Loading...
1982 04 19 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 19, 1982 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order with the following members present: Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. Councilman Geving was absent. Carol Watson, Art Partridge, and Bill Swearengin from the Planning Commission were present. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Neveaux moved to approve the agenda as presented adding the following items: 1. No Parking Signs on West 79th Street. 2. Animal Warden. 3. American Legion Stag. 4. Mayor's Resolution. Remove the following consent agenda items to be discussed separately. b. Remodeling Budget, Fire Station #1. c. General State Aid Fund. d. Sunnyslope Addition. Accept improvements as meeting development contract requirements. e. North Lake Susan Improvement Project, Well #4, Pumphouse plans and specifications. j. Hanus Conditional Use Permit. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. MINUTES: Councilman Horn moved to approve the January 18, 1982, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Neveaux moved to approve the January 25, 1982, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton Councilwoman Swenson and Councilman Neveaux. Councilman Horn abstained. Motion carried. Councilman Horn moved to approve the February 22, 1982, Council minutes. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Horn noted that the Council has not seen the letter sent to Lake Study Committee members by staff as referenced on page 2 of the March I, 1982 Council minutes. Councilman Neveaux moved to approve the March 1, 1982, Council minutes. seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion Hamilton, Motion carried. Amend the last sentence under OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS in the March 15, 1982, Council minutes to read: First of all, Mr. Odegaard, I have to tell you that I think your suggestions are well worth considering. I am concerned it would create a "Pandora's box". Councilman Horn moved to approve the March 15, 1982, Council minutes as amended. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Amend the motion under ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS, bottom of page 3 in the AprilS, 1982, Council minutes to read: Councilwoman Swenson moved to recommend the Planning Commission include former Lake Study Committee members, Ellen Chilvers and Court MacFarlane, to the Environmental Protection Committee. Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Council- woman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Geving. Councilman Horn voted no. Motion carried. Councilman Horn moved to approve the AprilS, 1982, Council minutes as amended. Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Council Meeting April 19, 1982 -2- Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Horn moved to note the February 11, 1982, Planning Commission minutes. I Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Horn moved to note the February 25, 1982, Planning Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. Motion carried. Commission minutes. in favor: Mayor No negative votes. Council~yoman Swenson moved to note the March 11, 1982, Planning Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Horn moved to note the March 25, 1982, Planning Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Neveaux moved to note the HRA/Council minutes of February 18, 1982. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Neveaux moved to note the March 2, 1982, Park and Recreation Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. I Councilman Horn moved to note the Police Advisory Committee minutes of March 13, 1982. Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Horn moved to note the March 24, 1982, Police Advisory Committee minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. CHANHASSEN POSTAL ADDRESSES: Bud Vogel, Chanhassen Postmaster, was present. He explained the procedure to extend the rural routes out of the Chanhassen Post Office. This would have to be approved by the sectional center and regional center. A request needs to be submitted along with a map showing existing routes and proposed additional routes. Councilwoman Swenson is meeting with the sectional center manager on Wednesday morning to discuss the proposed postal change. MERLE VOLK, 8470 GALPIN BLVD. Mr. Volk was previously before the Council requesting a conditional use permit to store excavating equipment on his property at 8470 I Galpin Blvd. This evening he requested the Council form a committee to look into other properties throughout the city that have similar storage and make recommendations to the Council. He stated that he is in violation at this time. Mayor Hamilton stated that the Council recognizes that Mr. Volk runs a construction company out of his farm which is zoned R-lA, without a conditional use permit. I I I Council Meeting April 19, 1982 -3- A portion of the storage shed was damaged during a storm this winter and according to city ordinance a sufficient amount was damaged so that it could not be rebuilt. Mr. Volk stated that he has had a structural engineer inspect his building and reported that the building was not 50% destroyed. Scott Martin stated that the City denied the request for a building permit because it was not being used in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and because the building that was originally built was a different building than what the permit was issued on. Council members will review the permit and discuss the forming of a committee at the May 3rd Council meeting. SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL AND SITE PLAN REVIEW, OUTLOT 2, CHANHASSEN ESTATES, MC DONALDS CORPORATION: Mayor Hamilton - I suspect that most of the people that are here this evening are here to discuss this particular item. This is not a public hearing and what I would like to do is to have the staff make a presentation to the Council. We will discuss it. If the citizens want to make any comments you can make them briefly. If there is a spokesman here for the homeowner's association perhaps that person could speak in behalf of all the people. Bob Waibel - McDonald's Corporation is proposing to replat Outlot 2 of Chanhassen Estates. It is an eight acre parcel lying immediately east of Dakota Avenue into a 1.3 acre site for the purposes of constructing a restaurant. The replat, along with the site plan, is found to be consistent with the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance with the exception that a required five foot sideyard utility and drainage easement has not been shown on the proposed plat. The building and parking setbacks, the number of spaces provided do meet or exceed the Zoning Ordinance standards for property zoned C-2. As noted in the report update, the free standing sign and the directional signs have been revised bringing them into conformance with the Sign Ordinance. The applicant does propose to place two directional signs marking the entrance and exits to the restaurant site. Currently the ordinance does not permit directional signs for private facilities. It only permits it for public functions. The Planning Commission just has forwarded a recommendation to the City Council that the Sign Ordinance be amended to include directional signs for private facilities and functions. Again, the ordinance only allows one directional sign, McDonald's is proposing two. Staff feels that allowance for two signs would direct the entrancing traffic to the site farthest away from the intersection of Lake Drive East and Dakota Avenue thus taking this cross-movement traffic further away from the stacking area near Dakota Avenue. We feel that in that case two directional signs would be better for alleviating any traffic problems. The revised sign for the entrances do show that the trademark has been removed, thus bringing into conformance with the ordinance requirements for area and advertising. Staff is recommended that the subdivider does construct a sidewalk along Dakota Avenue from Highway 5 down to the southern border of Outlot 2 of Chanhassen Estates as part of the subdivision approval. Councilman Neveaux - The developer, meaning McDonald's and Mr. Mason, then would have to enter into that. The sidewalk would be on property beyond the 1.3 acres to be purchased by McDonald's. Bob Waibel - Right. We are stating the ordinance says that subdivider shall do that. That would leave it open for negotiation betweeen McDonald's and Mr. Mason. We simply ask that it does be constructed as part of this development of the proposed lot to be split off here. Staff recommends approval of the subdivision request and site plan with the following conditions. That the subdivision be carried out in the form of a replat that is consistent with the attached plot plan including the five foot utility and drainage easement along the easterly side lot line. Condition number two is no longer applicable since the signs that have been given to us as revised do meet the ordinance standards as far as height and area. That one Council Meeting April 19, 1982 -4- additional directional sign, total of two, on Lake Drive East be permitted to direct traffic to the appropriate accesses. Number four is no longer applicable since the advertising has been removed. Again, the subdivider shall construct a sidewalk to the specifications of the City Engineer along the east side of Dakota Avenue between Highway 5 and the south lot line of Outlot 2, Chanhassen Estates. That prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the applicant be required to post a letter of credit with the City in an amount necessary to cover the cost of construction of any required on-site or public improvements not completed as of the date of the building occupancy. That all roof-top mechanical equipment be screened from view at street level. That all parking and maneuvering areas be lined with concrete curb and that the applicant receive a land alteration permit from the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District. The Planning Commission moved to deny the request for replat of Outlot 2 of Chanhassen Estates for McDonald's. Also noted below are two changes to the recommendations; deletion of the word "substantially" out of condition number one and changing the word in number five "subdivision" to "subdivider". Mayor Hamilton - There are a couple of things that are important to note. One is the zoning of the property. 