5. Site Plan parking Redmond Products CITY OF
II
elloilyr
1 - CHANHASSEN
1
P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
690 COULTER DRIVE • ,
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
I ,/ A-
MEMORANDUM
I
10 . 4--eta
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
IFROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director --
DATE: October 4, 1990 # 0.- 6 ' 9 u
ISUBJ: Redmond Parking Lot Improvements - Update Memorandum
On September 24, 1990, the City Council reviewed two proposals
I aimed at increasing parking available on the Redmond site. The
first proposal concerned parking off-site on the adjacent Lotus
Lawn and Garden Center parcel. Staff had recommended approval of
II a version of this plan that did not require any variances. The
applicant's proposal would have required variances from parking
stall and aisle dimensional standards and from ordinance
II requirements requiring paving. Staff had recommended denial of the
proposal to increase parking on the Redmond site since this
resulted in two additional variances, the first being a variance to
the standard for hard surface coverage and the second being parking
I setback from an exterior property line. The City Council
ultimately approved the parking on the Lotus Garden site in
accordance with staff's recommendations. Action was continued on
I condition #7 which related to parking on the Redmond site. Staff
and the applicants were directed to work together on the issue of
how to increase on-site parking and attempt to achieve some
II agreement with the goal of bringing this item back to the City
Council for further action in the future. One of the opportunities
staff was directed to research was the feasibility of modifying
parking lot setback standards to use a performance oriented
II approach rather than strictly rely on setback standards to achieve
the desired goal of parking lot screening.
I Since the City Council meeting, staff has met with the applicants
on several occasions. Since the parking issues on the Lotus Garden
Center site were resolved by the Council at the last meeting, our
discussions focused solely on the on-site parking issues on the
I Redmond property. To date, two options for dealing with these
issues have been explored. Representatives of Redmond have
inquired as to whether or not the City would be willing to sell an
I adjacent 1. 6 acre wetland to Redmond so that the hard surface
coverage variance could be eliminated. The second option being
reviewed is the performance oriented approach to parking setbacks.
I
11 a
•
Redmond Parking Update
October 4, 1990
Page 2
' Other options of using transit or van pooling and the alternative
of constructing a parking ramp, were discussed. Staff has asked
' Southwest Metro to contact Redmond to begin a dialogue but Redmond
staff continues to feel that this will not meet their needs. They
have also rejected the ramp parking option due to cost.
Staff is in somewhat of a dilemma regarding Redmond's proposal to
acquire the adjacent wetland from the City. This wetland is
protected by easement and City ownership at the present time. As
' envisioned, its acquisition by Redmond would not result in any net
increase in green space for the City. On the other hand, the
wetland will remain untouched by Redmond and will continue to be
' protected and serve as open space and storm water retention. We
believe that the sale of the property to Redmond, to some degree,
satisfies the letter of the ordinance if not quite it's intent.
However, again, it is clear that this proposal would eliminate the
need for a hard surface coverage variance for Redmond and may well
provide the opportunity needed to work out this problem.
' Staff has met with Redmond in an attempt to determine a price for
the property, should a transaction occur. We found that we were
unable to determine a price accurately for several reasons. The
' reasons basically stem from significant differences of opinion as
to how the value should be determined. Staff agreed with Redmond
personnel that the most effective way of determining value may be
for 3 appraisers to be retained to establish a value and for all
parties to agree ahead of time that the land would be sold for
whatever price is determined. As envisioned, one appraiser would
be selected by the City, a second by Redmond and the third would be
' selected by the first two appraisers. This option appears to be
acceptable to Redmond.
It should be noted that the benefit of the City in selling the
wetland to Redmond does not rest solely on the cash value of the
transaction. Redmond is proposing to undertake a $6 million
expansion which would not be possible if the transaction does not
' occur. The $6 million expansion translate into the City's
receiving between $30,000 and $50,000 per year of increased
property tax revenue plus the addition of 50 jobs in the community.
These calculations are not normally considered by the City Council
since they are normally relegated to HRA consideration, however, in
this instance, the HRA is not involved and it would be useful for
the City Council to understand the implications of this
' transaction.
There remains a question as to what the City would do with the
' proceeds from the land sale. Staff has not reached a conclusion at
this point in time and defer to 'the City Council in this matter.
The funds could be used to acquire additional wetlands or open
space in the community or be dedicated some other designated fund
11
I
Redmond Parking Update f
October 4, 1990
Page 3
such as the Old St. Hubert's Church Improvement Program.
Should the City Council be receptive to the sale of the land as
outlined above or under some other mechanism, the parking lot
approval should be made contingent upon completion of the sale of
the land and it's merger into the Redmond site should also be
required.
Staff has asked the applicant to attempt to acquire all or part of
the adjacent Lotus Garden site. We believe that their money would
be better spent in acquiring land that could actually be used to
physically accommodate parking lot and related improvements as
opposed to acquisition of the city parcel which is virtually
entirely a wetland. We noted that it is probably in the long term
best interests of Redmond's plans to stay at this site to acquire
whatever land may be available in the area. They have indicated
that several attempts to negotiate with the adjoining property
owner have at this point been unsuccessful.
As noted above, staff has been asked to consider a performance
oriented approach to establishing parking setbacks rather than rely
solely on the traditional method of establishing a flat 30 foot
front yard setback. Staff is supportive of this proposal in
concept, noting that the performance oriented approach dictates
that a developer prove to the city that the goal of screening
parking is achieved in exchange for a reduced setback. Thus, the
developer is given somewhat greater flexibility in exchange for
being required to meet a higher standard of design. In addition we
note that our ordinance currently establishes parking setback as
the equivalent of the building setback which in the case of the
Redmond site is 30 feet. A 30 foot parking setback is somewhat
excessive based upon standards used in many other communities where
parking is typically setback 15 to 20 feet. We further note that
we agree with Redmond that their proposed revised parking plan
achieves the goal of screening the parking lot. From exterior
views of the site, there will be relatively little difference from
the status quo to the revised parking lot design as far as off-site
views are concerned.
Staff has not yet had an opportunity to propose a revised parking
lot setback standard. Parking lot setbacks are given in each
zoning district and a fairly comprehensive redraft of the ordinance
would be required to incorporate the performance oriented standard.
Staff foresees no problem in producing a satisfactory ordinance
should be so directed by the City Council, however, it should be
noted that such an ordinance would have to go through public
hearing at the Planning Commission prior to it being brought back
to the City Council for adoption. The applicants have asked staff
to expedite the return of this matter to the City Council for
action so that they may undertake parking improvements prior to
freeze up. Even if staff was directed to bring an ordinance I
I
1 ' '
iRedmond Parking Update
October 4, 1990
Page 4
amendment through the Planning Commission, we are looking at a two
month process to allow for required public hearings. If so
' directed, staff would expedite this process as much as possible,
however, that still leaves the City Council to confront Redmond's
request for action as soon as possible. For Redmond to proceed as
requested would require a variance from current ordinances. There
' is no real hardship to support the variance unless, in an
anticipation of an amended ordinance, the Council deems the current
ordinance itself to be a hardship.
' STAFF RECOMMENDATION
' Staff is requesting the City Council to provide direction on how to
proceed on this matter. In our opinion, it is possible to allow
Redmond to proceed as outlined above without placing the
effectiveness of the Zoning Ordinance in jeopardy. If the Council
' wishes to allow Redmond to proceed it should direct staff to
proceed with the sale of the property to Redmond and make approval
of parking lot improvements contingent upon completion of this
' sale. The Council should also grant a variance to allow a 10 foot
parking lot setback based upon the Council 's intent to revise the
ordinance to adopt a performance oriented approach, conditioned on
the applicants completing improvements as per their submitted site
plan. Approval should be further conditioned upon completion of
the sale of the wetland to Redmond and the lots merged with the
balance of the Redmond site.
•
1
11
City Council Meeting - September 24, 1990
Gary Warren: You could adopt the ordinance and then we could come back at the
next meeting with the cost scenario for a different rate structure.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't see any problem with that , do you?
Roger Knutson: No, it's a totally separate item.
•
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good.
Councilman Johnson: I move approval of the ordinance adoping a Surface Water
Utility District .
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Workman: Second.
' Councilman Johnson: With the modification to Section 19-146. Appeal of fees as
I read earlier. No adjustments will be made for property classifications I, II
Iand III.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second?
' Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to adopt the Storm Water
Utility District with the modification to Section 19-146. Appeal of fees. That
no adjustments will be made for property classifications I, II and III. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
REDMOND PRODUCTS, 18930 WEST 78TH STREET:
' A. SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR EXPANSION OF THE PARKING LOT RESULTING IN VARIANCES
TO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
B. SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR EXPANSION OF THE PARKING AREA WEST TO LOTUS LAWN AND
GARDEN CENTER.
' Jo Ann Olsen: What we've done is combine the two applications into one. Both
applications were held separately in front of the Planning Commission. They're
separate actions.
' Mayor Chmiel: Let 's just address each one individually then.
Jo Ann Olsen: Okay, the off site improvements. In summary, Redmond is in the
need of additional parking on their site and what they're proposing are off site
improvements and on site improvements. The off site improvements are parking
lot on the Lotus Lawn and Garden lot located just west of the Redmond facility.
They're proposing 78 parking stalls with two variances to the zoning ordinance.
The first would be that they're proposing mass parking versus what's required
under the ordinance for the parking stalls and the driveway lanes. They're _
proposing that they have 3 parking lanes right up against each other. The other
one is the gravel parking. The ordinance requires that it be bituminous .
28
I
City Council Meeting - September 24, 1990
Rio
surface. , It is going to be a temporary parking lot. Only for 3 years and at
that time it will be converted to a natural state that can be used by the Lotus
Lawn and Garden site. The on site improvements are a reconfiguration of the
existing parking lot south of the building. Just adding approximately 104
parking stalls on the site. Improvements on site are resulting in a variance of
the impervious surface coverage and the variance to the front yard setback.
Staff has met with the applicant several times trying to work out some other way
to resolve their problems. We have had a tour of the site as all the Council
members. We understand that they are over crowded. That the site first
designed did not envision the number of employees that they do have now and that
they do need additional parking. The problem is that it is resulting in
variances to the setback. You have to prove hardship other than economic.
. . .variances up to 80% impervious surface and the setback variance have never
been approved in the industrial office. . . We'd be setting a big precedence by
doing that . Staff recommended, or the Planning Commission recommended denial
because of the variances. The Planning Commission on the off site improvements
recommended approval with the conditions of staff which essentially made it
would have to be bituminous surface and not the mass parking. The Planning
Commission also discussed to allow them to design it and build it as an
experiment . Staff cannot support that recommendation. In fact that is being
recommended approval with certain conditions. . .at that time. . . But we are
recommending approval of the off site parking lot with the conditions in the
staff report . As far as on site improvements, we recommended again to the
Planning Commission, again because of the variances, the Planning Commission
unanimously recommended denial of the application for on site parking lot
improvements. We have provided a recommendation for both the on site and off
site improvements. We are recommending approval but the conditions would not
permit the mass parking, the gravel parking, covered and would not permit the
variances on the on site. 1
Councilman Johnson: Jo Ann? On the off site, one thing that Eden Prairie just
recently did was grant Southwest Metro Transit the ability to put in a temporary
parking lot that 's going to be within the Highway 212 corridor where they're not
putting subgrade in. They are compacting the clay, the dirt that's there and I
think there's an old parking lot there so they've also got some other rock in
the area. Just compacting that and throwing asphalt over it and the engineers
are telling us that it will last the 3 years that's being asked for. Before 212
improvements start over there and then they lose the parking lot anyway. For
the off site here, is there any idea whether that might be a feasible
alternative rather than putting in compacted subgrade and compacted rock which
ends up more expensive?
Jo Ann Olsen: No. I'm certain that that would be a compromise that we could '
do. The reason that , and again we should probably have Gary addressing these
but the engineering standpoint was that the gravel with the runoff and being
able to paint the parking stalls on the site and engineering reasons for not
having the gravel versus the bituminous. As far as the surface, subsurface.
Councilman Johnson: It depends upon, you know if you've got your wetland soils
in there, then that won't work but if it is the good hard clay we've got a lot
of in parts of the city, it might work.
Jo Ann Olsen: I can't answer on subgrades. ,
29
I
City Council Meeting - September 24, 1990
Councilman Johnson: The engineers need to answer that and they went upstairs.
Up celebrating for passing the last one. They've got the Champagne flowing
upstairs. - t
Councilman Workman: Can we hear from the applicant3
i
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Please state your name and address.
Sandra Reitsma: My name is Sandra Reitsma. I'm director of Human Resources at
Redmond Products and I live in Elk River. We are here this evening with some
requests that we will feel are permanent solutions to our parking problems. I'd
like to explain our problem by explaining the demographics of work force a
little bit . In 3 years we have more than tripled the number of employees that
work at Redmond Products. We have over 250 employees and at any given point in
time we have had between 50 and 80 additional temporary employees working there.
11 We have 175 parking spaces so we know we have some parking problems. The
average age of our employees is 32. 56% of our employees are female and these
two facts alone point to one of the major issues that we have which is daycare.
