerable to putting in issues such as—parks, business
districts and so on that are things that are in need of special consideration.
Mancino: Do you want to talk on any particular conditions that you would or wouldn't favor?
Farmakes: I believe Sunday should be out, and I don't see a compelling reason at this point,
unless staff wants to come up with an issue. To me it's the noise issue and the neighborhood has
an expectation I think that when they come home after work or whatever, they don't have to
listen to that. In the proximity to a commercial district. And the actual issue of commerce I
don't think is, I don't think anybody cares about that. The issue is noise. And I don't even need
to comment on the issue of compliance because that's been pretty much discussed here. It's an
issue again of management. Just basically saying doing what they want. Even though they're in
what I think is a sensitive area of town. Not only are they 200 feet away from the single family
residences but they're in a corridor that the city spent a tremendous amount of time trying to do
something different and if the comments here tonight is that they're busy, even though they have
a moderate operation as far as if they go signage and with flags and typically things that you see
with car dealerships and the sales car parts, they appear to be doing business. And they appear to
be doing fine so it seems whatever restrictions we put on there isn't putting them out of business.
And coupled with the neighborhood, it seems that a few issues, if they can corral this guy with
the squealing tires, pretty much this thing is working pretty well. So long as he stays complied
with.
Mancino: Thank you, Alison.
Blackowiak: Well, I agree with most of what was said. I like what Jeff was just talking about.
That it's really not our place to decide what kind of business they do and when they do, what
affect competition has on them because that's really not our job. Our job is to look at where they
are and how they're complying with the conditions and what changes they'd like. I don't think
Sunday hours are really a necessity at this point. I agree that the neighbors have the right and the
expectations and were led to believe that there wouldn't be the late hours and wouldn't be the
Sunday hours. I'm somewhat curious as to what happens when conditions aren't met, because it
seems like we have conditions that are being ignored to a certain extent, or changed and I'm new
so if you could help me out somebody, what happens when things aren't followed?
Rask: Conditional uses are a little different from a typical zoning violation where you have a
violation of a specific code requirement. In a conditional use what you have is a contractual
agreement between the developer or the property owner and the city. So it's not real easy for us
to just go out and say here's a ticket. You're violating this condition because there's really no
clear law that they're violating. It's a contractual agreement. So in this case our options are one,
we can revoke the permit that was part of whenever we enter into a conditional use permit. We
say failure to comply is grounds for revocation of the permit. Or two, we can file a summons and
14
J
,L
1i
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996
complaint in Circuit Court and go through legal action to get compliance so basically it's two
options. One, take them to court. Two, revoke their permit.
Blackowiak: There's no middle ground or nothing a little less?
Aanenson: Well I guess that's why we're here tonight. We want to make sure, some of the
conditions that were placed on it as it went through the process, for those of you who were here
before ... as we went through the process, so some of the conditions that got added were outside
of the staff. You have to recognize, some of them are a little bit more difficult to ... to enforce
and that's why we want to make sure that we readdress those and make sure that you're
comfortable with the conditions that were placed on there and the ones that you think were ... are
reasonable with the property.
Mancino: Those are your comments?
Blackowiak: Yeah.
Mancino: I will close with a few of my comments on it. On the conditions. On condition
number 4. I feel comfortable with the way that staff is, the damaged or inoperable vehicles. The
way that you are understanding that. Meaning that it is often times when I need to have some
work done on my car that I will take it the night before the work is going to be done and leave it
off so I can get to work the next morning and I will park it there so they can start, and leave my
key there, so they can start the next morning working on it. So I do feel comfortable with
changing number 4 and staff's interpretation. Number 6. Noise levels. I sat three different times
on three different days and listened to the noise level on the frontage road and I did not hear
noise. I was on one side of the car wash. And other times I didn't have that as an obstacle and
did not really hear. I heard Highway 5 a lot and the noise level from Highway 5 was great but I
didn't hear any air impact wrenches, etc., taking off lug nuts, etc. and that's really what I was
sitting there listening for. So I do feel comfortable with the doors being open and only during
those few times in May and through I would say September. And I expect from November 1 S `
through the end of April that it will be shut all the time. Sign ordinance. I'm very comfortable
with the Goodyear or that land use complying with our new sign ordinance. I think it's a good
one and I think it will be fine in this area. Hours of operation. That's a big one for me. And I
think that's what affects the residents the most and I can understand that. Number one, I don't
feel that there should be hours of operation on Sunday. On Saturday I don't think it should go
until 9:00 at night because I think the people should have their Saturday nights. Their family
nights with not extended hours so I would not extend those to 9:00 on Saturday nights. I would
leave those at 7:00. And in fact right now what you're operating is 7:30 to 5:00, which I think is
very good and says to me that you are, people aren't coming after 5:00. They want to quit and
they want to go home and be with them family too on Saturday nights. Monday through Friday.