1972 as far as adoption of the Zoning Ordinance the property was zoned C-2, Commercial District. Bill, you may want to comment to the Council on the questions that I raised, specifically dealing with the intersection improvements. I had asked Don and Bill this afternoon about the stacking, going west on Highway 5, is there stacking space for cars also if you were going east on Highway 5, a right in access and a right out at Dakota Avenue. Bill Monk - There is a right turn lane for eastbound traffic on Highway 5 as it gets to Dakota. The acceleration lane for people trying to get on to eastbound Highway 5, from Dakota Avenue, would be difficult to construct mainly because of the placement of the traffic signal poles. It is extremely tight on the southeast corner of the intersection and I really don't think that two full lanes would fit in there. The last item that the Mayor asked me to check was the stacking distance for westbound Highway 5 traffic as it would come to Dakota, the stacking distance is approximately 250 to 260 feet. It would hold anywhere from ten to 12 cars. There is a concrete median at that point. Bob Waibel - Incidentally, I did receive comments from the Minnesota Department of Transportation this morning and they find that this proposal should have no adverse impact on the facilities on Highway 5. Councilwoman Swenson - I note that in Bob's cover letter to the Chanhassen Planning Commission that the subject is referred to as, Public Hearing, Subdivision and Site Plan Review. In the applicable regulations we are talking about Section 6.01 Subdivision Ordinance 33 which refers to a preliminary plat. At just exactly what stage are we in this procedure? Scott Martin - The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the preliminary plat and the Council is considering that right now. The site plan is just that portion pertaining to McDonald's. The plat pertains to where the boundary is being drawn to split that McDonald's off off the balance. Councilwoman Swenson - I think perhaps in the future when we are working with a preliminary plat or plan that this should be specified in the subject of the cover letter to avoid any confusion whatsoever between the two. Secondly, I would like to ask Counsel in Ordinance 33 it refers to front, sideyard setback lines required by the ordinance of the village, would these be the same ordinances that we find listed in 47, I I I I I I Council Meeting April 19, 1982 -5- referring to a Craig Mertz - That would be referring Councilwoman Swenson - Which would be Craig Mertz - Yes. Councilwoman Swenson C-2 District? to the Zoning Ordinance. 47? So anything in there then would reflect that. Bob, may I ask what is the distance of the building from the various public streets? What is the amount of frontage on a public street? Bob Waibel - It's approximately 195 feet. Councilwoman Swenson - Do you happen to know the distance the building is from the right-of-way of Dakota? Bob Waibel - It's 29 feet from the right-of-way of Dakota. Mayor Hamilton - What amount of the 8~ acres is the site going to occupy? Bob Waibel - 1.3 acres out of an 8.5 acre parcel. Mayor Hamilton - What are McDonald's plans for the remainder of the property? Bob Waibel - They are purchasing just this one lot from Mason. Councilwoman Swenson - If that is the case, may I ask what their control then is over the balance of the property. I understand that in a meeting that they had with the citizenry that there was something brought up as to the proliferation of "fast food" restaurants and they said that this would not happen because of restrictions. Scott Martin - I think that's a question for McDonald's. Dave Sellergren - There will be a restrictive covenant on the rest of the land which has been negotiated by both parties to prohibit any additional restaurants. Councilwoman Swenson - This was just a point of clarification. I couldn't understand how you were going to handle it. Mayor Hamilton - Mr. Sellergren, are you the representative for McDonald's? Dave Sellergren - I am Mr. Mayor, Dave Sellergren with the Larkin, Hoffman, Daly, Lindgren Law Firm. There is a contract now between the parties which has that as a condition. Mayor Hamilton - Do you have anything, Mr. Sellergren, that you want to present? Dave Sellergren - I do. McDonald's Corporation is the applicant for a subdivision approval of your Subdivision Ordinance. They are going through a site plan review under your Zoning Ordinance. As is indicated the staff has recommended approval because the submission complies with both of the ordinances. The neighbors have opposed in large numbers at the Planning Commission meeting and objected because of the presumed amount of additional traffic being generated by McDonald's and as a consequence the Planning Commission recommended denial contrary to staff recommendation. At that point McDonald's Corporation contacted our law firm for some guidance and some assistance and maybe to set the record straight a bit. First of all I would like to make the record clear that this is not a request for a special use permit nor it is a request for a variance nor a request for rezoning. This is a request for a permitted use which is wholly in compliance with the various sections of both the Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance. I would like to incorporate in the record the entirety of the staff memoranda of AprilS, 1982, and all the attachments to that memoranda. I would also like to make sure that the record includes the Westwood Planning and Engineering studies submitted to this Council last March 16, 1981, and the Bather, Ringrose, and Wolsfeld study of 1978, both of which deal with Dakota Avenue and its intersection with Highway 5. I put those in the record because they have facts in them which are professionally arrived at indicating the capacity of the intersection. The various site plans which have been submitted by our client in the past and to which reference is made by Mr. Waibel, include a grading and drainage plan, a floor plan, a landscape plan, elevations, plat and plot plan and these traffic analysis. Under the Zoning Ordinance the design, the site plan Council Meeting April 19, 1982 -6- review is to determine that the design is in compliance with the ordinance under Sections 9.06 and 10.06. The subdivision reviews determine whether the proposal is compatible with the I Comprehensive Plan and again is compatible with the design standards of the ordinance and that's found basically in Section 6.01 and 8.01 and 8.02. This proposal not only is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance but with the Comprehensive Plan ~yhich this Council has labored over for many many months and the Planning Commission as well. It has a commercial designation on the plan and therefore it meets the criteria of the Subdivision Ordinance as consistent with the plan. I want to indicate that McDonald's is agreeable to all of the conditions imposed by the staff including the reference to adding the five foot easement and the construction of the sidewalk. The development is consistent with the surrounding land uses. There is a gas station to the west. Trunk Highway 5 to the north. Vacant commercial to the east, commercial to the south and CPT industrially zoned land is to the south and east. The distance to the nearest residence is approximately 325 feet and I think all of you are familiar with the intersection enough to know that there is directly to the south of the site there is a fairly substantial stand of trees. There is also commercial land which intervenes between Lake Drive East or the frontage road and the residential area known as Chanhassen Estates. Even though the ordinances don't indicate any discretion in terms of assessing traffic impact, traffic has been an issue which ~yas discussed at the Planning Commission and I would like to address that. Assuming for the purpose of the discussion that we could look at the traffic impact. The a.m. peak hour, based I on the analysis that was done adds seven cars. McDonald's adds seven cars. The p.m. peak hour adds 15 cars. McDonald's adds between 1.5 or 1.7% traffic to the existing mainline traffic on Highway 5. What I have done and what Mr. Monk has done and I talked with him this afternoon to confirm that, we took the data which was prepared last March by Westwood Planning and Engineering, which assumed CPT's development under some conservative assumptions and we extrapolated on that the additional traffic caused by McDonald's and we took not just McDonald's figure of new traffic generated by McDonald's but the actual number of cars that would be entering McDonald's at that time. Now you have to distinguish between the two because there are a certain number of cars on the road that will drop into McDonald's because they are there but the cars were there already. There are also a number of cars which will be drawn to McDonald's that would not otherwise be there. We took the larger figure, those that are on the road at the same time, we added that number to the projections which were given by Westwood and we determined, based on the conflict analysis which was done at the time which indicated a potential for 1200 conflicts, that there is capacity in the intersection at all the critical movements and that would be the left turn from the west bound lane into Dakota Avenue and it would be the left turn on Dakota Avenue on the frontage road. In fact the percentages are that a.m. peak hour on Highway 5 they are up to 94% of capacity. Now that's the I left turn into Dakota Avenue which would not