When looking at alternatives such as carpooling, it becomes a major problem
where we have a number of employees who are taking their children to various
locations in the morning. Needing to go to various locations in the evening to •
pick- them up. 35% of our employees live in the Chanhassen area and if we can
stablize our operations a bite, I know that we will have more employees move to
the Chanhassen area. 30% of our employees come from a fair distance away. We
have people that come from St . Paul, from Roseville and as I said, I personally
live in Elk River. While we are in Chanhassen to work, we're also here during
the day. We're using the services and the businesses that are located here in
Chanhassen. We have had our parking problem for a period of time and we have
looked at a number of alternatives and I'll just quickly go through a couple of
those. We have looked into carpooling. We do have a number of employees who do
carpool. We have also looked at Dial a Ride and the area that it covers is
restrictive and the hours that it operates does not really cover the time that
our facility is open. We have looked at off site parking. We have talked to
some other businesses in town but as there is no park and ride in the area, this
is only a temporary solution for us. We're looking for a permanent solution.
We have looked at some additional sites to help get us through this such as the
Lotus site and that will be talked about a little bit more in detail with the
following speakers. I just want to say that we're a successful company and we
would like to keep that success here in Chanhassen and what we're looking for is
a reasonable solution to our parking problem. We need a place to park. I'd
like to thank you. The next person that will be speaking is Gene Strobel. He
is our engineering manager and he'll talk about the specifics of our request.
Thank you.
Gene Strobel: As was stated before by Sandy, our parking problem is a fairly
11 serious one and the reason we came together with two proposals, one being the
Lotus site was to provide a temporary relief for that parking problem though we
don't want to do a bandaid approach to what we consider a permanent problem.
What we're proposing to do is to take and modify our existing parking lot to
accommodate 279 cars of permanent parking spaces and this will give us enough
parking to basically utilize our facility to it's maximum potential. We're
looking at the Lotus site as a temporary site, a 3 year site to use for mass
parking and what we're asking for are basically 4 things. One is that we're
30
I
City Council Meeting - September 24, 1990 r
allowed to do mass parking on the Lotus site and that we are allowed to use
compacted rock rather than a bituminous surface. Secondly, we're asking that we
have two variances to the City ordinance. One being that the setback would we
be allowed to go into the setback with cutting into our berm and providing more
parking spaces there. And fourth, to change the percent of impervious surface.
What we're trying to do is to honor what we believe is the intent of the
ordinance. Is to set Chanhassen industrial office park aside from an urban
blight of pavement from property line to property line. In doing so our
consulting engineer's came up with some solutions that we thought would maintain
some aesthetic appeal to the community. One is to do some terracing with
retaining walls on the building side of the berms and retain the height of the
berm so that the view from TH 5 is more pleasant than seeing a mass of cars.
Also, some of the issues that are involved that the Planning Commission has, or
the Planning department has is the location of the driveway in adjacency to
Lyman Lumber. We're willing to relent and keep it where it currently is, our
parking entrance. But what we do is this is a permanent solution to a problem
that we've been observing for a long time. One other item that I should note
and I'll point out , in this location of the building we do have some plans that
are under study to looking at maximizing our site so what we want to do is to
square off the building by filling in a little notch in the corner of the
building and that would raise our impervious up to 80'1. But what we'd like to
point out is, and part of that intent is to try to maintain the green space and
we do have our property site plan shows our property extending out into TH 5 and
we've highlighted the area that the fact that between TH 5 and a frontage road
there will always be grass and that we're also putting in a landscaped berm and
it will have trees on it so we're going to try to maintain a good appearance in
the community. With that I'd like to turn to Larry Perkins who is our Chief
Operating Officer has a few comments to make. Thank you.
Larry Perkins: Honorable Mayor and members of the Council, we appreciate the
opportunity to come before you tonight. I was a City Councilman myself for 3
years in a city just about this size so I can appreciate some of the tough
decisions that you have to make. The purpose of us coming before you is to ask
for a couple of variances because we'd like to stay in Chanhassen. We like it
here. It 's a nice community. There are nice people. There's a lot of brain
power available in the metropolitan area. As I've talked to a couple of you
individually, you know that there are other alternatives that we've had to study
as good managers of our business. We're willing to forego those. There are
other states that we could save a couple million dollars a day just by being in
those states because Minnesota isn't known for it 's dramatic attraction for
people that like to manufacture products. But it's a nice place to live. We
like the area. We're willing to spend about 6 1/2 million dollars.
Approximately 40'1 of that would be to our real estate which would increase our
tax base. We're willing to spend some of those dollars knowing full well that
we'll be improving the building beyond it's marketability so I think that 's just
I/
a statement of another commitment that maybe we'd only get 50 cents back on the
dollar that we spend on the real estate and we're willing to do that because we
think we'll stay here for a long time. Five years ago we had 40 people. Today
we have about 250 permanent people and we'd like to cap this site off at about
300 permanent people. We'd like to, some of this money that we're investing is
to get much more efficient. To eliminate the need for those 80 temporary people
so we'll be a much more stable work force and we think that it's a good long 11
range solution to our problems. We've spent about 5 months and a lot of money
31 1
I
11 City Council Meeting - September 24, 1990
studying all the alternatives. We have at least a dozen different variables in
the air. Most of them we've solved and that's why we're before you tonight
because the parking issue is a serious issue that we want to solve before we ' r
invest and set our 5 year future plan to work. We're proud of the fact that
we're the number one selling conditioner, hair conditioner in the nation. We're
the number 5 hair care manufacturer in the nation and there's about 35 million
bottles out there roaming around the country that say Chanhassen. Manufactured
in Chanhassen, Minnesota on the bottom of them. We have talked to our neighbors
and there are no objections. They're in favor of what we want to do and the
other point that I wanted to mention is that we depreciate your favorable
action. We want to get started if we can possibly before winter comes. At this
,1 point I'd like to introduce Tom Redmond. He would like to say a few things. We
think we've been a pretty good community member and so with that I'll introduce
Tom.
Tom Redmond: I don't know how I got in this pickle. Have you got a cold?
Councilman Workman: I'm not sure what it is.
Tom Redmond: Want a Contact? I was over at Target's grand opening for their
big store and had a cold and stopped into the hotel and paid $10.00 for that .
I'm going to use every one. Anyways, I don't know how I got into this pickle
you know. When I started this thing I thought I could do maybe a million
dollars a year and have a nice quiet life and everybody would leave me alone and
have a good time with the family. It didn't work out. So we kind of grew you
know and everytime we made a new move I always thought we kind of over extended
ourselves you know. When we built this place the first time, I walked into the
50,000 square feet and I thought, my God. What have I done? I'll never fill
11 this place up you know but it always grew and grew and grew and grew until it
always outstripped whatever vision I had or plans we had so now we find
ourselves kind of up against it you know. Where the water hits the wheel. We
don't really want to cause a problem here. I don't think we ever do in our
relationship with this community. I think we've always tried to do a little
more than we absolutely had to. I know the way we run our business is we've
never had the federal government come in and tell us to take x ingredient out of
our product . I mean if we thought it wasn't right , we never used it. When we
were planning to move over to this other site, the ONR and the rest of the
people were tickled pink with what we were going to do. I don't think anybody
is more environmentally conscience than we are. We've bought some land out here
in Victoria and we've bought some land down in Belle Plain and we're putting it
back into it 's natural surroundings and pulling out all the fences and planting
the natural flowers that were. That's the way we run our company. I mean you
know we do as much as we possibly can. That's the way we build our products so
we just need some help. I mean we like it here in Minnesota and regardless of
the taxes and all the other complaining that people have about Minnesota,
believe me if you've traveled around the world, there's no better place to live
than America and there's no better place in the United States to live than
Minnesota. One time my wife and I decided well what the hell. We're
manufacturers. We can live wherever we want now. So we traveled all over the
country. Went to everyplace and we went up and down the west coast you know.
They don't have any snow up there and wound up in Walnut Grove, California.
Thought that was the place to live you know. But the kids were having sex at
age 10 so we decided maybe that wasn't the best place to raise kids and so we
32
I
City Council Meeting - September 24, 1990 r
II
wound up really with deciding that Minnesota was the place to live and we will
always have a presence here you know. We wouldn't move away because this is
where my family lives and my grand kids and so we need a little help. Whatever
we do you're not going to be ashamed of it and neither are we or we wouldn't do
it . And we're not going to take advantage of the situation. That's the way we
run the company. If we have a problem, we always work it out . We do things by li;
consensus and I think if you give us a little help in this one, we can work
whatever problems we have out and I think between us we can come up with a
solution to the problem that benefits you and benefits all the people that work
with us over there. So thanks for your consideration.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Who'd like to start? Tom? Being we ended II
with a Tom I thought we'd start with a Tom.
Councilman Workman: It 's a proud name. It would be a first for me to accept
pharmaceuticals from somebody testifying here. I have one question and I'll be II
brief as usual. I noticed we had a State Senate candidate, Terry Johnston in
the audience earlier running for the legislature. God bless her but to what
extent , and maybe Terry will help us someday. To what extent does the City of
Chanhassen compromise it 's minimum standards to keep valuable industry and taxes
and jobs right here where we want them despite the poor record and showing and
dismal, sad state of affairs in St. Paul. Isn't that where you're from? Is my il
question clear?
Councilwoman Oimler: It 's real clear.
Councilman Workman: I very rarely miss an opportunity to take a shot at the
situation down there. I'm in the insurance business. I know a little bit about
workers comp and it used to be workmans comp which was better. Now it's
li
workers. And it's a sad deal and you guys are in a pickle but that 's the one
thing that I thought , if it comes down to that with the City of Chanhassen and
II
us and a decision we have to make so to what extent do we compromise those
standards. Our crack planning staff and Planning Commission would say forget
it . Thus we're political and I don't have the answer. The impervious is
dramatic. More dramatic than we've seen in a lot of situations. I worry about
how our hard fought TH 5 upgrade, how things look from that as more and more 11
people use it . The U.S. Open's coming by. Gravel lots. Mass parking. How does
that look? And I haven't been able to come up with the answers other than I
really like Redmond Products to stay in town. So under that statement I'm
il
willing to compromise and I'm anxious to hear the rest of the Council's wisdom
as to how far I should compromise.
Councilwoman Dimler: I too would like to see Redmond stay. I'd like to see 11
them be able to maximize their capacity there and I don't know exactly what that
means but on page 4, on the handout that we were given, there are some
recommendations and as far as I can see, we're not talking about gravel. We're
li
talking about 2 inch bituminous. Is that correct Jo Ann? Okay, and no mass
parking permitted? We're talking about landscaping. We're talking about
erosion control because there is a wetland there. I think that's great. We're
talking about a letter of credit which I assume they've agreed to provide.
Okay. And the last point , number 7 is talking about the on site parking. I
guess that 's where I would be willing to make some compromises. We're talking
about 70% impervious surface here but I thought it was closer to 80. Are we not II
33
I
City Council Meeting - September 24, 1990
at all including the extension of the building in this?
Jo Ann Olsen: What that condition is saying is they must maintain the ordinance -
requirement .
Councilwoman Dimler: At 70% including the extension of the building?
Jo Ann Olsen: No. The ordinance only allows a maximum of 70%. What they're
proposing with the parking lot is approximately 79%. With the addition of the
building, I believe it 's about 80k.
J Councilwoman Dimler: So we're saying that if we stay here at 70k, that we
wouldn't allow the expansion of the building or is that under a different .
Jo Ann Olsen: That is not part of this issue. We have not reviewed the
expansion of the building: That would be a totally new site plan so they would
be coming through.
Councilwoman Dimler: But we put 70 in there. We're actually excluding that
already?
Jo Ann Olsen: Correct . If they can work out a way to provide the green space
in placement of that .
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess when I went to look at the site, being that
they're digging into the berming and TH 5 doesn't appear to be, visualization
from TH 5 does not appear to be affected, I wouldn't have any trouble with
granting that setback variance. The impervious surface, as far as I can see,
they're taking out flowers, lighting and things like that. I guess I really
wouldn't object to letting those become parking spaces. There's other
landscaping provided is there not? If they're taking out the flowers and the
lighting and stuff, are we requiring other landscaping to replace that?
Paul Krauss: Well it becomes problematic. There's no place left to put it .
It 's being paved over. You've basically got parking lot islands, landscaped
islands that will disappear.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'm not sure that that will, I mean it's nice to have the
landscaping there and the flowers there but I'm not sure that that would make a
whole lot of difference from TH 5. That 's what I'm saying. So I think if we
need to compromise, those would be the areas where we're going to compromise.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Johnson: I have a question as to van pooling. You didn't talk about
van pooling and also how much contact have you had with Southwest Metro on
trying to establish a van pool and that kind of work? I think we mentioned that
the other day and I'm having problems seeing what's the difference between
getting picked up from the van pool or your car pool at your babysitters house
or getting picked up at your house. Why is having to stop at a babysitters
house different? Can you address those for me for a quick second?
I
34
I
City Council Meeting - September 24, 1990 1
Sandra Reitsma: If I could, I'd just to say that we have looked at trying to do
some van pooling and as I said, we have employees that are in the area. We do
have people that car pool but we also have people as I said who come from as far
away as Elk River, St . Paul, Roseville. All these different areas and when
we're looking at that , a lot of it 's not real conducive. The traveling is not
real well lined up to stop and pick up people. The other thing that we're
talking about with the daycare is the issue of being able to go and get your
children. To drop your children off. To get your children. If they're sick or
whatever and if you don't have a car available to do that, there's a real
problem with that . We have real resistance. We have a real fight from our
employees when it comes to that . They're the ones that are going to be called
to get their children. They want to be able to go to those different locations
and get those children.