7:00 to 9:00 or 7:00 to 7:00. That's the one I have the hardest with making a clear cut decision
right now. I would sat at this point I would go with the, what they are now. 7:00 to 7:00 and at
some point, if you are abiding by those hours and show that and the car wash does come in, I
would certainly look at it again. And feel comfortable with looking at it at a later date. The last
15
Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996
recommendation as far as evergreens and shrubs along the northwest portion. John, is this up to
the Highway 5 standards right now?
Rask: What's in there is.
Mancino: Okay. Then I would feel comfortable with what's there now. May I have a motion?
Joyce: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of an
amendment to Conditional Use Permit #92 -2 with the following conditions 1 through 11, with
number 10 being, hours of operation shall be between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday. 7:30 to 5:00 on Saturdays and not open on Sundays.
Mancino: Is there a second?
Conrad: Yeah, I'd second that.
Mancino: It has been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Farmakes: Can I ask for a repeat on that hours again?
Joyce: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. 7:30 to 5:00 Saturday. Closed on
Sunday.
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Peterson: ...three different nights and noise wasn't an issue. And what motivated them to
change it...
Mancino: From 7:00 to 9:00?
Peterson: Yes. The staff recommendation of 9:00 to 7:00.
Mancino: From 7:00 to 9:00. Being open at night 2 hours. Because one you have the squealing
later, because your employees are leaving. Also you get light coming directly into the houses
because of the ... and there's just a lot more activity.
Conrad: Madam Chair, just my point for keeping it at 7:00. I would entertain looking at a
different time later on. These are the conditions. I think if you had followed the conditions I
would have looked at it differently. When you break the conditions, you broke the conditions so
I think I want to be absolute on that. I think things will change when the car wash goes in. And I
would look at the hours differently in 3 to 6 months from now. Or I would look at them at an
upcoming time period just to see, and some of that depends on the neighbors. How good a
neighbor you are and some of those things are out of your control.
Steve Youngstedt: ...make another comment on...
16
r
L
Ll
�I�
L
Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996
Mancino: Can you wait until we vote because I'd like to make one too. Any other discussion?
Bob.
Skubic: The Abra facility to the east of this, do you know what the hours...?
Rask: Their conditions are very similar to these with similar hours of operation. Similar
conditions regarding doors being open.
Skubic: That's a conditional use permit also?
' Rask: Yeah. We are involved in code enforcement activities with them also. I don't know if
you'll be seeing that one. We've encouraged them to either comply or come before you and we
haven't had any response so.
' Mancino: Well let's have a vote.
' Joyce moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of an
amendment to Conditional Use Permit #92 -2 with the following conditions:
'
1.
No public address systems are permitted.
2.
No outdoor repairs to be performed or gas sold at the site.
No parking or stacking is allowed in fire lanes, drive aisles, access drives or public right -of-
'
way.
4.
No damaged or inoperable vehicles shall be stored overnight on the Goodyear site. Cars
t
awaiting repair such as new brakes or new tires are not considered damaged or inoperable.
5.
No outdoor storage shall be ennitted at the Goodyear site.
g P Y
6.
Noise levels shall not exceed OSHA requirement or Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
guidelines at the property line.
i 7.
Pollution levels shall meet standards set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
8.
Compliance with conditions of approval for Site Plan Review #92 -3 and Subdivision #90-
17.
I 9. There shall be no exterior tire displays. Temporary signage shall comply with the sign
ordinance.
I 10. Hours of operation shall be between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday and
not open on Sunday.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - October 2, 1996
11. The applicant shall add evergreens and shrubs along the northwest portion of the site to
screen the garage doors from views from Highway 5.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mancino: The motion carries and it goes to City Council on?
Rask: The 28`
Mancino: On the 28` of October. Steve, you had a couple comments.
Steve Youngstedt: Yeah, just one last comment. I don't know if the Planning Commission
knows but we are also the operator of the car wash. And I guess there's been, there's no
restriction on car wash hours and I would have to say in front of the Council that we're willing to
work with you on the hours on the car wash. Also I know it's going to be a concern of residents
too. Again we want to be a good neighbor so I guess, I don't know if we want to take it on to
City Council from here or not, or if we want to wait until after that opens up and see what ... we
plan on being open in about two weeks at the car wash so I guess I'd like to make that point.
Mancino: Well Ladd has already made the point about sticking with the conditions of the
conditional use permit which tell us a lot and say a lot about you as a company. Secondly,
squealing tires. Whatever you can do, as you heard tonight, would be most helpful and to really,
whether it's training of employees. Whether it's, I mean whatever you can come up with would
be very helpful.
Steve Youngstedt: In the 3 years or 4 years that we've been there, that was one employee and
one instance that we know of. I don't, we resolved that and hopefully that doesn't happen
anymore. If it does, the neighbors are certainly welcome to either call me personally or call Dan
and we'll put an end to it.
Mancino: Thank you. Thank you for coming tonight.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20 OF THE CITY CODE
REGARDING ANTENNAS AND TOWERS.
Public Present:
Name Address
Peter Beck
Jay
Representing AT &T Wireless Services
John Rask presented the staff report on this item.
f
L