interface with Chanhassen residents coming out and going to work in the morning. It's 82% in the p.m. during the peak hour. In the morning, making the turn onto Lake Drive East, that turning movement is at 27% of its capacity and in the afternoon the left turn movement off Dakota Avenue south onto Lake Drive East is at 18.3% of capacity. I I I Council Meeting April 19, 1982 -7- This assumes that McDonald's is an add on, an absolute add on to whatever the CPT traffic is. Now it is reasonable to assume that some portion of the CPT workers will make up that number so we are adding it right on top. One other thing is that the peak hour characteristics of McDonald's is a noon time peak hour, it is not the normal peak hour which is 8 to 9 or 4 to 5. We have a lesser than peak hour characteristic. What we did as well is we have looked at what the traffic movement impact would be of other permitted uses under not only the C-2 characterization but C-1. Permitted uses in both of those zones include a medical office and a financial institution. In each instance those uses, assuming a 1.3 acre site, and based on some conservative planning assumptions, would generate more cars than would McDonald's and the occurrence would take place, at least in the case of the medical office, at the peak hour 4 to 5 p.m. These are based on trip generation informational studies by the International Institute of Traffic Engineers. I shall also like to indicate that back in 1978 this Council, after the BRW study, commissioned a feasibility study and built road improvements in anticipation of development. Very rationally proceeded to have improvements done in that area to accommodate anticipated development. A very logical step to take and I should also indicate aside that this land was assessed some $57,000 to pay for that improvement. I should also indicate that in 1978 a Country Kitchen, another restaurant, received a staff-recommendation for approval and a Planning Commission recommendation for approval. I have discussed with Mr. Mertz the legal parameters of this and I am loath to put any words in the City Attorney's mouth but I was fortunate enough to find his words in the Planning Commission minutes in which he indicated that"the potential traffic problem is not sufficient grounds for denial of the request". You have in the past year, year and a half had several decisions from the Minnesota Supreme Court indicating the extent of which there has to be a factual basis for denial and those were cases wherein there was a major discretion, those were special use permit cases. I suggest that although we don't have that discretion here that we can look to those cases to indicate whether there must be a factual basis and there must be and there simply is no factual basis here. There are ligitimate, there are neighborhood concerns and I don't mean to demean those concerns but there simply is no factual basis for them. In addition as Mr. Monk has indicated, there are not only existing ways to deal with the problem but there are future ways to deal with the problem if it exists, as well, and that would be the extension of Lake Drive East to l84th. In summary I would like to indicate that there is compliance with both the ordinances. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, commercial designation. Staff has recommended approval. We have presented a plan that meets staff recommendation. This Council has rationally proceeded to accommodate development along that intersection by the improvements that have been made to date. This proposal is consistent with everything that has been done and for that reason we believe the Council should approve the request. Mayor Hamilton - Would the Council like to ask Mr. Sellergren any questions. If not the homeowner's association, do you have a spokesman that would like to make comments? Michael ~furphy I live at 8021 Cheyenne Spur in Chanhassen Estates. I am not an attorney so I am out-gunned here. But I am an industrial engineer. Mayor Hamilton - We are not here for a debate. Make your comments, I would appreciate it. Michael Murphy - Council Meeting April 19, 1982 -8- I presume you have seen the comments we made or read the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting and the petitions have made it to you. Then I have several points that we discussed I in the association I thought I would bring up. First of all we feel that the McDonald's at that intersection would create a problem in the subdivision due to a number of things that by comparison to the traffic and the safety that we brought up to the Planning Commission are minor, but things like waste, garbage, sightseers driving in and out, the kids coming out of McDonald's going into the subdivision rather than on out to 5. We also think there is a definite drainage problem and we would like to ask the watershed district to look at that since that creek, ri~ht now, is already beyond capacity down at the southern most pOlnt and we also believe, according to the Planning Commission, this is not in concert with the Comprehensive Plan for zoning. That in fact they are going to recommend that that was going to be rezoned from C-2. The major point that we have to make though is the traffic and I am not here to debate either but I am here to say that Highway 5 is a trunk highway and the 800 cars a day that McDonald's is going to add to the traffic may be 1% but that's not 1% of Dakota or 1% of what happens at Lake Drive East. The 800 cars a day is not that, it's much more to us because we have the children going in and out. That's our only entrance and exit to the subdivision and I know we said that at the Planning Commission but that's important. I think that that makes the difference in this site selection. McDonald's does have other alternatives. There is the Holiday area, across from that. Throughout the City of Chanhassen. We don't have any other alternatives. We have over 100 school age children going in and out of that subdivision every day and that's fact and so you add 800 cars beside what we don't know right now CPT. CPT says 200 cars per day, fine, we will believe that. But now we are going to add 800 on top of that, by their own projections and we still have our own traffic from the subdivision, so the numbers compared to Trunk Highway 5 are really meaningless. We are not talking about Trunk Highway 5. We are talking about the subdivision and the only entrance and exit. Now at the Planning Commission I got up and I said we had two accidents in the last year that shut off the intersection and that's too much of a hazard. I get here this evening and I find out we had one today. When you put emergency vehicles at the entrance of Dakota and Highway 5 you can not get into the subdivision. There is a drainage culvert and you can not get around it so we are trapped. So if we have McDonald's traffic which is 720 to 850 cars a day that's just increasing the hazards to us. One thing that we didn't say at the Planning Commission I guess real clearly was the fact that we are not opposed to everything under the sun. Chanhassen Estates Residents Association has been here and has been before the City Council on a number of occasions. The semaphore was one of them. We are not a negative group. It's just that we think that we have got to protect our interests just as you have got to protect our interests as we are the citizens of the community and you are the elected officials. We like the idea that we have the opportunity to come up here and talk to you but one of the things that we would like to say is that land is zoned commercial, we realize it's zoned commercial, we have heard the Planning Commission say that it may get zoned to B-1 or that their Comprehensive Plan, as they call it, shows changing the zoning and there are a lot of good usage for that land. We know that it won't every be a resident. If you have ever seen the property we know I I I I I Council Meeting April 19, 1982 -9- it's not residential land but it doesn't have to be something that is built on a constant traffic flow. Thirty percent of the McDonald's business is the drive in window. That's what they said. That means cars. A constant flow of traffic. A medical building, a professional building, whatever the term was that we heard earlier, something like we have right out here where we have the Western Shop and the Barber, the Vet., those things don't add that kind of traffic flow and that's commercial. We are no.t against everything. I guess we want to make that clear to the Council. We just don't want to endanger our children and ourselves by being trapped in a subdivision or putting too many cars out there, where the kids that are going in and out all day long are actually facing a hazard through the intersection. Mayor Hamilton - Thank you. George Frey - I live at 8117 Erie Circle. There is just a couple small points that I had some questions on. Number one in the attachments to the memoranda that was circulated the City Attorney gave an opinion on as far as McDonald's being a drive in. McDonald's figures tell us that 30% of their traffic is going to be to that drive in window yet the City Attorney's opinion stated that it was a minimal amount of traffic and it should not affect their status as a drive in. I wonder if a 30% figure was known at the time that opinion was given. Another question that I had was McDonald's says they are going to have a covenant to prevent other fast food operations going into that area. My question is, is it not possible that McDonald's can waive that covenant that restriction if an attractive operation, say a .non-competing operation such as Mr. Steak, would like to purchase that property. I think this is something that has to be considered and I don't know the legal ramifications of this. As we said, the Comprehensive Plan that we hear from the Planning Commission is that this is going to go B-1 whic h is not zoned for fast food. If this is the long range plan I would hate to see something proposed and approved for this land just prior to