Councilman Johnson: That 's true. There's a lot of people in this world that 11
take a city bus.
Mayor Chmiel: Take a bus and leave the driving to us. Okay. Anything else 11
Jay?
Councilman Johnson: Well, where do we draw the line? We've pretty much drawn
the line in the industrial park at the ordinance. The ordinance was made as the
line. We drew the line and that 's a pretty good place to stop. Gary, you
weren't here earlier when I asked a question as to they're talking a temporary
parking lot . 3 years and they want to put rock in. Southwest Metro's doing the
exact same thing. 3 year parking lot except for we're not putting rock in.
Eden Prairie's going to allow us to compact the soil and put 3 inches of
bituminous over the top of the soil. They figure it will last 3 years and
wouldn't last 10 or 15 like you want a regular parking lot but they're not
asking for 10 or 15. They're asking for 3. Would that be a reasonable
compromise on the off site parking? Given adequate soil conditions of course.
Gary Warren: I guess that 's the question is two. There's two parts. One is
the type of use that the lot is going to have as far as the vehicles themselves.
Trucks or whatever and also what is the condition of the subsoils. We know at
least from the Jay Kronick property that these are some pretty lousy soils I .
think. Now I don't know what the results are. I haven't seen them specifically
in that area but I know that they were pretty bad and we actually disposed of a
good portion of the black dirt that was excavated from the City's pond to the
north of that property was disposed in that area to level it. So the blacker
the dirt , the poorer the subbase and so on.
Councilman Johnson: Is there any economic development district correct?
There's still some money in it? Can there be money used for correcting soil
conditions in an area like this?
Don Ashworth: I would have to research that . I'm not sure. You can do soil
corrections. The legislature did make major changes as to what can be done
within economic development districts, which this one is. Secondarily we're
allowed an extension on that district with the funds solely be used for the TH
101 realignment .
Councilman Johnson: So no special legislation? I�
35 1
I
City Council Meeting - September 24, 1990
Don Ashworth: Right . My initial position would be, I think you'd have a very
difficult time spending dollars for that purpose.
Councilman Johnson: I mentioned when Jo Ann and I were there for our tour of
the place, the possibility of looking at ordinance amendment on the setback side
of it . If the sole purpose of the setback is aesthetics. If there are no
environmental or other purposes, than what they are proposing that you use the
same aesthetics as a 30 foot strip of grass. That still leaves the problem of
the 70% green space which I do not believe is totally aesthetics. It 's water
runoff. Storm water. A lot of other things beyond aesthetics so I don't know.
I can see changing our ordinance to allow the equivalent of the 30 foot setback
by a combination of berming, vegetation and whatever. Putting up an earth fence
there.
Mayor Chmiel: Berm?
Councilman Johnson: Berm, yeah. The fence on the back side of the berm so the
berm's vertical. I'm only a civil engineer. I can't think these technical
terms. Maybe I'll borrow some of his Contact . See I'm in a quandry there
because I don't think with, I've always been for the last 4 years very tough on
variances because they spread like wildfire. I can see why the neighbors would
I/ like to support you in requesting this variance because they'd like to do it
too. They'd like to expand and expand into the setbacks and they'd like to do
it too as their business gets better so you know, if they support you and you
get it , then they've got a better chance of getting it . That 's what we don't
want . We don't want this to continue to grow. We've set our standards for our
city and a variance is saying we're going to reduce our standards.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well maybe Jay I can help you with your quandry because
that was my exact feeling when the St . Hubert 's PUD came with, they're way above
70%G and we were saying they have drainage problems already but we went ahead and
approved it . So I have trouble on the other hand giving it to a PUD because
they're a PUD and not giving it to someone else. It isn't necessarily fair. I
mean they can't help that they're not a PUD.
Councilman Johnson: . . .ordinance though. I mean they didn't have a variance.
Councilwoman Dimler: St . Hubert's? Well yeah but by granting them a PUD you're
saying they don't have to meet our regular ordinance requirements.
Councilman Johnson: And that 's legal?
IICouncilwoman Dimler: Sure.
Councilman Johnson: If we could grant these guys a PUD, we could do the same
thing. But that 's not legal. I mean you know, it's a legal framework you're
working with here.
IICouncilwoman Dimler: You're talking semantics here.
Councilman Johnson: Sure we are.
IICouncilwoman Dimler: Let 's make them a PUD then.
36
I
I
City Council Meeting - September 24, 1990
Councilman Johnson: Can they apply for a PUD?
Paul Krauss: I'm sure they could. There's always been the premise for a PUO
though that the City is getting something back.
Councilwoman Dimler: We didn't get anything from St . Hubert's.
Councilman Johnson: Actually we are getting something from St . Hubert 's. I
think we are.
Councilman Workman: We're getting a corporate business and viable business to
stay in town and provide jobs.
Councilman Johnson: I think they're committed, they're going to stay in town.
They've said they're going to stay in town in one form or another. Whether it's J
only a corporate headquarters and their manufacturing goes elsewhere. I don't
see that and I don't take lightly their threats either you know. Give me
something or I'm going to move. I don't do that .
Councilwoman Dimler: You do have some Chan people working here though.
Councilman Johnson: I'm sure we do. I
Councilwoman Dimler: So I think that's something to consider.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anything more Jay?
Judy Bedder: Can I say something? I live in Chanhassen and I've lived here
many years.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up to the microphone so we can pick you up
please on our recordings. I
Judy Bedder: As a resident of Chanhassen I would like to continue working at
Redmond and have the facility there. I enjoy just having 5 minutes to work. No
different than you Don or you Ursula. It's nice. I think we should give them
the consideration. I really do. We employ people from town. When we need
temporaries we help our youth out . The college kids. You know we use them in
the summer. I would really like to see us help them. And I urge you to do so.
Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I have your name please? 1
Judy Better: My name is Judy Bedder.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I guess I'll put my two cents in now.
Councilwoman Dimler: All right.
Mayor Chmiel: I think that , I know that Redmond is. a compliment to the city of
Chanhassen. We appreciate you being here. I think that in looking at a lot of
these things that I have read and what I've been listening to, I too would like
to see us somehow do an accommodation of this. I'd like also to sort of take
37
I
IICity Council Meeting - September 24, 1990
something from which the Planning Commission discussed. The possibility of
I/ treating this proposal as an experiment . I see other businesses in town, as Jay
said, who as they develop and as they grow, get into sort of a bind and back
into the pickle and how can we really address those. How can we as a community .
II wanting to support our industries provide that kind of situation for them.
Experimental basis I think would not be a bad idea so we know where we're going
if in the event this happens in another location. Maybe you have a little bit
11 of input on that .
Paul Krauss: The whole experimental idea that the Planning Commission, or
several of the Planning Commissioners had was something that staff frankly took
II exception to because we had problems visualizing how it would occur. On the one
hand we have an ordinance that says thou shalt do this. On the other hand we're
saying well ignore that staff. Just let them do whatever they want to do and
II we'll see if it works. I can't do that . You can give them a variance to do
that if you can find rationale to do that but I've got to uphold what either you
tell me it says in the ordinance. I don't have the discretion to throw the book
out of the window which is sort of what the Planning Commission was asking us to
do to try out that mass parking scheme. You know ordinances are not perfect and
there are times that ordinances need to be improved and modified to accommodate
new situations. And I don't want to get too hung up on precedent here or too
II much sounding like a bureaucrat but you know nobody's denying that Redmond's
been an excellent corporate citizen and we all want them to stay. We would have
preferred that they build their new plant in the community but barring that we'd
II like them to expand their old one. The concern we have, and we would have love
to have found a solution for them, is how do we differentiate between their
business and the next business to come into town or the next business to
IIexpand? PMT which is building an expansion right now could have come to us with
the exact same discussion. Basically saying I employ people in the community.
I'm a good employer. I'm growing and I need you to accommodate me. I'm not
saying that we can't accommodate people but I'm leery of using the variances to
11 do that or to use experiments if you will. If the ordinance is flawed, if the
ordinance needs to build in more flexibility, possibly we should look at
changing it and coming up with some ideas. I'm not sure what they'd be at this
IIpoint . I'm just real concerned, I guess as to the precedent value.
Councilman Johnson: There was one other on
the percent impervious surface which
is a precedent I don't like, was purchasing the property that's currently used
I as a city retention basin and wetlands behind Jay's Lotus Lawn and Garden's
area. I think Jay owns that right now and we have an easement over it. It'd
end up being Redmond owning it and we have an easement over it and that would be
II part of their contiguous lot and they would then be over the 70%. Technically
they would meet the ordinance. What they've actually done did not actually add
any drainable surfaces or anything. It just played games with the existing land
II but they got to the point of technically meeting the percent impervious. Then
the other one would be to change the ordinance to, if there were no other reason
other than visual to allow the berming in replace of the 30 foot setback under
certain conditions, very specific tied in conditions.
IIPaul Krauss: If I could touch on that 30 foot setback for a moment. I think
the applicant 's admirably shown that from a visual standpoint it will look no
II different as you're passing by on TH 5. In this site that probably works well.
I mean from a design standpoint . From performance standpoint, I support those
II 38
II
City Council Meeting - September 24, 1990
kinds of approaches. Again I look down the road a little bit though and
visualize what does that et us into and with the new comp plan, one area where
we have sort of a residential industrial interface is along Audubon Road. Now
some of the comp plan's been changed by the Planning Commission because of that
but we're still going to be facing situations where we have new industrial
buildings across the street . Across Audubon Road from those residential areas.
We're looking at the possibility of changing the ordinance to require increased
buffer yards but right now that 30 foot parking setback is the only thing that
will separate that new site from that single family home. And that 's the most
we can require theoretically under the ordinance right now. When a precedent is
established for something less, again I've got to try and think how would we
differentiate between that new applicant and this one tonight. Possibly there's
something I'm not thinking of but I'm not sure how that would be done.
Councilman Johnson: When I'm considering an ordinance change, I would envision
that it would not be applicable of decreasing the distance to a residential
zoning. That if we're going to allow a decrease of the setback, the only way
you could do it is with achieving the identical visual impact as the full
setback is but only to another industrial/business/commercial whatever zoning.
That distance setback for noise and other purposes to the residential, the
berming doesn't do it for me because there's more reasons there than just
strictly visual. So over everything else. So that's what I'm looking at as far
as the front parking there.
Councilman Workman: Jay, if I could interject. A lot of the comp plan
discussion involves TH 5 specifically and what is TH 5 going to look like. Now
it would appear to me, and maybe what Paul is saying is maybe in the future we
want , if we're going to have light industrial office on TH 5 and we don't want
to look like Eden Prairie as people are beating the drum, we're going to want it
set back even further. Potentially or to dictate how that looks. That 's the
catch that maybe we're getting into here. If you just have a green fence and a
wall up kind of fooling people, does that accomplish the same thing? I
Councilman Johnson: No, No. I'm saying it has to have the exact same visual
impact as what the required 30 foot setback would and I would not allow fences
to give you that visual impact . It'd have to be of natural material. Such as
what they are doing. With the berm there they're using sod and trees and bushes
and flowers and whatever to give you the visual setback. But to put up a fence
across there and paint it green, that doesn't buy me anything. I agree with
you.
Councilman Workman: Paul, would we be requiring further setbacks from the 30 in
the future?
Paul Krauss: We're actually looking at trying to change the ordinance to do
that, yeah. I
Councilman Workman: Would this fall under an existing use?
Councilwoman Dimler: Then it would.
Councilman Johnson: This wouldn't be for them. This would be for their back
lot line more or less which is up against residential.
39
I
11 City Council Meeting - September 24, 1990
1 Paul Krauss: . . .yes, that 's correct . That 's their only resi-dential exposure is
on the back side.
11 Councilman Johnson: And then they'd be grandfathered because they're already
there anyway.
I/ Paul Krauss: Right .
Councilman Workman: Well you know, two of these requests, the mass parking and
the rock or pavement are temporary so they're not going to be there forever.
And we're saying that we're not going to notice any change in the front setback.
If tfiere's going to be, we're going to know about it and Dave Peterson's going
to publish it in big letters in the front page of the paper. You know the
impervious is going to change but I don't know. I refer back to my original
question and that 's. . .
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Erhart would like to say something.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, Tim.
ITim Erhart : Tim Erhart and I run a business in the industrial park of
Chanhassen. I have for the last 5 years. Our business too has grown
dramatically since we started and since we moved here in 1985. As opposed to
coming in here and asking for exceptions to the ordinance, I think we've
remained good citizens. We saw the growth coming. We planned for it. We
increased our space about 75% last year. We stuck with the existing ordinances
on parking. We're paying the taxes for that existing 75% addition. I would be
extremely surprised to find that another business could come in a year later and
be granted variances in a situation where we simply did our planning properly.