changing the Comprehensive Plan. And again, the planning, what's going to go into the rest of that land. We are very concerned. CPT gets out about 3:30 in the afternoon, at about 3:15 or 3:30 the school bus for the younger children comes into Chanhassen Estates and starts discharging children at the corner of Erie and Dakota and you look at the TV set and you see the attraction of McDonald's. Some kids are going to come home and say, can I go over there but there is going to be a lot of them that are going to get off at that corner and want to go over to McDonald's for some french fries or a hamburger or a coke. This is going to be one of the peak times of the day for traffic at the intersection of Lake Drive East and Dakota and it's a concern to many of us who have small children that one of our children is going to be hurt at that intersection because of the attraction of McDonald's. I don't think anybody in our group is opposed to McDonald's coming to Chanhassen as a matter of fact many of us welcome them coming into our community but our opposition is to them coming in at that intersection. We feel it is going to jeopardize the safety of our children and also our families in case that intersection is blocked. Keith Boudrie - I live at 8042 Cheyenne Avenue. Just a couple quick questions. What happens to the semi that McDonald's attracks and how will that intersection handle semi traffic? The frontage road is not wide enough really to handle the swing of semi's now as you watch them go in and out of CPT. Also the problems that occur with the lumber truck traffic trying to make that turn. The intersection is not designed to accept and handle those trucks. The other thing is I think that's probably Chanhassen's heaviest intersection near the downtown area and are we going to want to take and take our currently our heaviest traffic intersection, which is as close to the residential area as it is, and Council Meeting April 19, 1982 -10- increase it even more. We all certainly agree that McDonald's is probably going to be biggest draw of automobiles and trucks of just about anything we could put there. The other thing is that we could certainly come up with facts, the attorney noted I they have the facts, we could certainly prepare the facts through studies of McDonald's down at Mitchell Road and I think that before a decision is made we ought to have the opportunity to produce those facts. What happens to that intersection when that becomes four lanes which is destined to happen. May be consideration should be to close Dakota Avenue if McDonald's should go in there so that we dontt have that traffic there. Mayor Hamilton - Anybody else have comments. Council~yoman Swenson - Wouldn't you be more concerned about your children going across Highway 5? You say you think it would be fine if it was over on the other side of Highway 5. Michael Murphy - We said up by Holiday. That's not across from us. Councilwoman Swenson - It's still Highway 5. Michael Murphy - Yes, but that's not sitting at the entrance to either where the kids are coming in and out of through there anyway. That also brings up the children north of Highway 5 coming across. Councilman Horn - It would seem to me and I am not into restaurant marketing, but it would seem to me that if I were putting in a restaurant I would put it in an area that's closer to the larger portion of the industrial park and I would also put it in an area that has walking access to a large majority of the population and that would tell me it should be out on the corner of Highway 17 and 5 and not where it is. Dave Sellergren - Councilman Horn, the answer is system, there were four of the the sites in Chanhassen, three one of them rated it as number ones was not available. Councilman Horn - What are the rating criteria? Mike Assad - It's a multiple. The things that are added into are economics, the capability of the site to generate the numbers that come in, the fact that is it zoned properly is taken into consideration. As a general rule of thumb, we typically look for sites that have a high activity on them and go there as opposed to going to a site that doesn't have a high activity and try to generate it. Councilman Horn - I think the comment on truck traffic was addressed in the neighborhood meeting. It looks like it isn't conducive for truck traffic to get in there. They can't get in there the way it is. It would appear that they wouldn't be able to. I don't really see trucks at the Eden Prairie site either. George Frey - There is a strip along the Mitchell Road section by McDonald's where any time that you want to go down there, there is at least four or five semi's sitting in there. The other problem that you have is if the semi trucks know ~yhat the condition is, that's fine, they will probably stay out but what happens once they get turned in there. Now we have semi trucks driving through the subdivision to get turned around. In addition to them lining up along the frontage road and that's certainly going to shut off access. Bruce Frykmann - I live at 8020 Erie Avenue. Our children if they want to get into Chanhassen proper from the estates have the only safe intersection which there is a pedestrian crosswalk is at the intersection of 101 and Highway 5. We don't really have a safe crossing for kids at Dakota and Highway 5. your subdivision school, crossing point of the that based on McDonald's rating principals of the lease that rated of them rated as site number one two, the one that got all four I I I I I Council Meeting April 19, 1982 -11- Councilman Horn - I am not sure how minutes reflect the tone of a meeting but the minutes of the neighborhood meeting disturbed me a little bit. On the question of whether McDonald's had faced this type of opposition before the answer was yes, the question was asked, what did they do about it and the answer was~go right ahead and built anyway. Now if you are trying to sell a concept to a neighborhood group it would seem to me that that wouldn't be the way to go about it. Dave Sellergren - Councilman Horn I wasn't at the meeting. Mr. Assad was and he can respond to that. Mike Assad - That is not an accurate description. The statement was made that if McDonald's concurs with the reasons presented they will not go into the site. I can cite you examples of when that has happened. If McDonald's disagrees with the reasons presented and they have a legal right to go in they will pursue that. Councilman Horn - Let me ask you this, if you lived in Chanhassen Estates would you want a McDonald's on that corner? Mike Assad - The best answer I can give you is number one, I would not live next to a piece of property that was zoned commercial if it bothered me to have a commercial use go in. Mayor Hamilton - I am concerned about that site because I live on the other side of the highway. I don't want my kids and I won't allow my children to go across the street. They will have to go with me or with some other member of the family. For that reason I think it is a poor choice. The majority of the population in Chanhassen does not live in Chanhassen Estates nor are they going to draw their business from just Chanhassen Estates or from CPT for lunch break. It would seem to me that there are better sites available within the City of Chanhassen to put this particular restaurant. Again, I think it has been very clear that we would love to have a McDonald's here. I think it is a clean operation. I think one concern you don't have is that the garbage or whatever is going to be flying around because they do clean up very well. But, personally, I just have to feel there are other suitable sites. The traffic on Highway 5 has been bad for years and it's going to get worse. That, of course, is not a good intersection. I agree that with the one entrance in and out of Chanhassen Estates it does make it difficult. I would not want to see a semi driving through a residential area to have to turn around. The only other alternative we have is to go through the filling station or go down to CPT and some how turn around down there. Until such time as there is an alternate route I don't know how a truck would get out of there. The problem that I do have with this whole thing is that they do meet all the ordinance requirements. Unfortunately it has been zoned commercial for the last ten years. There have been other proposals made and to my knowledge there hasn't been a request made to have that zoning changed. Don Ashworth - Not that I am aware of. Mayor Hamilton - I want the residents to'understand the problems that the city has, not that we don't understand exactly what your problem is and what you are saying, but if we would turn down McDonald's I very honestly feel they would take us to court and win and you would have it there anyway. We don't have tax dollars to spend. We are plain flat broke and attorneys don't work for us for nothing unfortunately. I would really wish that McDonald's would withdraw their request for development and seriously consider developing in another area within Chanhassen but that's a decision they will have to make. Councilman Horn - Is this proj ect ý]ithin the tax increment district? Scott Martin - No. Part of the drainage is within the project. Councilwoman Swenson - I completely concur with everything you $ay~ right down the line. Councilman Neveaux - I do also. I also believe that we in the City are going to adopt Council Meeting April 19, 1982 -12- a planning process and with that a map of what we want to have our city look like in ten years or 20 years or whatever along with the necessary implementing tools such as the subdivision and other ordinances and people expect this property to develop in concert with the direction of the city and then to proceed along that path while doing everything that those very ordinances and plans have asked and then get to the point where it's a question of do we want this applicant or not, I find it very difficult to say no. I find it very difficult to believe that many of these worst possible case situations that did come up will actually occur. Were this located further into Dakota Avenue passed residential property to get to it, I would very definitely be against it but I think located where it is,with as controlled an intersection as we were able to get the highway department to build for us, I don't think that whole issue is over yet, I think the upgrading of Highway 5 will be very prime interest of this City Council for the next few years until some emergency changes are made in the way of better handling of traffic and safety considerations b.ut given the'fact that it's probably as well controlled and handled from a traffic standpoint as any intersection in the city, I find it difficult not to go along with the request. I think truly that the developer has looked at the concerns of the city as expressed to them over the past few meetings and it appears to me that they have responded. Councilman Horn - I basically concur with what you say. Going along with John's comment, I think that with planning and zoning we do our best to get what we hope is the best plan that we can live with. I think there are times when incidences come up that don't always fit into the best plans and you can't cover all circumstances in your planning and zoning. I think that it's unfortunate if what our city turns out to be is a result of what the price of property happens to be at the time rather than what makes sense. As you say also, I really don't see that we have a lot of alternative in this case. Mayor Hamilton - I see that we have an opportunity to make three motions if we want. We can have a motion to deny it. We can have a motion to accept it with conditions or table it for further consideration. Councilman Neveaux - Someone, Mr. Frey, brought up the possibility of the covenant that was supposed to be entered into an agreement between the subdivider and the developer, Mr. Mason and McDonald's, as to another fast food restaurant being there. Would it be possible Mr. Attorney to have that as one of the conditions in our permit? Craig Mertz - You recognize that the restrictive covenant under discussion would only cover some portion of the Mason property. It's not going to cover other corners of the intersection. Councilman Neveaux - It would cover that eight acres. That's all we could ask. Something to the affect that the specific point in that covenant agreement would in fact be binding upon the McDonald's Corporation and the City of Chanhassen so that if they did get a request to back off on that. Craig Mertz - I would have to say no it could not be one of the conditions in the case of a permitted use. Mayor Hamilton - Could we make some contract in regard to that property so that that property can not absolutely be used for a parking lot for trucks. Craig Mertz - You are afiaid-- that the balance of the property will be turned into a parking lot to serve this particular property. Once the subdivision is approved the, I suppose that is a possibility that it could be I I I I I I Council Meeting April 19, 1982 -13- turned into a parking lot in connection with the permitted use. Mayor Hamilton - Is there a way we can control that? Councilwoman Swenson - I would like to refer the attorney to 7.03 (h) and ask if that would handle it. Art Partridge - Art Partridge from the Planning Commission. I think our minutes are pretty well recorded. We have not approved the minutes that you have before you but I think they do reflect the general tender of the meeting which is primarily dealing with traffic. I did ask Mr. Assad, at that meeting, several times, if the drive in window was absolutely vital to his business because I am personally terribly concerned that what comes in a car window goes back out a car window and no matter how good a job McDonald's does in the immediate area of policing, a mile down the road they are not going to be picking it up and you will see it. I never did get a clear answer. I think the plans you have here, I could very easily be corrected, but I think you generally have a stock book of at least design concepts that you work from and I know they are flexible enough in other towns. Their ability to produce signs and facades and architecture is almost infinite if they are pressured into it. I would definitely like to see the smallest possible least obtrusive McDonald's sign that you can possibly get on the site. Craig Mertz - I think the reference to Section 7.03 of the Subdivision Ordinance that Councilwoman swérison referred to is really not relevant to the matter at hand. That section merely says that the subdivider is to submit a tentative plan for the future subdivision of the entire tract. Well, they have, in affect, done that. They are proposing that the entire tract be divided into two parcels. That section does not require you to provide plans for the actual use of the residue that results from the subdivision. As far as the truck parking, I suppose the Council could schedule a public hearing on some sort of ordinance amendment which would on a prospective basis eliminate parking in the C-2 zone. Keith Bourdie - I would like to make a comment. I think that Mayor you started out with making some comments as to what your feelings were and the other Council members pretty well agreed with what you had to say and 90% of what you said was you thought this was bad, you didn't think it was good, yet at the same time the Chanhassen Planning Commission or whoever did the original zoning is obviously admitting they made a mistake but,sorry guys we are going to have to live with the music because we made the mistake. I don't think that's a proper approach. I think all of you pretty well addressed the issue and because we are broke or because we made a mistake that we are going to have to face the music just doesn't make sense to me. Mayor Hamilton - As far as I am concerned, no mistake has been made. That property has been zoned Commercial for nine or ten years, there wasn't any mistake. Keith Boudrie - You are saying that there not been a move to rezone it. I personally didn't know what the legal description of C-2 zoning was. I became familiar once I heard McDonald's was going in there and I am sure that's the case with most of the Chanhassen residents. Now, they may not be a majority of Chanhassen but the majority of them are against it and this is in their front door. They are contributing a fair amount of tax when you say the city is broke, well the money that's coming into Chanhassen is coming from those estate residents. Again, just to back up, I think the majority of the comments were that it was not a good situation, the truck traffic was bad, the traffic was bad, the intersection is a bad intersection, it's not laid out properly, yet you are saying you are going to approve it. I can't see the rationale of that. Unknown - Has the watershed district approved this plan? Mayor Hamilton - I will refer your question to Mr. Fiskness who is one of the directors of the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District. Council Meeting April 19, 1982 -14- Conrad Fiskness - As a matter of policy we don't approve a plan until after we know whether the City has approved it. We have reviewed it and we have expressed concerns with regard to the amount of water that is going down that ditch. Our initial comments were that we would not want to see any additional water going down that drainage ditch as a result of further urbanization until something has been done to correct that whole situation. Unknown - My comment was based on the fact that I believe the numbers are that this land is like 90~ covered with either a parking lot or a building. That there is not ample drainage based on the rest of the land there. Sandy Connell - I live at 8022 Cheyenne. I may sound very naive but did I hear correctly that if you didn't go along with this, understanding that McDonald's would take us to court and probably fight for the land anyway? Good all American family McDonald's Restaurant? Is that really what would happen? Dave Sellergren - I have no indication what the company would do. They do have legal rights and we would give serious consideration to asserting them. Mayor Hamilton - Craig, would you respond on behalf of the City. Craig Mertz - The Zoning Ordinance lists activities in specific zones for the City that are permitted uses. Those uses that are identified as permitted uses are activities that are allowable as a matter of right. All that the developer has to do is prove that he is complying with the standards in the ordinances. The staff report went through the standards in the ordinances on such matters as setbacks and site coverages and there appears to be no lack of conformity with those particular ordinances. As far as the traffic standards go, absent traffic standards in existing ordinances, there is no ground for denying this particular development request on the basis of traffic. Don Ashworth - This is an allowable use, however, the Council does have the ability to set certain reasonable conditions associated with this. For example one of the points brought out has been the truck traffic. A reasonable solution might be that truck traffic not be allowed into the site. That the lot adjacent can not be turned into any of a truck parking lot. The Council has the ability to set those conditions and ,I did ask Mr. Sellergren if they would be willing to, if the Council imposed those conditions, if they would oppose them. Dave Sellergren - I just discussed that with Mr. Assad. I think that what the Council could do in that instance would be, of course, post the road. Mr. Assad does not have any authority from his company and accordingly I have no authority to commit to anything. Don Ashworth - I believe the Council does have the authority to set reasonable conditions such as that and leave it back to McDonald's to attempt to challenge your authority. Neveaux - As far as no truck parking in their parking lot. - We agreed to have trucks in CPT folks. Neveaux - We have to restrict the parking of semi's in the