Avoided a contest with the city and basically were acting as good citizens. And
I just cannot see how you can take one business, for whatever reason or threat
and to make exceptions when there really is, as I can see, no hardship other
than a desire to stall in order to either optimize their profitability or their
flexibility. I can see no reason other than those two things. If their growth
is there, certainly the finance will be there to do the thing properly because
usually growth allows spending in that area. So those are my comments and I
would ask that you view disfavorably on this proposal.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Larry Perkins: I'd like to speak to just a few points that may clarify. Also
to give our commitment . As far as visually, I can assure you and I think those
that know about Redmond and have watched Redmond through the years, that we will
do everything. The place is probably one of the most beautiful sites on the
east side of town now. It will continue to be that way and I can assure you
that our frontal view will be equally as good looking as it is today or better.
As far as the experimental point, I guess we wouldn't object if you wanted to
experiment with that concept but we couldn't, it would put us in jeopardy in
terms of putting a time frame on it because we have -these multi-millions of
dollars that we'd like to spend and that doesn't come lightly and I want to
assure you that didn't come lightly to us. We spent, as I said, 5 months and
several hundred thousand dollars in fees studying this project . I'm probably
the one to blame for not building. . .decided not to build out on the new project
40
I
City Council Meeting - September 24, 1990
site. The 55 acre site because it simply was about 5 times too large for good
strategic planning as far as where we want to go in the next 5 to 7 years. So
then we brought ourselves back to square one and tried to decide what the best
thing for the company would be. We don't bring up other alternatives to
threaten in any way but you people as business people would look at your
alternatives as well and that 's the only reason that we've spent these 5 months
studying. As far as the impervious, I'd like to point out a couple of things.
We own 9.2 acres so we own down to here. Now obviously the State has an
easement over this but if you consider this green area here which we' feel, we've
looked at the drawings and feel will always be some amount of green there. It 's
about an acre of green and if you consider that and not take the 7 acres, if
you're looking at the intent we feel that we're at the 70% then and meet the 1
intent of that total acreage. Not just the acreage that we're able to utilize.
I might point out also that Lyman right next to us has much more than 70%
impervious. Also wanted to point out that this gravel area over here, we
proposed a berm in front of the gravel area so visually would also be equal and
not be able to be seen from the highway. So I just wanted to point out those
few things and I'm happy to any other questions you might have.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Paul, that issue of the green space adjacent
to the highway. Which the highway department has the easement over.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, it 's a roadway easement. They own the underlying land
but it 's got a roadway on it . It's no different than a single family lot that 's
platted for the center line of a street . We don't include that area in the lot
computation for that single family lot . Nor do we include it in this case for
their hard surface coverage. In face some of that area is going to be paved
under as TH -5 is widened.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Did you find anything in the book
Jay?
Councilman Johnson: I just opened it.
Councilman Workman: I think Mr. Erhart raises some good points. So getting
back to my original question again, how far do we compromise? We could still do
all of this tonight and in 5 months they could decide they don't want to be in
town anyway and that it would be a nice property to sell. I don't know. You
know that doesn't guarantee, our passing of this doesn't guarantee that they'll I
remain in town anyway. I mean if they're operating on markets and business and
they're going to continue to do so despite what the city does for them or
against them. I
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? I'm not hearing any other
discussion. Is there a motion? Awfully quiet . You can see it's a hard task
for us to come up with a solution.
Councilwoman Dimler: Is everyone okay with conditions 1 thru 6 on the staff
recommendations? Page 4 and 5.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't have any.
I
41
I
11 ,City Council Meeting - September 24, 1990
Councilwoman Dimler: So we could pass those and take number 7 then and
re-evaluate it?
Councilman Johnson: It 's so integral to the whole thing.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well no. The other ones are the off site.
Councilman Johnson: 1 thru 6 only cover the off site?
Councilwoman Dimler: I think so.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: Okay.
Councilwoman Dimler: And number 7 deals with the on site.
Councilman Johnson: The only variance in 1 thru 6 is mass parking?
Councilman Workman: That 's not a variance. Mass parking wouldn't be a variance
is it?
Councilwoman Dimler: Well you're denying that though here.
Paul Krauss: It 's approved the way it's written.
Councilwoman Dimler: That the mass parking not be permitted?
Paul Krauss: Right .
Councilwoman Dimler: So how many sites would that give them?
Jo Ann Olsen: Down to 60.
Mayor Chmiel: 60 to 75, is that what the total was?
Jo Ann Olsen: I don't recall.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Tom.
Tom Redmond: I'd like to clear up a few misconceptions. We don't have any
secrets. Never did. Never will. If you want to know what we're going to be
doing 3 years from now, ask us. We'll tell you what we're thinking of doing
from now. We have the same agreement with our employees. We have no secrets
from them. None. If they want to know what building plans, 4 times a year we
have a big pizza party. We tell them everything we're going to do. All of our
building plans. All of our dreams. All of our products. We have no intention
of leaving Chanhassen in 2 months or 5 months. I mean if we could stay here the
11 rest of our carreer, we would. And we will always have a presence here. Now
let me deal with this gentleman's contention that we're doing this for profit or
the big business syndrome. He's right . We are. Last year every employee in
11 our place got a $2,000.00 check for Christmas regardless of their position.
Whether it was Larry Perkins, our COO or if it was Linda, the lady that keeps
42
I
City Council Meeting - September 24, 1990
the place clean. They all get the same bonus. Everybody got a 10% contribution
to their profit sharing. Everybody got a 50% matching to their 401 K. We've
got the best insurance. We've got the best drug. We've got the greatest hours.
Everybody gets summer hours off and at the end of the year when it came to
divide the rest on December 22nd, everybody got a check for 20% of their annual
salary. You bet it 's for profit but our people share in it and that 's exactly
what this is going to do. That place is paid for. If I could stay there and
guarantee everybody a 20% or 25% check at the end of the year, I'd do it so
you're absolutely correct.
Larry Perkins: . . .commitment , Councilman .Workman I understand what you're
saying but if you put that money into the place, we're not leaving. I suppose
we could get the variance and quick sell the place and go someplace else but
once we put the money, I think that's our commitment to you that once we do that
we are. . .we want to get busy about that because of growth but I think it 's,
we're. . .commitment .
Councilman Workman: I'm not accusing anybody of carpet bagging or anything else
and thank you for the Congressman. No, I'm just saying there's forces out there
that even a well run business has no control over and that could happen. Not by
design but by people so.
Councilwoman Dimler: I was asking about how many, if no mass parking, that
brings them down to.
Jo Ann Olsen: 65. I
Councilwoman Dimler: As opposed to?
JO Ann Olsen: 78.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I think 65 is acceptable. I mean I'd like to give
them the 78 but I do see certain dangers in emergencies. Having cars locked in.
Councilman Workman: Ready to make a motion on the first 6?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. So I move approval of Site Plan Amendment #85-1 for
the off-site improvements with conditions 1 thru 6.
Mayor Chmiel: And what about condition 7?
Councilwoman Dimler: And condition 7 I recommend that we take another look at.
Sit down with staff and see what we can come up with.
Councilman Workman: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Discussion is open.
Councilman Johnson: On item 1, 2 inch bituminous mat. Is this also assuming
proper underlaying and stuff as a regular parking lot? Can we modify the
wording to allow a designed 3 year lot? Normally you have what? 3 to 6 inches
of rock underneath the 2 inch mat .
43 I
t
City Council Meeting - September 24, 1990
11 Gary Warren: That leaves 6 right? If they can provide the soil information
that verifies it , that we're going to get a 3 year life, proper tonage parking
lot, I guess providing that documentation we can look specifically at the
11 design. That will obviously cost money for them to do that .
Councilman Johnson: No semi's allowed. Of course by the design, no semi's
I/ going to get out . They might get in. They might not get out. So would we be
looking to modify condition 1 somehow or another to state that if bituminous mat
is proposed, without the rock underlay?
Gary Warren: Gravel?
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, the gravel.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can we just say something as deemed acceptable by the
engineers?
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, that could be easier.
Councilwoman Dimler: I would accept that amendment .
Councilman Workman: Second.
11 Mayor Chmiel: Wait , wait . Amendment to the existing with an acceptance by the
first and second.
Councilman Johnson: The design of which will be approved by the Engineer.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, that 's fine.
1 Mayor Chmiel: Clarification of item 7 to be looked at at number 7? Come up
with a conclusion regarding the 70% impervious. Is that what you were saying?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. The 70'4 impervious and the setback variance.
Councilman Johnson: Are we going to look at our mass parking regulation at any
time to see? This is written, I don't know. We've never discussed mass parking
the 4 years I've been here. We prohibit it and I don't know why.
Councilwoman Dimler: It's not safe.
Paul Krauss: Well we don't have in town typically places that can benefit by
it. When you see the sporting events where everybody arrives and leaves at the
same time. One of the issues that was raised tonight was that van pooling was
unsuitable because people needed to run for daycare and that kind of situation
for a sick kid. When you mass park, you're there until the bell rings and
there's no leaving. There's some questions I suppose from a management
standpoint for if the City in fact has any interest in making sure that it 's run
correctly and I'm not sure if there's any problems associated with it or not but
we don't have any in town just because it's basically not suitable for most
places and right now the ordinance doesn't allow it. It says you'll have a
parking stall that 's 8 1/2 feet wide and 18 feet long and it's got to have a
drive up. . .
1 44
I
City Council Meeting - September 24, 1990
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Good. Alright . We have a motion on the floor with a
second to have the recommendations with item 1, the acceptability by the
Engineer added to that . Item 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and the on site improvements to be
relooked at .
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Site Plan
Amendment X85-i for the Off-Site improvements as shown on the plans dated August
21, 1990 subject to the following conditions:
1. A revised site plan shall be submitted for the City Engineer's approval
showing that the parking lot shall be paved with a 2 inch bituminous mat and
that the mass parking area proposed by the applicant not be permitted.
2. The parking lot will be permitted for three year (36 months) until October 1
31, 1993, and at which time the area must be restored to its original
condition. If the use of the parking lot is extended beyond three years
curb and gutter must be provided around the parking lot perimeter and the
site must connect to the storm sewer in West 78th Street.
3. A revised grading and landscaping plan shall be submitted providing the
required berming and landscaping.
4. Type III reinforced erosion control shall be installed at all locations
shown on the plans prior to construction and maintained for the life of the
facility adjacent to the wetland off-site. A detail of Type III reinforced
erosion control shall be shown on the plans.
5. A concrete driveway apron (city standard) shall be installed at the entrance
to the parking lot .
6. The applicant shall provide the City with a letter of credit in an amount
approved by the City Engineer to cover the cost to remove all of the
off-site proposed improvements and restore the site back to it's original
condition.
Also to approve tabling the on-site improvements and condition number 7 for
further review by staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1
Mayor Chmiel: We will take a look at that portion of it and then get back to
the applicants as well as back to Council. Okay?
Paul Krauss: Is there any direction as to what areas we should pursue?
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's a good question Paul. I think you're going to have I
to review the completeness of it and come back with some kind of specific
direction I'd say. . . Okay? Good. Thank you.
INTERIM USE PERMIT TO EXCAVATE 60,000 CUBIC YARDS OF CLAY MATERIAL FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW TH 5, SHAFER CONTRACTING, INC..
Jo Ann Olsen: We just wanted you to change from an IUP to an Earth Work Permit. '1
That was brought up at the Planning Commission. Technically it's an Earth Work
Permit .
45
I
I
I
. r_
,..,
_ , i. , ,._
I
CITY OF ____
0.41r
I W. CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 (612) 937-1900 • FAX'(612) 937-5739 woe _
trwri.._ V 4--'
I MEMORANDUM M-,tik.
F..!1.,
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager f>' -- 1 " - :
IIFROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
IIDATE: September 19, 1990 _
SUBJ: Redmond Off-Site Parking Lot Improvements and On-Site
Parking Lot Improvements
I
PROPOSAL
IRedmond Products has two proposals before the City Council. The
first is an off-site parking lot improvement and the second request ,
is an on-site parking lot improvement. The two proposals are
necessary to alleviate a parking shortage that Redmond Products is
experiencing due to an increase in employees. The following
summarizes both proposals and Planning Commission action. The two
II requests were brought before the Planning Commission at separate
meetings. At the applicant's request, these have been combined
into a single proposal for review by the City Council. Copies of
II each Planning Commission report and meeting minutes are attached
for review.
OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
IIOn August 1, 1990, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal
for a site plan amendment to the Lotus Lawn and Garden Center for
II the creation of a temporary parking lot for the use of Redmond
Products located directly to the east. Redmond Products proposed
a parking lot with gravel surface and mass parking of cars versus
I the parking lot configuration required by the ordinance allowing
for minimum drive lanes prohibiting stacking cars. The mas parking
` would provide 78 parking spaces. Planning staff recommended that
the parking lot conform to the ordinance, that it be required to be
II paved with a bituminous surface and that the mass parking not be
permitted.
II After much debate, the Planning Commission discussed the
possibility of treating this proposal as an experiment and allow
the applicant to have a gravel surface on the parking lot and to
IIalso allow the mass parking. Yet, at the same time, the Planning
I
I
Redmond Products Site Plan
Off-site and On-Site Improvements
September 19, 1990
Page 2 I
Commission recommended approval of the site plan with staff
conditions, which required paving and did not allow the mass
parking. During the discussion, staff stated that we would be
uncomfortable with approving one set of conditions and then closing
our eyes to what was actually occurring on the site. We believed
that the ordinance should be enforced in a consistent manner
throughout the community. Staff emphasized that if the Planning
Commission felt that the parking lot surface should be gravel and
that the mass parking should be permitted, that variances should be
granted or the Zoning Ordinance be amended. Since it would be
difficult to prove hardship and the Planning Commission did not
feel that the Zoning Ordinance should be amended, the Planning
Commission, again stated that they wanted to recommend approval
with staff's conditions but they encouraged staff to be flexible if
possible.
ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS
The applicant ,is proposing to add an additional 104 parking spaces
on the Redmond site. The additional parking spaces would be
constrcuted into the front southerly berm adjacent to West 78th
Street, into the berm located at the southeast corner of the site
and the whole southerly parking lot will also be reconfigured. The
proposed changes also include moving the easterly curb cut to the
east where it will be approximately 30 feet from an existing curb
cut on the Lyman Lumber site. The proposed reconfiguration of the
parking removes a large landscaped island within the parking area
and replaces it with two additional rows of parking aisles.
The proposed improvements to the Redmond site result in two
variances. The first is a variance to the maximum impervious
surface allowed in the Industrial Office Park District. The
ordinance allows a maximum of 70% of impervious surface and the
proposed changes to the site plan results in 79.3% impervious
surface. The second variance is to the front yard setback. The
Zoning ordinance requires a 30 foot front yard setback for both
buildings and vehicular areas. The proposed setbacks for the new
parking area varies from 9 feet to 14.6 feet resulting in a 21 to
15.4 foot variance to the 30 foot setback. Moving the easterly
curb cut on West 78th Street to the east results in a dangerous
traffic conflict situation for car and truck traffic entering or
leaving the Redmond site and the adjacent Lyman Lumber site.
On September 5, 1990, the Planning Commission unanimously
recommended denial of the request for the on-site parking
improvements. The Planning Commission did not feel that a hardship
existed for which the variances could be approved.
1
I
I
Redmond Products Site Plan
Off-site and On-Site Improvements
September 19, 1990
Page 3
I
IPARKING TABLE
Existing On-site 175
Proposed Additional On-site 104
Total 279
Proposed Addition Off-site 78
' Total 357
SUMMARY
The existing conditions of the Redmond site meet all of the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and is one of the more
attractive industrial sites in the City. The building, parking and
overall site were designed to meet City standards and the size of
facility/employees as proposed. Internal changes in the plant's
operation are the reason for the request. These changes have
resulted in increased employment and the overlapping of shifts to
promote efficient plant operation. This has resulted in the need
for parking over and above what is typically required on an
industrial site. The applicant is pursuing improvements on and
off-site parking to provide the parking necessary for the
overlapping of shifts and increase in employees.
Although we do not want to appear unsupportive of a company's
success, the proposed on site improvements, result in significant
variances and supports the premise that the facility may have
outgrown the site. As an alternative, staff has recommended the
applicant pursue a "ride share" program where employees van/car
pool to reduce the number of cars parked on site. If the applicant
wishes to remain on the existing site, yet continue to expand, such
alternative means of "commuting" to work must be employed. Other
alternatives could include construction of a parking deck or other
site reconfiguration such as the relocation of a warehouse
building. We do not argue the fact that the applicant needs
additional parking, only that the request for four variances •
(parking setback, hard surface coverage, graveled lot and mass
parking) is excessive. The City Council should balance the
applicant's needs with a desire that poor precedents not be
established that could jeopardize the City's ability to regulate
11 future industrial development.
11
Redmond Products Site Plan
Off-site and On-Site Improvements
September 19, 1990
Page 4
When staff first began to work with Redmond on this proposal, it
was indicated that parking arrangements would be temporary. They
were intended to hold them over until the new facility was built.
When the company's CEO attended the last Planning Commission
meeting, he indicated that the new plant on Lake Drive is no longer
in their program. It was indicated that any major expansions would
be in another state. While this was disappointing news, it was
coupled with a statement that there would be a $6 million expansion
to the existing plant. We later learned that this would include an
additional encroachment into green space on the site. Again, we do
not wish to be unsupportive but feel that additional investment in
the current plant warrants legitimate resolution of parking needs.
This is no longer a temporary situation but rather a permanent one
that could establish damaging precedents for future development.
Therefore, staff is regrettably unable to support Redmond's
request. We do, however, support a modified plan that would
provide some additional parking consistent with ordinance
standards.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: I
"The City Council approves the request Site Plan Amendment #85-1
for the Off-site and On-site improvements as shown on plans dated
August 21, 1990, and Attachment #2 of the #85-1 (8-1-90) Planning
Report with the following conditions:
1. A revised site plan shall be submitted showing that the
parking lot shall be paved with a 2 inch bituminous mat and
that the mass parking area proposed by the applicant not be
permitted. 1
2 . The parking lot will be permitted for three year (36 months)
until October 31, 1993, and at which time the area must be
restored to its original condition. If the use of the parking
lot is extended beyond three years curb and gutter must be
provided around the parking lot perimeter and the site must
connect to the storm sewer in West 78th Street. I
3. A revised grading and landscaping plan shall be submitted
providing the required berming and landscaping. i
•
4. Type III reinforced erosion control shall be installed at all
locations shown on the plans prior to construction and
maintained for the life of the facility adjacent to the
wetland off-site. A detail of Type III reinforced erosion
I
I
Redmond Products Site Plan
Off-site and On-Site Improvements
September 19, 1990
Page 5
control shall be shown on the plans.
5. A concrete driveway apron (city standard) shall be installed
at the entrance to the parking lot.
6. The applicant shall provide the City with a letter of credit
in an amount approved by the City Engineer to cover the cost
to remove all of the off-site proposed improvements and
11 restore the site back to its original conditions.
7 . The on-site parking lot improvements must maintain a maximum
1 of 70% impervious surface, must meet all setback requirements
and shall maintain the easterly access in it's current
location and not relocate it further to the west. "
' ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission minutes dated August 1, 1990.
2 . Staff report for the off-site improvements request.
3 . Planning Commission minutes dated September 5, 1990.
4 . Staff report for the on-site improvements request.
I
I
I/
•
1
I
I
11
I
11
Planning Commission Meeting
August 1 , 1990 - Page 31
I
Erhart: Yeah , but we 've allowed boardwalks .
Conrad: I think they 've gone over 100 feet haven 't they?
Erhart: What we ought to do , if that 's where we 're going , then we ought to
reference boardwalks perhaps in our ordinance and suggest that that 's
what . . .
Wildermuth: Haven 't we allowed a . . .pathway at times? I
Conrad: Not to my knowledge . When it was grandfathered in , we allowed itia
But to my knowledge Jim , we 've never created one since the ordinance has
been in there . And you know , it 's one of those I 'm more concerned on the II
precedent than anything else because I really don't think , in this
particular case we 're talking about as we 've been saying . I don 't think II
that 's a major impact on this . It 's just that I don 't know what the
precedent means . I think it would really open us up for a lot of legal
hassles on any future wetland alteration permit process . And therefore we
wouldn 't have an ordinance anymore and that 's my biggest concern . That 's
one of those things where you say geez , I wish we could interpret some of
these things in different ways and unfortunately the ordinance is the
ordinance in this one . This will go to City Council August 27th . Thank II
you for coming in . Thank you for attending .
SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR EXPANSION OF THE PARKING AREA WEST OF LOTUS GARDEN II
CENTER ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP AND LOCATED AT 18930 WEST 78TH STREET, REDMOND
PRODUCTS .
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item .
Conrad : Okay , thanks Jo Ann . The applicant is here and would like to make
some comments , we would entertain that .
Bob Cordell : I 'm Bob Cordell from Redmond Products . I just want to clear "
up one slight bit of confusion on it . I think both Jay and for our
purposes we would prefer the gravel . That 's where we came from the
beginning because it 's a temporary situation. It is less expensive for us
to put in in a temporary situation and it is the type of surface that Jay II
would prefer . Going to a blacktop surface of course would cost quite a bit
more to put' in and then we have to incur the additional cost of removing
the blacktop to restore it back to the situation that Jay would prefer to II
have . He wants the property for plantings and not for parking so we felt
that in our original plan, that if we had an adequate graveled surface ,
rolled gravel surface that it would suffice for our purposes . Our short
term purposes and also provide a space when we left that is adequate for
Jay 's expansion .
Conrad: Jo Ann , how does that? I
Olsen: Well we understand you know why they would prefer gravel but we
have to look at it from the maintenance point and we have to look at the II
long term . What it does with the wetland nearby . I guess I 'll have
t
Planning Commission Meeting
August 1 , 1990 - Page 32
I
Charles address the engineering conditions but as far as it being
maintained , we 're just not comfortable with gravel .
Conrad: Do you want to address that if you can?
Folch: Well basically , any time you have a situation like this where
you 've got a fairly sizeable surface area that is not stabilized from an
erosion standpoint , you 're going to get erosion . You 're going to have a
dust problem . I can foresee this particular facility during spring thaws ,
during various times during the summer where you 're going to have frequent
rains , it 's going to be , it can be a mud problem . It 's something that 's
11 definitely going to have to be , there 's going to have to be a maintenance
program to take care of these problems that you 're going to have . Snow
plowing during the wintertime is of course going to disperse the gravel .
You 'll have to deal with that somehow and I guess one of the more important
issues is when you have a gravel surface like this , you 're not able to
stripe parking stalls in the parking lot and therefore you 're not able to
organize an efficient parking scheme for the people using it . From that
standpoint I don 't see the advantage . I can understand the situation of
trying to keep the parking lot a temporary situation . Temporary facility
and I know in discussing this with Bob and Bob 's engineer with some of
these issues , they have proposed even going as far as constructing a 2 inch
clear crushed rock mat over the top of the gravel surface to try and dampen
some of the potential problems with dust and erosion so the muddiness that
' they would have but I guess looking at the difference in what it would cost
to put that clear crushed gravel surface over the top versus paving and
some of the maintenance costs that are going to be involved over
potentially the next 3 years , I see as a situation that we may be creating
more problems by trying to solve a parking shortage problem .
Conrad: Thanks . Yes sir .
Randy Patzke: My name is Randy Patzke . I 'm with the Engineering Alliance .
The engineering firm that 's working with Redmond Products and I 've got some
statements that I 'd like to make as reasons for you to consider approval of
' the gravel parking surface and I 'd also like to take some exceptions to
some of the remarks that are in the parcket and that were made tonight .
The reasons for approving the gravel parking surface . One , the parking
area is a temporary lot . The surface is compatible with Lotus, the
landowner 's projected use . Redmond is not in the downtown business
district . They are out of your highway visible district which I have to
admit is improving over what I 've seen in the past a few years ago . The
parking area 's visibility will be blocked by the berm and the plantings on
the berm . The alignment of TH 101 is going to cause a major amount of
construction and disruption to that area anyway. Total cost per square
foot is lower with the gravel . The owner is willing to accept the
potential higher annual maintenance cost. The restoration costs are lower .
Clean fill has no fines in it which will minimize the erosion to the
I wetlands and the gravel will have less runoff and the clean gravel will be
stripeable because the fines aren 't there . Reasons for approval of mass
parking . The use is optional to Redmond employees . It's not the public
parking . Mass parking is used in Minneapolis near the Metrodome . Mass
parking should be used by the first shift employees . Again , the annual
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 1 , 1990 - Page 33
I
cost per space are lower . The curb stops , one of the concerns was driving
into and exiting but the curb stops will prevent that . Clarification from
the memo . Runoff is actually lower with a gravel surface than a paved
surface . Erosion with clean fill will be less because of no fines and the
gravel can be striped . Something else in the recommendations , it refers till
restoring to original . The original needs to be defined . Is that as ■
currently or as compatible with the owner 's planned use . That will need to
be defined a little bit better than it is . And another consideration is II
would the Planning Commission consider a variance to the front of the
Redmond site setback for permanent parking in the future .
Conrad: Thank you . Any other comments? Okay . Tim, we 'll start at your II
end .
Erhart: Did you say you could stripe gravel? I
Randy Patzke : Yeah .
Erhart : Can you explain that one to me . 1
Randy Patzke: Get a can of spray paint and paint .
Erhart : How long does that last?
Randy Patzke: Depending on weather conditions , the surface will . . .so it 's "
going to be a compacted surface .
Erhart : Let me understand what 's being proposed here . Is this one of the "'
new temporary conditional use permits?
Olsen: The way we 're processing it is actually a site plan amendment for
Lotus Lawn and Garden for a parking area on the site which will be used by ll
Redmond . No , we 're not doing it as a temporary use .
Erhart: This is no different than if my company came in and put a gravel
parking lot for my employees .
Olsen: If you wanted to expand your parking lot , yeah . No different .
Erhart: i cannot imagine why we'd even consider this sort of thing . I se
no difference between this and any other company that has parking for
employees in this city . As far as Jay, I hope he's there for 3 years from "
now but I don't think you can base something like an exception like this
based on the assumption that Jay , if Jay does well he'll move to a bigger
spot and so forth and the idea of basing on that is not to me a valid II argument because I don 't think you know that that's going to be used for
that purpose 3 years from now. I don't have a lot of questions. Yeah, I
do have one more question . The 2 inch bituminous mats that you 're
proposing , what 's our standards for parking lots? I
Folch: That is a 2 inch mat .
11
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 1 , 1990 - Page 34
1 •
11 Erhart: It is a 2 inch mat . That 's why they always break up . Okay , I
thought that seemed less than our normal .
Folch: I believe that 's correct .