McDonald's parking lot. Unknown Then they will park of Lake Drive East or Dakota. Councilman Neveaux - If it becomes a problem then we post and ticket. Isn't that the thing to do to see if it becomes a problem first instead of putting up no parking signs everywhere in the City. Unknown - I agree. If this has got to go in there, that's certainly one of the minimal things we should do to try to handle the problem. Councilman Neveaux - I think that's what we are trying to do. Unfortunately, when you are sitting on the other side of the fence you just see one point only. That's all we are hearing. I I Councilman Unknown Councilman I I I I Council Meeting April 19, 1982 -15- Unknown - Except that I think reasonable, the first concern of anybody on this City Council, you were elected by us is to protect us. To serve and protect us. Councilman Neveaux - I wouldn't vote for it if I felt it would become a problem area down there. Michael Murphy - Do you know about Kenny's at night? They are talking about 1:00 in the morning on a weekend. Kenny's already has, Carver County has to park there in order to patrol that. Councilman Neveaux - I wouldn't blame that all on Kenny's. Michael Murphy - That's the place to collect. That parking lot is the kids get there to collect, that, and St. Hubert's and blame the church. Next it's going to be McDonald's. our subdivision. John? - I didn't want to give the wrong impression to the Council and I think it was brought up several times that, we agree with you Mayor, we would probably appreciate the fact that McDonald's is coming into Chanhassen and we will invite McDonald's but not at that location. That's the other side of the issue. Hopefully we are seeing both sides. Michael Murphy - Did the Planning Commission, were we right in assuming that they said that they had sent up a proposal for rezoning of this land? That question has come up on several occasions tonight. Art Partridge - The Comprehensive Plan of the City of Chanhassen that the City Council has agreed to approve, along with us, shows that area as commercial as it is zoned. The zoning code for the City designates it as C-2 Commercial. Right now we are slowly but surely going through a proposed draft revision for the downtown business zoning. It's nothing but a draft at this point. It is nothing but a concept. I have strong feelings myself that the City Council is not going to agree with the Planning Commission anyway when finally see everything done. It is nothing to pin your hopes on. We, as a group on the Planning Commission at this date, the zoning that we have proposed all along Highway 5 is a very limited zoning, which would specifically exclude fast food restaurants. Dave Sel1ergren - There has been some mis-statements of facts. One, McDonald's isn't open until 1:00. They close at midnight Fridays and Saturdays. The remainder of the nights they are closed at 11:00. Second point that I would like to make is that, you have heard it before, but this is a permitted use nota conditional use so the imposition of conditions is questionable at best and I would also indicate that in Eden Prairie wherein McDonald's was a conditional use there was a condition imposed relating to truck parking. The result of it was the trucks parked on Mitchell Road as you see them parked alongside the road. It creates a problem. Councilman Horn - The subject has been addressed about at some point closing Dakota Avenue. That's a very real possibility and I think you should be aware of that because we have a whole traffic study going on in that area. What to do with Highway 101 and I would hope that if that did become the decision that we wouldn't be hearing from McDonald's saying that we couldn't do that because we would infringe upon their business. Now, the minutes as I recall said that that would not be a consideration. I would hope that that is your position. Bill Mönk - I have talked to Minnesota Department of Transportation briefly on that subject as part of the recent BRW study that was just completed for the downtown in connection with the downtown. That traffic study says that the north/south movement across Highway 5 will become critical by the year 1990 projection. With that in mind both myself and the McDOT people I have talked to are of the opinion that the thought of closing any intersection along Trunk Highway 5 is not feasible. So the idea of closing any intersection, perhaps moving it, but the thought of actually deleting it City's, all the I sure don't It's us. In Council Meeting April 19, 1982 -16- or reducing the number of intersections that cross Highway 5 is not realistic any longer. Councilman Horn - I believe that was the intent of the study would be to move and it would be moved somewhere in line with current 101 as a possible alternative. Bill Monk - That's a possibility but if the Council is going to give consideration to the intersection at l84th St. The thought of moving Dakota will become more unfeasible because it just moves them closer together and as they are they are about 1/2 mile apart and you really don't want to space them any closer than that. Councilman Horn - How close is Dakota to 101? Bill Monk - A little short of 1/2 mile. Keith Boudrie - I think if this somehow does get approved and McDonald's is allowed to go there, I think prior to the building process, I think the Chanhassen (Estate) residents would take a position of possibly closing Dakota.Avenue or to move it or whatever has to happen. Paul O'Dell - I live at 8012 Dakota Avenue. I have heard mention several times of the restrictive covenant between Mr. Mason and McDonald's and I have never got a good answer, first of all a legal opinion I guess, as to restraint of trade. Number two, if Mr. Mason wants to sell that land to Mr. Jones, what happens to that restrictive covenant between Mr. Mason and McDonald's? There is no perfect ordinance ever been written that I know of. This ordinance doesn't direct traffic and I can see why. There is nothing in there that says that you shall not have traffic. However, the magnitude of traffic can imply safety problems. In the present Comprehensive Plan under Transportation, Section T26, it states; problems associated with the grade and stacking distance will continue. It refers to that intersection. On the south side of the highway the grade differential between Dakota and West 78th Street makes it difficult to determine which direction north bound Dakota Avenue traffic is moving. That implies a safety problem exists. One more car doesn't make it better. Under the same section where it states that Highway 5 is a minor arterial through Chanhassen, you have got a 55 m.p.h. speed limit through there right now. "Highway 5 carries large volumes of traffic at peak hours and is frequently congested and ineffective," The point I am trying to make here, I would like to see Chanhassen (Estate) residents go on record we have a safety problem, not a traffic problem per se, it's a safety problem. Dave Sellergren - Maybe I can settle the question on the restrictive covenants. First of all I don't have reason to think that's any kind of an illegal restraint in trade. Secondly, it's in force for 20 years and it prohibits any restaurants for that 20 years on the remainder of the land controlled by Mr. Mason. The covenant does not yet exist because McDonald's has not closed on the land. That's a condition of the closing. The restaurant definition is related to hamburger and hamburger type restaurants. That is any restaurant ~yhich derives 25% of its gross annual sales from the sale of hamburger, ground beef products and french fries. So that there is no misunderstanding, that's what it says and that's the period of its duration. I hear the murmurs and obviously that's surprised some folks but that's what it says and I think you should know what it says. The other point and it relates to the question of changes in the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning and suffice is to say that it's late in the game to be rezoning this land. Michael Murphy - I just want to say, Mr. Mayor, that that last statement about it being excluding hamburger shops. This is the first time we have heard that and I think this is the kind of problem we have had all I I I I I I Council Meeting April 19, 1982 -17- along in this whole thing, beginning from that neighborhood minutes that you have got that were written by McDonald's not by us. They are out trying to pull something on us here to be quite honest with you. When we were at the Planning Commission meeting somebody got up and said 200 cars a day and then finally one of the gentlemen on the Planning Commission pinned them down and said what do you mean 200, well, 200 generated where the guy got out of his house to go to McDonald's, but 600 are the cars that are going down the road or something and see the sign. It's one trick after another. Now it's only hamburger restaurants. That won't stop Taco Bell or any of the others. I think if there is any variance at all, I mean any variance in this plan that they gave you, anything whether it's two signs or one sign, stop this. It doesn't belong here and we have got to stop it now because the first child that is hit at that intersection I will personally sue your company and I will sue everybody on the City Council. If you go on that site I am ordering tomorrow morning McDonald's stock and I will personally be at your next stockholders meeting and I will get every sucker I can in this subdivision to come with me and we are going to raise hell at that meeting. Councilman Neveaux - Who prepared these minutes of the Chanhassen neighborhood meeting? Mike Assad - They were drafted with respect to every comment brought up. Councilman Neveaux - I would just like to read one paragraph. "Another question was that if McDonald's locates there would Burger King and everyone else come too. We said no because we will have a restaurant restriction on the property. Thus this location could not be developed like the Eden Prairie location was developed," and I