Erhart : That seems odd because I just put in a driveway and they put in 4
1/2 compressed . It 's 4 compressed to 3 1/2 . I was told that that was
average or that was typical for a private drive .
Folch: A lot of it will also depend on how much crushed rock you put in as
a base too . It can vary .
Erhart: Well anyway , as long as I understand. That 's the only question I
had and as I pointed out , maybe some of the other questions can change my
' mind but I don 't see it .
Emmings: I 'm wondering how we got into a situation where we have a
business in town that doesn 't have adequate parking for it 's employees .
Olsen: Their site plan met the zoning ordinance . I think the problem is
that they 're overlapping shifts .
Emmings: But isn 't that something that our parking ordinance takes into
account?
Krauss: The way the parking ordinance standard is worded , but that 's the
way they went in there . The wording is kind of , it 's a tough one to
enforce . There 's two way of figuring it . You figure it on gross square
footage or you figure it on I think it 's employees on a major shift . What
we 've got now because of their operational constraints and Bob Cordell can
explain it better than I but they have equipment that they can 't
effectively turn off so they wind up having to overlap shifts which is like
Christmas at Southdale . I mean you 're doubling your requirement when you do
that and no , it was never designed to accommodate that .
' Emmings : That 's something we maybe better look at if we 're going to
continue to build industrial and commercial .
Elison: They overlap for what , a half hour period of time? I mean if you
could have moved the cars and things like that it could get done so maybe
it could be solved another way or something like that too .
rEmmings: Well how?
Elison: Parking attendant that takes your key and when the other person
comes , takes your spot or who knows what .
Emmings: Where do you put the car in the meantime? He drives -around?
' Elison: Like a parking attendant where the thing is all filled .
Emmings: If we 've got a hole in our ordinance , I think we ought to address
it because this could be a real mess if it happens someplace where there 's
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 1 , 1990 - Page 35
no land to expand to .
Krauss: It could . It 's a very tough thing to address though because we 're
not talking about physical changes to the building that trip a building
permit . We 're talking about operational changes that we have no control
over or effective knowledge of unless something like this crops up .
Emmings: Well what would we do for example if a business down in the
industrial park with no land to expand to came in with an operation like
this? What would be done?
Krauss: In fact we had problems like this with United Mailing . Whereby II
they were parking on the street and were required to build additional
parking and people were told they 'd be cited if something wasn 't resolved .
So it has happened . It has been effectively dealt with . I
Erhart: Permanent parking lot?
Krauss: It was a permanent parking lot , yeah . I
01sen: And then we do allow off site parking lots in the industrial office"
park too .
Emmings: Then you think that our parking ordinance is adequate and that
we 're going to have these crop up from time to time and that 's okay or
we 'll have to deal with it when it does?
Krauss: We 'll have to deal with them as they do . ,
Emmings: Alright . We 're talking about either what he 's proposed, which I
don 't understand . Some kind of a rolled and compacted gravel surface on
the one hand and 2 inches of bituminous mat on the other hand. Are those II
all the alternatives? Is it one or the other?
Randy Patzke: There 's one other alternative and that would be just a
standard Class V which would be comparable to sand and small fines .
Emmings: That would be horrible I guess .
Randy Patzke: Right . That 's why the 2 inch mat with the 2 inch clear fill
was proposed after . . .with Charles .
Emmings: So the only alternatives here are the two that have been set 11
before us?
Randy Patzke: Correct . ,
Emmings: Well , if it comes down to that I guess from my point of view ,
it 's an engineering issue . I don't know how to resolve it and I 've got to
go with the City Engineer . If they can't convince the engineer to go alon
with them , they can 't convince me either .
1
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 1 , 1990 - Page 36
11
' Elison: The first thing I thought of is , is there another way to solve
this parking problem and I 'm not sure if Redmond 's looked at everything or
if they were to come to us with not necessarily the variance idea . That
wouldn 't even actually probably come to us but I don 't know . It seems like
a 45 minute thing every day , maybe at the max that you have this back up
and if it 's just shifts overlapping or something , or are you saying that
you really need this much parking all day long? I picture that the first
shift goes in there . The second shift comes . They park in Lotus and then
the first shift leaves and you 've got half a parking lot empty until the
third one comes and they , that 's what I 'm picturing . It seems weird that
somehow these open spaces are going to be there . Maybe I 'm wrong .
Bob Cordell : Maybe I can help clarify some of the thinking we have done .
We have grown considerably since we 've been here and we have done some
1 redesign of the parking in the back to accommodate additional cars . We
looked at this for 2 reasons . It was a very temporary solution to the
problem . There 's some things we can do in the front that we also proposed
but not necessarily for this many because we thought it 'd be a further step
which would give us approximately 80 spaces in the front of the building
but would require a variance inasmuch as we 'd have to come in to that what
we have in front of the plant . If we did that however , it creates a
11 certain period of time when there 's total disruption of that lot so we felt
that going into the one on the Lotus property would provide a place for at
least some of our cars to go . We currently have 9 spaces out there right
now and even with the dense parking next door , we 'd only get 76 . But at
least to have that overflow should we elect to go to that next step . It
isn 't true that it 's just during this overlap , although that has become a
major problem with this . Shutting those machines down and getting them
started , and the time to come back up to speed is quite a bit more than 45
minutes and gets quite expensive to do that . We are studying as you
probably all know how to handle our growth . We 're trying to stay here as
' long as we possible can . There 's some things that we can do within the
plant that will increase our productivity and so forth but one of the major
problems is where do we put our people . We 've looked at renting space from
' Filly 's Nightclub and trucking people back and forth . Of course in the
winter that 's a pretty difficult situation and this being very close to us ,
seemed to be the most logical especially in consideration of getting this
facility and there were some. . .benefits to both parties. I can foresee the
place where parking may become the limiting factor of our longevity at the
plant . We currently have about 180 spaces . We have 245 employees. If we
extend the production facility , although there 's going to be a trade-off in
efficiency versus the number of people , it 's still exceeding the number of
spaces we have . I would foresee having to move into that front area but
requiring that that area on the side as a temporary area to help us in the
I short term and also to help us . . .remodeling of that front lawn. Certainly
when we do front lots and so forth, we would do a class job . What we
always strive to do is first class company .
' Ellson: Okay , so I guess it is bigger than just a few minutes everyday .
Thank you . The other thing that I was trying to picture is how much more
is it? How much cheaper is the gravel per square foot than the
bituminous? Everyone says it 's cheaper . Is it like Sx you 're going to be
Planning Commission Meeting I
August 1 , 1990 - Page 37
t
asked to pay or how much more cheaper is the one alternative versus the
other?
Randy Patzke: It appears that over this period of time it 's approximately
$20 ,000 .00 .
Ellson: For which?
Randy Patzke : For upgrading because we not only have to put the blacktop II
in
Ellson: You 'd have to pay an additional $20 ,000 .00 over the gravel?
Randy Patzke: That 's right .
Ellson: I guess that does seem like an awful lot for something for 3
years . Oh boy , you 're going to have a hard time getting your return on
investment there . I 'm not in trying to make hardships .
Folch: If I might interrupt and comment on that . Looking at it , just
running some rough estimates on that . I estimate from their plan submitte
that the parking lot size is a little over 2 ,000 square yards which will ,
with a 2 inch bituminous mat approximate about 225 tons of blacktop
material . Estimating blacktop in place , estimated at $25 .00 a ton , it canll
run as much as $30 .00 a ton but $25 .00 a ton would run at about $5 ,600 .00
to put the 2 inch bituminous mat on that facility . Estimating this same II
facility , putting down the 2 inch clear crushed rock , I estimate that costll
to be about $1 ,000 .00 .
Randy Patzke: I 'd sure like to get your estimates .
Erhart : $5 ,600 .00 to put the asphalt on that parking?
Folch: $25 .00 a ton is pretty common . $25 .00 to $30 .00 a ton installed ill
pretty common .
Randy Patzke: The prices that we had from the asphalt . . .to $12 ,000 .00 . '
Bob Cordell : 50 cents a square foot . I don 't know , I 'm not a contractor . "
Conrad: Any more comments Annette?
Ellson: There were some conflicting opinions on that concrete or gravel ill
better for runoff and when you were looking at it Charles you were looking
at the type of gravel that they were doing?
Folch: You bet . In a sense we 're not , with either method I guess without "
putting in curb and gutter and storm sewer we aren't controlling runoff or
trying to control the rate of runoff . What we 're trying to avoid is an
erosion situation . I do have close experience with a parking lot at a
recreational facility that I 've used quite a bit that has , what they did i
installed clear crushed rock and I can tell you from , they 're always in
there constantly releveling it because without the fine material it doesn't
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 1 , 1990 - Page 38
I
' stabilize real well . It pushes apart when cars are driving on it and there
is no way you can stripe that and have that striping stay in place because
of the rock material because it is clear is real mobile .
' Ellson : Okay .
Wildermuth: I feel a strong sense of obligation on the part of the
Planning Commission and the City to work with industry that has come to
Chanhassen but after reading through this and listening to the discussion ,
I just feel that the staff report has to be supported . I think the fact
' that curb and gutter wasn 't required, storm sewer wasn 't required ,
demonstrates good faith on the City 's part to work with them and I think
bituminous surface is certainly required .
11 Conrad : I also am comfortable with the staff report and I think slipping
the curb and gutter requirements is something that we normally don 't do and
in a temporary situation I think it 's appropriate . I think we have slipped
some of the standards that we would normally impose and do believe that
it 's the requirement of the bituminous is appropriate . I have no other
comments on this . I would hope , I guess long run I think we were asked
would we look at a variance . Actually and that 's a tough one because we
like Redmond in town for as long as we can keep Redmond here and they have
that facility . I guess here 's a situation where I wish we could solve
their parking problem permanently . Not temporarily . It looks like I wish
enough parking was contiguous to the site that was owned under the Redmond
name . Tim?
Erhart : Yeah , I have a question for staff here . I like Redmond too . Don 't
get me wrong . I 'm having a hard time understanding why you 're recommending
to not require curbs in this application when I thought the argument for
not requiring curbs on the one on Ouattro Drive up here where the guy
stored automobiles , I thought the argument there held a lot more water than
this one and I argued that I thought we ought to eliminate the curbs there .
I mean there we had a precedent where the previous parking , existing
' parking lot in that industrial site was flush with the grass and we came in
and basically as staff recommended , they had to go in and put the curb in
the new section of the parking lot . Now how do you weigh this one against
that one? Other than you buy this temporary thing. This isn't going to be
temporary .
Ellson: That 's the biggest thing right there .
' Erhart : This isn 't going to be temporary . This is going to go in here 3
years . If they move , somebody else , the next guy is going to use this
' parking lot .
Olsen: There 's a specific condition.
Bob Cordell : It 's in the contract . . . Our agreement is that we 'll . . .
Olsen: If at that time it becomes permanent , they put curb and gutter in
at that time . The other one , it will be directed into storm sewer . This
one is not being directed into the storm sewer so that 's one of the main
1
Planning Commission Meeting 11
August 1 , 1990 - Page 39
1
purposes for curb and gutter .
Erhart: Well yeah, that 's my next question.
Olsen: Why not? I
Erhart: Why isn 't it? I 'm not saying it 's not a good idea . I 'm just
saying how do we , I was trying to figure out why you . 1
Olsen: Because we were trying to make it work .
Krauss: We are accepting the premise that it 's temporary . 1
Olsen: And we 've got a condition to guarantee that .
Erhart : Somehow in my mind these things don 't end up temporary . That 's 1
the problem .
Krauss: But we did recommend conditions that would help to enforce that II
including the financial guarantees .
Erhart : Okay , that 's my only comment . Thanks . 1
Conrad: It seems to me that if it was bituminous , the oil and gas would ,
talk to me about bituminous excepting oil and gas which it obviously
doesn 't would run off in a rain versus gravel would sink in . Is there any II
benefit one way or another? See I 'm not sure. Oil sinking into the earth
no matter what is not good .
Folch: I think from the standpoint of you 're looking at like oil that may
be dripping from engines and it 's a fairly small spots of oil that you
would get on either surface , you probably aren't going to get a whole lot II
of runoff from that . If you 're talking a much larger puddle of oil of
course , the blacktop is going to send it down off into the pond of course
whereas the gravel may tend to hold it but eventually it probably would I
percolate and the water would carry it into the pond. But I don't think
it 's a problem that should raise any concern just from spots that maybe
drop from cars and things like. that .
Conrad: Okay , any other? I don 't know if , yeah they did ask at one point "
in time if we would consider a variance in terms of impervious surface on
the current site . Are there any comments on that? I
Emmings: How can we comment on it without the staff looking at it?
Krauss: We did initially explore some of those options with Mr . Cordell II
and had problems with it . You lose the, one of the things that 's nice
about that building is the quality of landscaping that 's in front of it .
Chew into that setback, you lose a lot of that . Yes , you can make up some II
of the difference with more intensive plantings but you not only have
setback variances , you had hard surface coverages and we expressed
relunctance to proceed along that manner and expressed an interest in
working with them in fact on this temporary parking lot as an alternative. il
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 1 , 1990 - Page 40
1 •
Conrad: Yeah , I like the staff recommended solution . I hope it works for
Redmond . Obviously it doesn 't totally work for them based on their
comments but I would hope that it wasn 't that much pricier solution but I
do like staff comments . Anything else?
' Randy Patzke: Did you address the mass parking. . .
' Conrad: Yeah , we really haven 't talked mass parking in terms of the
stacking . Any opinions?
Wildermuth: If you can make it work , fine . It 's your parking lot . Your
' employees .
Conrad: Why do we , as a city , why do we care Paul?
1 Krauss : Well you care for several reasons . One of the issues that brought
this about was there 's problems with cars parking in fire lanes on the
site . The mass parking scheme has only , we 've never used it in town . The
' examples where it has been used are fully manned parking lots in
Minneapolis or in St'. Paul where people know exactly when they 're going to
leave and if not , the attendant can shuffle cars around . I don 't know how
many of you have visited the Metro Council but they have a parking lot
where they will block you in . You might be 2 cars in but you tell the
attendant which car you want and they shuffle the cars around and get you
' out . That 's not the case here . Once your car is stuck in the middle with
this proposal , it 's there until the shift changes .
' Conrad: And why do we care?
Krauss: Why do we care? We see people trying to jump medians to get out
of there . If you had to leave in an emergency , you 'd find a way to get
out . We see problems with cars shuffling . I mean there 's going to be
manuevering is tough . I mean does everybody start their engines at the
same time? How do you coordinate this? Is there going to be a flag man
there saying , like at the State Fair saying it 's your turn over here .
Ellson: You could .
I Wildermuth: That becomes an employee satisfaction issue though. I mean
that problem only has to come up 2 or 3 times and Redmond has got , the
management and Human Resources people at Redmond have a problem on their
hands and they 've probably have to address it .
Krauss: When landscaping is trashed. When cars are entering and leaving
' where they shouldn 't . When cars are stacking up in public right-of-way
because the internal circulation is jumbled up, yeah then it becomes our
problem . If it was all internal . I mean if they had 40 acres and we 'd
never see it , I don 't think we 'd care .
Wildermuth: I don 't know . If they can make it work , fine . If they can 't ,
they 're going to have to stripe the lot or put some concrete berms down
1 there for aisle guides or something .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 1 , 1990 - Page 41
11
Emmings: How many spaces with, if it 's striped and they have ordinary
parking there , how many spaces do they get? 76?
Olsen: I think it 's 65 .
Randy Patzke: It 's 65 with the regular and 78, it 's about a . . .
Emmings : But will this give you what you need if it 's striped? If you
don 't use mass parking , will this give you enough spaces to solve the
problem that you 've got?
Bob Cordell : Not quite . If we add the 65 to the 180 we have here , that II
doesn 't quite add up to the 246 people we currently have . We 're thinking
in the long term we 're going to have to do something in front of the
building too . '
Emmings: Why don 't you build a ramp .
Bob Cordell : We 're considering that in the rear of the building . It 's not'
an easy solution .
Emmings: No , I wouldn 't think so . '
Bob Cordell : And then we do that behind our building periodically we
sit . . .and we have a couple cars parked 2 or 3 deep . It 's all within our owl
facility so if somebody should have to move a car , we only have one row
that would be very , plus a couple up in front . Our people are right there
and we could keep the keys for the other cars at the front desk so I don't "
think it would be an insurmountable problem .
Krauss: I don 't wish to be argumentative but I see it as a more serious
problem than that . Look at the plan there , you 've got 4 rows , well 3 rows '
that are buried .
Emmings : What plan? Oh , that one . '
Conrad: Go back in and tell me how this affects the City? They 're going
to jump the curb so we don 't have curbs . They 're going to jump the berms 1
but really the berms .
Randy Patzke: You require a concrete car stop anyway so essentially you do
have a curb . And you do have a 2 to 4 foot high berm on the other side . . . I
Ellson: Maybe we can have a trial period and evaluate it after x period of
time . I 'm kind of with Jim . It 'd be more of their problem than ours. I 'd "
like to see it tried and if it doesn't work .
Olsen: It 'd need a variance . I think I mentioned that before because the
ordinance requires these specifications so you have to receive a 'variance . '
Conrad: To do what?
Olsen: They have to receive a variance to our parking standards.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 1 , 1990 - Page 42
S •
Krauss: We have requirements for parking stall width and aisle width that
would be in violation here .
Wildermuth: So regardless what they went for here , bituminous surface or
gravel surface .
Krauss: I can 't tell you with certainity that this is not going to work
' and that it 's going to cause a horrendous problem . The fact is , I don 't
know because I 've never tried this and nobody I know has ever tried this .
Chanhassen could be innovative and see . The problem is once it 's there ,
it 's the dickens to fix .
' Conrad: Well , is that true? In other words , if we gave them the
opportunity to do this and it affected the City, is there a way to say no
' you can 't do this anymore? In other words , I don 't care if they stack them
20 , I think it 's a company problem . I think it would not be something that
I would institute at my company but if that 's the way they want to solve
' their parking problem , that 's their staffing issue . I wouldn 't want to be
on their human resources group but as long as it doesn 't affect Chanhassen ,
then I guess I 'm kind of comfortable with it but Paul you 're saying it
might and that 's what I 'm trying to get a sense for . Of what would happen .
11 Then the other thought would be , if we let them try it and it didn 't work ,
is there a way to let them try it .
' Krauss : From an enforcement standpoint , there may be an issue . You could
attach a condition to the site plan but the site plan is effective to the
extent that they build the parking lot the way you approved it and then as
long as they do that , they 're consisten with it . This is not a conditional
' use permit . This is not something that you 're adding conditions to that
periodically you were allowed to re-evaluate . Then if something is not
complied with , withdraw your original approval . Your site plan approval
basically is permanent .
Conrad: It 's really a parking . It really specifies the parking structure .
' Krauss: We could probably work out something cooperatively with them . It
could be difficult to enforce .
I Bob Cordell : See if this didn't work . . .on our part and we 'd have to do
something to accommodate it . If we wouldn't , continue to try to do
something that we couldn 't implement , we'd go back to a reasonable plan .
We feel we can do it . Otherwise we wouldn't have suggested it but I agree
with you that again , if we couldn 't get it in here in this density and we
had to put another row in, well we'd like to move it and we would do that .
' Emmings: You know it would seem to me that , let 's just say we did allow
the mass parking . I think Paul 's right . I think it 's going to create
problems . That 's just my sense of it but it's not going to create
problems , if it creates problems to the east they 're on Redmond property .
If it creates problems to the , it's not going to create problems to the TH
5 side I don 't think because there 's trees and plantings in there so I 'm
comfortable with that . It 's going to , the person it will cause problems
for would probably be Jay .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
r
August 1 , 1990 - Page 43
Wildermuth: The most immediate thing is going to be to hop into his
parking lot .
Emmings: And so I suppose if people are trying to bust out of that parkin
lot , they 're going to go over his property . Maybe he can , if he 's not
worried about it or feels like Redmond.
Jay Kronick: I 'll protect myself . 1
Emmings: Have Jay patrolling his lot line with a shotgun you know but , so
maybe it 's not a problem . '
Krauss: There 's one last thing I 'd ask you to consider though . If you do
consider the mass parking , and we 'll of course abide by your decision with
that . It should be understood that if it fails , there 's not an implied
responsibility on the part of the city to grant variances elsewhere on the
site to provide an equivalent number of stalls . If it fails , the
experiment fails and you revert back to the original recommendation . And II
ultimately if it 's impossible to park everybody on the site , well maybe th
site 's overdeveloped .
Emmings: What if we approve this with the striping that 's on the plan , the"
way the City has recommended doing it and then allow them to do an
experiment with mass parking? Then if it doesn't work , what they 're
approved for is what 's on here . They 'd have to recoat it and restripe it II
and do it the way we told them they had to do in the first place .
Krauss : Bob has always worked with us quite well . I mean I would accept 41
letter from him basically stating concurrence with some sort of agreement II
to that effect .
Emmings: We agree not to enforce the , this particular condition pending t
their experiment to see whether it works and that if it has any impact on
the City or a neighboring property owners .
Conrad: That sounds real , I like that .
Randy Patzke: Some of the businesses that you have here. . . You 've got II Rosemount out here and McGlynn Barkery , those are some big buildings that
are already standing . They may get into the situation too where they want
to look at it in the future . You 've got a perfect opportunity with Redmon
on a small lot who is willing to try it and allow a learning experience for
the Planning Commission and City Council .
Conrad: I 'm not sure that that's the rationale I 'd buy . I think just
trying to be ameniable with Redmond as a good neighbor , I think that 's what'll
we 're trying to do here . We're certainly not setting any, that 's not what
I want Chanhassen to be a forerunner in is creative parking . We do have ail
significant amount of space . If we were in downtown Minneapolis maybe but
I liked what Steve said because it may give us the leverage to go back to a
secure plan but also possibly give the company a chance to try this . I like
that and I still , I 'm just not persuaded that this is hurting Chanhassen. 11
think it 's up to Redmond and that 's their business . Not ours .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 1 , 1990 - Page 44
•
I
Erhart : Why do we have an ordinance then?
Conrad: You 're absolutely right . Yeah , your ordinances should be there to
guide . Here we 're saying that we 've got a temporary , we 've got a problem
' is what we 've got here and the applicant . . .
Erhart : Who 's got a problem?
' Conrad: Redmond does . And the applicant doesn't want to buy anymore land
so I think that 's , we could be real hardball about this and just said put
in curb and gutter , buy some more land and take care of your needs . That 's
' possible Tim .
Erhart : I 'll put my comments in after we take a vote .
' Emmings: I guess we know how he 's voting .
Erhart : I suggest you go ahead and vote on that .
' Krauss : I still remain unclear though on how we would handle the variance
aspect of it . We changed the ordinance so you guys do the recommendations
' on variances such as this and City Council has to approve it . A variance
is forever .
' Emmings : No variance .
Ellson: We 're not . We 're approving the way you guys have written it with
an experimental period of time or whatever .
' Olsen: What they 're doing , we would actually have to , they 're not doing
what was approved and they 're not meeting the ordinance .
Emmings: That 's right . I don 't know why we can 't decide on an informal
basis to approve it this way and decide on an informal basis we're going to
allow them to conduct an experiment with .
Ellson: And then after 3 months or 2 months when they come back and then
you give them an official variance . Is that what you 're saying Jo Ann?
How do you let them do it year after year?
Olsen: Or if it doesn't work , what do we do then? I call them up and say
it 's not working or do they come back and they can argue in front of the
Planning Commission and Council?
Conrad: Yeah . I think yes , if we get complaints that it's impacting the
City and I think we should, the City Council has to decide what those would
be . If one complaint is not a big deal , maybe 2 or 3 over a short period
of time . If there are impacts , then I think then it 's going to be real
' clear that they have to go back to the 65 stalls or whatever it is .
Krauss: I think your intent is clear . What I 'd like to do , if you want to
approve it that way , go ahead and let us consult with the City , well
whatever .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 1 , 1990 - Page 45
1
Emmings: But see we 're not going to say anything about it in the approval "
and I think what should happen here is we should , I think it should be
approved the way the staff has recommended and then I think , and you can
check with the City Attorney but I think there should simply be a letter of
understanding between the City and that as long , that will allow them to I
conduct an experiment with mass parking on that lot if they want to . But
if it impacts any neighboring property or if at the discretion of the City
the City feels that it 's got any negative impacts for the City , aesthetic I
or otherwise , we 're going to jerk the rug out from under their feet and
they 're going to have to go , we 're going to go back and enforce.
Elison: But do you say the experiment is for x period of time and then if '
it flies you then recommend something different?
Conrad: I think the experiment could last for 3 years . '
Emmings: Sure . As far as I 'm concerned it could .
Krauss: Well that 's where I 'd like some , see that 's . 1
Conrad: Yeah , you 've got to talk to the right folks . And the Redmond
folks , they 're taking a little bit of risk . I don 't know if they 're takini
a risk . Anytime you deal with the City , I guess that 's kind of a risky
deal .
Elison: I think it should have an ending . The experiment should have a
start and an end and then if it proves to be something , then we do look at
the possibility of mass parking .
Krauss : I think if you 're really going to do that you really need to
consider that variance .
Olsen : Just to approve it . Put a condition if it doesn 't .
Emmings: Then I won 't go for it . '
Krauss: Because I don 't think I really can in good conscience know what
the Code requires . Know what you approved and then say okay we 'll look th
other way .
Emmings: Are you German?
Krauss: Half , yeah . 1
Emmings: That 's the problem . So am I but I fight against it . Fight it '
Paul . You can do anything you want to do . There 's always a way to do
something . Always . If you want to. If you don't want to, you don't want
to .
Elison: I pictured it that it was an experiment for x period of time . If il
it came through that it was good , then they 'd come through and ask for a
variance and we could have proven that it works and therefore granted .
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 1 , 1990 - Page 46
Conrad: Okay . Is there a motion? Steve .
' Emmings: I 'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan
Review Amendment #85-1 with the conditions as contained in the staff
report . •
Ellson: And I 'll second it .
Conrad: Any discussion?
Emmings moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Site Plan Review Amendment #85-1 with the following conditions:
1 . A revised site plan shall be submitted showing that the parking lot
shall be paved with a 2 inch bituminous mat .
2 . The parking lot will be permitted for three years ( 36 months ) until
' October 31 , 1993 , and at which time the area must be restored to its
original condition . If the use of the parking lot is extended beyond
three years curb and gutter must be provided around the parking lot
perimeter and the site must connect to the storm sewer in West 78th
' Street .