am hearing from Mr. Sellergren that there is no such restriction only that there could not be another hamburger type restaurant. Mike Assad - The term restaurant was defined and what it means, meaning hamburger type. Councilman Neveaux - That is not what is in the minutes. Mike Assad - No but they further go on to explain Councilman Neveaux - Where are you going to say that? Mike Assad - In the restrictive covenants that we have. I have a restrictive covenant that uses the word restaurant and then in more detail on an addendum, it defines the term restaurant. Councilman Horn - You tell me what restaurants on the Eden Prairie site would be excluded from your covenant. Mike Assad - I can't tell you off the top of my head. Councilman Horn - I think there are none and still you state here that it cannot be like the Eden Prairie site. Mike Assad - Those minutes right there, are our secretary taking shorthand. Councilman Neveaux - They have to be okayed by somebody. You wouldn't let something like this go to a public hearing that's going to resolved in potential litigation arid not have somebody okay it. Mike Assad - Nobody ever asked me if I okayed those minutes. They were sent out by McDonald's. Art Partridge - The Planning Commission's introduction to those minutes was at the time of the meeting. We had not seen them before and they were presented to us with no heading at all to indicate where they had come from and we asked that they be included in your package. - . Dave Sellergren - I wasn't at that meeting but my understanding, those were prepared for McDonald's purposes. Mr. Waibel asked for some indication of what went on at the neighborhood meeting, probably without whatever editorial function and approvals one might normally ask for, they were then provided to Bob at his request and they ended up some way or another apparently in the City records. I don't think that they were intended to be comprehensive minutes. When they were initially prepared they were for company purposes only and my guess is that Council Meeting April 19, 1982 -18- someone got somewhat careless. Councilman Neveaux - In regard to the specific paragraph which I just read earlier this evening, that same question was asked and discussed on a couple of occasions and we got the same I response ~hat no, the covenants that were going to be part, that are a part of the purchase agreement and it would run together with the final land sale, would have this restrictive covenant so that other restaurants could not be there and now an hour and 20 minutes later we are hearing that it doesn't really have much of a restriction other than another hamburger/french fry type of restaurant and I am uncomfortable when I hear something said on the right side of the mouth and then something said on the left side of the mouth at the same meeting. I just wonder, Mr. Mertz, whether we might pursue the possibility of restricting the balance of that piece of property to preclude a series of four or five fast food restaurants. One is certainly adequate. Now, we are talking about the subdivider, Mr. Mason, owning all of that plus the outlot and he was in agreement, as I understood earlier this evening, with signing that covenant, might we make that a condition of the replatting which would have to be entered into by both the subdivider and the developer. Craig Mertz - Chances of a restriction like that holding up in court are not very great. A possible alternative might be to schedule a public hearing for the purpose of removing fast food restaurants from the C-2 permitted use category but that move would have to exclude the McDonald's site. Such a motion with reference to the McDonald's site at this late date I Councilman Neveaux - If we can't do it any other way that's the only way that I could go along with it. Councilman Horn - Could we accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission to rezone the remaining portion of the parcel? Craig Mertz - It would be better if the issue came up on an area wide basis rather than site specific anytime that rezoning comes before the court for one small parcel of land the thing is going to look highly suspicious to the court. It's better to examine the issue for the whole downtown C-2 area rather than focus on Mr. Mason's property. Councilman Horn - As I understand it their recommendation did include the whole downto~vn area, specifically the area immediately adjacent to Highway 5. Craig Mertz - Yes. Councilman Horn - Obviously we would have to grandfather in existing businesses. Councilman Neveaux - Existing applications. Councilwoman Swenson - This would then eliminate all fast food restaurants all along Highway 5? Craig Mertz - That would be the topic under discussion under that scenario. Bill Swearengin - Perhaps I can answer your question Pat. The area along Chanhassen Estates would be,for instance B-1. The area immediately down here would be a different B area. That was the type of thing that the Planning Commission is working on. Mayor Hamilton - At this time we need to have a motion to either accept or deny or table it for further consideration. I think any motion that is I made ought to include the, if it's a motion to approve it should contain the recommendations of staff excluding items 2 and 4. Councilman Neveaux - I'll move the approval of the subdivision plat as presented with the staff recommendations 1-9 with the exclusion of 2 and 4 in the report dated April 1, 1982. Number 9 is modified to read: That the applicant receive a land alteration permit from the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District and other I I I Council Meeting April 19, 1982 -19- applicable state and federal agencies typical of city review of projects. Mayor Hamilton - We have a motion to approve the proposed development, subdivision and site plan review for McDonald's, is there a second for discussion? Councilwoman Swenson - For discussion. Councilman Horn - Question on number 3, that is a deviation from the Sign Ordinance. Bob Waibel - That's correct. Councilman Neveaux - That's why I was concerned about the variance. Councilwoman Swenson - In 2, do I understand that the arches will not be there? Bob Waibel - On the free standing sign they will have it as shown on the revised exhibit for the road sign. They will have the golden arches trademark on the free standing road sign. The trademarks are to be removed from the proposed directional signs. Councilwoman Swenson - You are going to tell me that this includes those huge arches? Is this the size that conforms to the 80 square feet? Scott Martin - 50 square foot with arches. Councilwoman Swenson - The height is within 45 feet? Bob Waibel - It's 20 feet. Councilman Horn - Item 3 is the directional sign. That[s the one that requires the variance. They can have one directional sign but not two. Bill Monk - Just a point of clarification. At the end of the engineering report I do mention a feasibility study for the eastward frontage road extension that is not included in any condition. I would just like clarification if that is or is not a part of the Council motion so that I know whether to proceed or not proceed with that. Councilman Neveaux - Is that your April 5th report? Bill Monk - Yes. In there the striping and the rephasing are basically for the CPT approval. Councilman Neveaux - I thought that your April 5th came before the April 1st staff report so that is apart of the staff report. I would like my motion to include both of these, the Planning Department's report dated April 1st and the City Engineer's report dated April 5th plus whatever land alteration permits, etc. that watershed and other appropriate federal and state agencies require. Craig Mertz - You are agreeable to the second? Councilwoman Swenson - Yes. Councilman Horn - You are including the variance for the second directional sign in your motion? Councilman Neveaux - No. Councilman Horn - I believe you are with number 3. Councilman Neveaux - I am concerned about how to handle that. Councilman Horn - We should probably take number 3 out of the motion. Councilman Neveaux - Yes. I guess that's probably best. Exclude 2, 3. and 4 then from the motion. Councilwoman Swenson - I do remember that the sidewalk is taken care of, is that correct? Bob Waibel - The sidewalk is included in condition number 5. Councilman Horn - Would there be any way that we could, this item came up of a walkway over the highway, is there any way that we could include that as a safety requirement for this development? Craig Mertz - No, I don't think so. There is always the possibility that it could be considered as a public improvement project and assess it to the benefitted businesses. Councilman Horn - I think that would not be hard to justify in that situation. Mayor Hamilton - If there is no further discussion, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Councilman Neveaux - Aye. Councilwoman Swenson - Aye. Mayor Hamilton - Those opposed. Councilman Horn - Nay. Mayor Hamilton - Nay. Council Meeting April 19, 1982 -20- Mayor Hamilton - We have two ayes and two nays. I realize that there is certainly a good opportunity that this will be lost if we go to court. We don't have a very good defense of ourself. I think this Council is here to protect the health, interest, and welfare of the residents of this community. I feel very strongly personally, that if a child,and there is certainly every possibility it could be my own that could be injured on that very corner. Councilman Horn - I think you pretty well summed it up. I would like to see McDonald's in Chanhassen but not at that site. Council~yoman Swenson - I think it's very important that it is remembered this is certainly the safety of the children, obviously a very important thing. I think what is equally important is the integrity of the ordinances in this City and if this is a bad ordinance then by all means we should change it. The problem is that it does exist as it is, at this particular point in time and I really felt that this is maintaining the status quo. It was established as a zoning ordinance and this is the law. Now, that is the reason I voted for it. Councilman Neveaux - It's either the system, the American system that we operate under and if someone buys a piece of property and it's zoned and comes in and follows our ordinances and then we turn them down, I don't think that's, then we are back in the old let's hang them up at the post office yard arm and I think we are beyond that, I hope. Dave Sellergren - Mr. Mayor, one Councilman was missing tonight. You were a split vote. I wonder if the Council would give consideration to reconsidering the matter when you have all five members present? Mayor Hamilton - We have specific guidelines for reconsideration. I think Don can tell you what those are. Councilman Geving has been sick. That's why he is not here this evening. I think, in light of the vote which is neither confirming or denying, although apparently according to Craig that's in effect denying, we should at this point attempt to give the developers of that particular piece of property some idea of ~yhat the City would like to do with it. We should probably have a public hearing or have this as an agenda item to discuss or give it back to the Planning Commission for them to discuss and review this piece of property to determine what permitted uses we may want to have on that particular piece of property. We had best get the remainder of our act together. Craig Mertz - You may wish to consider ordering a public hearing to consider a moratorium on development of fast food restaurants in commercially zoned districts in Chanhassen subject to the ultimate adoption of an ordinance controlling that type of use. Mayor Hamilton - Well Don, perhaps you and I could work together and come up with something. I I REZONING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LOTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK 1, FRONTIER DEVELOPMENT PARK: The applicant, Dolphin Construction, Inc., is proposing to construct a 19,871 square foot office/retail facility. Staff recommended the property be rezoned CBD to conform with other developed property in Frontier Development Park and approval of I the site plan and conditional use permit with the following conditions: 1. That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, that the applicant post a letter of credit with the City in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of any required off structure improvements not yet completed. 2. All roof-top mechanical equipment be screened from view at street level. 3. That all parking and maneuvering areas be lined with concrete curb. 4. That the applicant receive sign permit approval from the City Council prior to the installation of any signage. I 'I·.·· ,- I Council Meeting April 19, 1982 -21- The Planner noted that there is no provlslon in the plans for outside storage of trash and, therefore, such a provision is not included for approval. Councilman Horn moved to rezone Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Frontier Development Park from I-I to CBD and approve a conditional use permit subject to staff recommendations listed above, Planning Commission recommendations of April 8, 1982, and Engineer's recommendations of March 31, 1982. Motion seconded b;y Councilman NeVeallx,. Thefbllowing voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and HOTIn. No negative votes. Motion carried. INTOXICATING LIQUOR ORDINANCE, FINAL ADOPTION: Russ Pauly and Don Kal1estad were present. Council members discussed the proposed ordinance and directed stâff to make the following modifications: Section 5.06, 9 (b) One waiter/waitress or one bus boy/girl shall be on duty during all hours of food service operations. Section 5.02, second paragraph. Premises licensed for the off-sale of intoxicating liquors shall have a structural value of not less than $100,000, exclusive of land costs and costs of furnishings and fixtures. The City Council may provide for an independent appraisal at the license applicant's expense as an aid in determining the structural fair market value. In the event this requirement as to investment in structures is not complied with within one year from the date of the issuance of the license, the license may be revoked. Provided, however, that the City Council may issue not to exceed one off-sale intoxicating liquor license for premises which had been licensed for the off-sale of intoxicating liquor on the effective date of this ordinance, the structural fair market value of which is less than $100,000, exclusive of land costs and costs of furnishings and fixtures. Section 5.03. Add. Provided, however, the City Council in its discretion may grant a variance of the financial investment requirement of this section to those premises presently licensed for the on-sale of intoxicating liquor which are displaced by the Chanhassen Downtown Redevelopment Project. Any such variance shall be granted only upon good cause shown by the applicant. Section 5.02, first paragraph. Licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquor to be consumed off or away from the premises where sold may be issued only-to liquor stores used exclusively for the off-sale of intoxicating liquor at retail and under control of an individual owner or manager. Section 7.17, 1. No person shall operate, drive or be in actual physical control of any motor vehicle, boat, snowmobile, bicycle, horse drawn vehicle or horse within this City while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or narcotic drug or combination thereof. Section 7.18, No person shall mix or prepare, for sale, intoxicating liquor for consumption in any public place or place of business unless it has a license to sell intoxicating liquor on-sale or a permit from the City and Commissioner of Public Safety under Minnesota Statutes, Section 340.119, (Bottle Clubs) and no person shall consume intoxicating liquor in any such place. Section 9.02, third sentence. Such surety bond or other security shall be in the sum of $5,000, for an applicant for an on-sale license, $3,000, fqr an on-sale wine license, and $3,000, for an applicant for an off-sale license. Section 5.06, 4. The establishment shall be under the supervision and control of a single proprietor, manager or designated assistant manager, who is available on the premises to the public and City officials during hours of operation. Council Heeting April 19, 1982 -22- Section 7.06, 2. No person under 18 years of age shall be liquor establishment to sell, deliver or aid liquor. No on-sale liquor during hours when establishment shall display liquor to the public the sale of liquor is prohibited. employed at an off-sale in the delivery of off-sale I Section 7.10, Councilman Neveaux moved the adoption of Ordinance 2-H relating to the licensing and regulating the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor in the City Attorney's revision dated March 25, 1982, and as amended. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #82-15: Councilman Neveaux moved the adoption of a resolution specifying that it be a policy of the City of Chanhassen that only government securities or cash or irrevocable letters of credit be accepted in satisfaction of the bond requirement in Section 9.02 of the Liquor Ordinance 2-H and that corporate surety bonds not be accepted for such purposes. Resolution seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. SIGN REQUEST, BLUFF CREEK GOLF COURSE: Mike Salzer was present requesting a sign permit to install a directional sign on city right-of-way along Creekwood directing people to the golf course. The City Engineer has inquired of MnDOT to see if they would install a sign along Great Plains Blvd. (Hwy. 101). He was informed MnDOT would not permit a sign for a privately owned facility in state right-of-way. HnDOT did state that they would erect a street name sign in advance of the intersection if the city so requested. Staff recommended petitioning the state I to install a street name sign and deny the request to install a directional sign on Creehvood. Councilwoman Swenson moved to grant Mr. Salzer the option to proceed to request MnDOT install Creekwood street signs along Great Plains Blvd. and direct staff to meet with the applicant to determine his choices. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION, CPT CORPORATION: CPT Corporation is seeking a sign permit to erect a 67 square foot free-standing business identification sign on their property at 19011 Lake Drive East. Councilman Horn moved acceptance seconded by Councilman Neveaux. Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen of the CPT sign permit application. Motion The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Special Meeting to review and accept 1981 audit report. Hay 10, 1982. f. Resolution concerning maintenance responsibility for storm sewer crossing Instant Web site. RESOLUTION #82-16 g. Storm sewer improvement project, Economic Development District (Adjacent to CPT) Authorize Feasibility Study. RESOLUTION #82-17. h. Resolution approving Comprehensive Plan. RESOLUTION #82-18. I ~fotion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Hotion carried. BILLS: Councilman Horn moved to approve the bills as presented: checks #13508 through #13574 in the amount of $761,384.85 and checks #17624 through #17721 in I I I Council Meeting April 19, 1982 -23- the amount of $70,697.45. Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. SUNRISE HILLS LIFT STATION: Thè City Engineer presented a proposal for the rehabilitation of the Sunrise Hills Lift Station at an estimated cost of $16,950. Councilwoman Swenson moved to authorize the Engineer to have the lift station repaired. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Horn moved to table the remaining agenda items to April 26, 1982. Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Horn moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux and Horn. No negative votes. Meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m. Don Ashworth City Manager