3 . A revised grading and lanscaping plan shall be submitted providing the
' required berming and landscaping .
4 . Type III reinforced erosion control shall be installed at all locations
shown on the plans prior to construction and maintained for the life of
' the facility . A detail of Type III reinforced erosion control shall be
shown on the plans .
5 . A concrete driveway apron ( city standard ) shall be installed at the
entrance to the parking lot .
' 6 . The applicant shall provide the City with a letter of credit in an
amount approved by the City Engineer to cover the cost to remove all of
the proposed improvements and restore the site back to it 's original
conditions .
All voted in favor except Erhart who opposed and the motion carried with a
vote of 4 to 1 .
Conrad: And the reason for your opposition?
Erhart: Number one , I think there must not have been enough on the agenda
for the Planning Commission tonight . Even to talk about this thing. I
think we worked hard to make , to set down a document and standard that
would make our industrial parks meet a certain standard. I think we 've now
come up with another way to twist it around by calling this a temporary
parking lot and as a result , if this were to pass , quite frankly I think
you 'd just make a shambles of the existing ordinance . There is no such
thing as a temporary parking lot . They 'll just come in 3 years and say
well , this building 's not going to leave in 3 years and there 's going to
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 1 , 1990 - Page 47
1
have to be shifts there even if Redmond moves to a different building . .1
just don 't think we ought to be doing this just because we think that II
going to change 3 years down the road . They 're just going to
say , well it 's existing . We 've got people parking on it . Let 's just
extend it another year and it will go on and on and I think it 's a real
injustice to the other industries , the other companies in our industrial II
park that have come in and paid the extra money to put the parking lot in .
I think what you 're talking about is saving Redmond either 5 grand . Maybe
it 's 20 grand and you 're talking about imparting a problem on the City that'
could be , in terms of time spent and nuisance , much higher than this .
We 're talking about an insignificant investment . When you 're talking about
the kind of growth we 're talking about , we 're talking about employees . I 'll
just really kind of stunned that we 're even considering it . I think we 've
got good ordinances and there better be good reasons that we don 't follow
them . Regarding the mass parking . Is this another subject that we 're
going to take up again or are you looking for comments on that too?
Conrad: Well we voted .
Erhart : Mass parking wasn 't in this so is that going to be a discussion II
that you 're looking for comments?
Conrad: No,. '
Erhart : Okay . I won 't say anymore .
Conrad: Steve , do you want to make a recommendation to the City Council i
terms of the test? You passed , you made a motion which did pass .
Emmings: I guess all I would say is that if , the one way I see or one
possibility would be to not enforce the condition that requires them to
stripe it to city standards on an experimental basis to see if mass parkinil
would work in their own circumstances . I don 't feel strongly about it one
way or the other . I just see it as an alternative if the City Council is
inclined to try to allow them to do what they want to do , that that would in
be a way to do it .
Conrad: Okay , thanks .
Ellson: If it wasn't something like this Paul , I was just wondering . Let '
say one of our items was just to look into mass parking . I mean the City
put a commission together or something like that . Wouldn't we try to like
institute some sort of experiment to see if it would work? Outside of thi�
individual situation. I mean if you guys are worried because it 's an
ordinance , could it be a trial basis based on us looking at future parking
problems in the City of Chanhassen and doing it , running a test for that II
purpose .
Krauss: If you could work that out legally , possibly yes but typically
when you ask us to investigate things , we just go out and find examples
that already exist and bring them back to review. I keep being reminded
here about this concept of . . .liability . We 're being told to do something
that violates the Code but nobody 's approved violating the Code . I guess
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 1 , 1990 - Page 48
S
agree to a large extent with Commissioner Erhart that Codes are Codes and
you don 't want to be a bureaucrat but they 're there for a reason and I
don 't have flexibility , nor do I want it , to violate codes unilaterally .
Ellson: I 'm thinking of it more like what you said . More like a test
thing . If we were to set the whole thing up as a test . In other words ,
it 's endorsed by the City and it 's got to panel that 's overseeing this test
and we 're looking at it as a task force of some sort .
Krauss : There 's nothing is State planning legislation that let 's you
enforce ordinances except when you have experiments . I mean maybe there 's
' a way that the City Attorney can give us .
Ellson: I would think that that would be a legitimate reason .
Wildermuth : The other side of this coin is that we 're duty bound to grant
a variance then because when Redmond built the building , they met the
' ordinance in place at the time . Right?
Emmings : No , I don 't think so.
Erhart : There 's nothing that says that they are allowed to have 10 ,000
people working in that building Jim . There is a limit .
Emmings : Right . That is self imposed . They 've decided to run their
shifts that way and they create a parking problem .
Wildermuth: What 's your limit? Parking?
Krauss: Yes . Very much so . Parking is one of the major determinants .
IIWildermuth : Geez . A company is successful . They hire more employees .
Conrad: Well Paul , what we 're asking you to do is to look into that option
' and advise the City Council in terms of whether that 's an option . It looks
like that it might be . This item I assume is going on the 27th to City
Council . Anyway , thank you for coming in .
( *Ladd Conrad left the meeting at this point and appointed Tim Erhart as
Chairman of the meeting . )
' APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved, Ellson seconded to approve the Minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 18 , 1990 as presented . All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
' Erhart: Any questions from the commissioners on the City Council update
that was presented by Paul?
Emmings: Yeah . I liked your response .
I
;....... i
CITY O F PC DATE: 8/1/90
\ I II DATE: 8/27/90
\�! , r
CHAIIAEI W id el CASE #: 85-1 Site Plan
�.,, - Olsen/v
I
STAFF REPORT
ii
PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review Amendment for a Gravel Parking Lot
I
F LOCATION: The Easterly Half of the Lotus Lawn and Garden Property I
Z Adjacent to the Redmond Property.
Q
V
I
..] APPLICANT: Redmond Products Lotus Lawn & Garden (owner)
CL 18930 W. 78th Street 78 West 78th Street
^ Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1
Q ,
I
1
II
PRESENT ZONING: BH, Highway Business f-- /3-j'°
II
ACREAGE: 20,000 square feet __
DENSITY: �� I
Q ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - Railroad Tracks II 0 S - Hwy. 5
E - Redmond Products
W - Lotus Lawn and Garden
II
I!! WATER AND SEWER: Available
PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : A level site with no improvements. I
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial II
I
11
Redmond Parking Expansion
August 1, 1990
Page 2
PROPOSAL
On September 12, 1988, the City Council approved a conditional use
permit and site plan for the Lotus Lawn and Garden. The proposed
improvements to the site were located on the southwesterly half of
the property, leaving the southeasterly portion of the property
' open for future expansion. The rear half of the property is a
protected wetland. Redmond Products is located directly to the
east of the property. Redmond Products has proposed to Jay
' Kronick, the owner of Lotus Lawn and Garden, to lease the
southeasterly portion of the Lotus Lawn and Garden property to be
used as a parking area for the Redmond employees.
' Redmond is in the process of reviewing the possibility of
relocating to a new site and expanding their facility until then
Redmond is in need of additional parking for it's employees. The
' type of production that Redmond is involved in requires the
overlapping of shifts so that the production is not stopped between
shifts. The parking provided on the Redmond site is not adequate
' to allow for the overlapping of shifts and there has been parking
of cars in the fire lanes and in other inappropriate areas. To
accommodate the additional parking required, Redmond is proposing
to construct a gravel parking lot on the Lotus Lawn and Garden
' property. The gravel parking lot will be approximately 19,000
square feet in size and provide 78 parking spaces (Attachment #1) .
The parking lot will be serviced by a curb cut on the Redmond
' Products site entering the Lotus Lawn and Garden site from the
east. The curb cut shall have a concrete driveway apron. There
will be no additional curb cuts on the frontage road, nor will the
parking be directed through the existing Lotus Lawn and Garden
parking lot. Redmond is proposing to lease the land for the
parking lot for 3 years.
' The two issues with the proposal is the use of a gravel surfaced
parking lot and the mass parking design of the parking area. The
parking lot is being proposed gravel rather than the required paved
' lot with curb and gutter to accommodate Jay Kronick's wish to use
the site for future nursery expansion. A gravel parking lot
results in high maintenance, increased runoff, erosion control
problems and parking stalls which cannot be striped. The applicant
' stated that they first proposed a paved parking lot but that the
owner, Jay Kronick, preferred gravel so the property can be used
for plant storage without the need for any restoration. Paving the
' parking lot will result in less maintenance, less erosion of the
site (which is important with runoff directed towards the wetland) ,
will be in conformance with the ordinance and will not be setting
' a precedent. Staff has agreed that the curb and gutter is not
necessary but that barrier curb stops must be provided for all
perimeter stalls. Therefore, the parking lot can still be easily
restored for use by the Lotus Lawn and Garden expansion. A
I/
Redmond Parking Expansion
August 1, 1990
Page 3
condition of approval will be for the area to be restored to its
original state. Therefore, Lotus Lawn and Garden will be able to
use the site in the future. 1
The original plan showed a parking lot with typical parking stalls
and aisles (Attachment #2) . The new parking plan shows mass
parking with stacking of up to 4 rows of parking stalls. The
applicant is proposing this to accommodate more parking stalls.
The original plat provided 65 parking stalls. The parking lot will
be attended during shift changes to direct parking. This type of
parking does not conform to the zoning ordinance requirements and
staff believes there will be problems if an emergency arises when
a car double parked will need to leave during the shift. Drivers
may be tempted to pull out to the west onto the Lotus Law and
Garden site. The only way such a parking lot works, as in downtown
around the Metro Dome, is when there is a full time attendant on
site with access to the car and car keys. We do, however, support
the original parking proposal for 65 stalls. Therefore, staff is
recommending against the mass parking proposal. Should the
Planning Commission and City Council approve such a design, a
condition of approval should be that a full time parking attendant
be provided during shifts that the parking lot will be used.
Staff is recommending that the applicant provide a letter of credit 1
which would cover the cost of restoration for the parking area and
will also be recommending that the parking lot shall be restored at
the end of the 3 year period to ensure its temporary stalls. The
proposed parking lot meets the setback requirements of the BH
District and is maintaining the 75 foot setback from the wetland.
Drainage I
The existing site drains to the north into the wetland. The
proposed drainage plan will maintain drainage directed to the
north. Silt fence is proposed north of the parking lot to protect
the wetland. Staff recommends the erosion control be a Type III
and be maintained while the parking lot exists. ,
Landscaping
The applicant is proposing a 4 foot high berm along the frontage '
road with ten 2; inch caliper evergreen trees. Currently, there is
a 2 foot high berm in front of the Lotus Lawn and Garden. Staff is
proposing that the berm have rolling features with elevations from
2 to 4 foot in height to better blend in with the current berm in
front of Lotus Lawn and Garden. Jay Kronick has also requested
that rather than evergreen trees, the applicant provide shrubbery
on the berm which would match the Lotus Lawn and Garden site.
Staff feels that it is critical that the parking area be screened
and therefore, is recommending that evergreens be used where the
I
11
iRedmond Parking Expansion
August 1, 1990
Page 4
berm is 2 foot in height and that shrubbery could be used where the
berm is higher than 2 feet. The evergreen trees must be a minimum
' of 6 foot in height. An amended landscaping plan must be provided
to show the proposed changes in the landscaping.
' RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following
motion:
' "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review
Amendment #85-1 with the following conditions:
1. A revised site plan shall be submitted showing that the
parking lot shall be paved with a 2 inch bituminous mat.
' 2 . The parking lot will be permitted for three year (36 months)
until October 31, 1993, and at which time the area must be
restored to its original condition. If the use of the parking
' lot is extended beyond three years curb and gutter must be
provided around the parking lot perimeter and the site must
connect to the storm sewer in West 78th Street.
3 . A revised grading and landscaping plan shall be submitted
providing the required berming and landscaping.
' 4 . Type III reinforced erosion control shall be installed at all
locations shown on the plans prior to construction and
maintained for the life of the facility. A detail of Type III
reinforced erosion control shall be shown on the plans.
5. A concrete driveway apron (city standard) shall be installed
' at the entrance to the parking lot.
6. The applicant shall provide the City with a letter of credit
in an amount approved by the City Engineer to cover the cost
' to remove all of the proposed improvements and restore the
site back to its original conditions. "
' PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On August 1, 1990, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal
for a site plan amendment to the Lotus Lawn and Garden Center for
' the creation of a temporary parking lot for the use of Redmond
Products located directly to the east. Redmond Products is
proposing a parking lot with gravel surface and mass parking of
' cars versus the parking lot configuration required by the ordinance
allowing for minimum drive lanes prohibiting stacking cars.
Planning staff recommended that the parking lot conform to the
ordinance, that it be required to be paved with a bituminous
I
Redmond Parking Expansion
August 1, 1990
Page 5 '
surface and that the mass parking not be permitted. After much
debate, the Planning Commission discussed the possibility of
treating this proposal as an experiment and allow the applicant to
have a gravel surface on the parking lot and to also allow the mass
parking. Yet at the same time, the Planning Commission recommended
approval of the site plan with staff conditions, which required
paving and did not allow the mass parking. During the discussion,
staff stated that we would be uncomfortable with approving one set
of conditions and then closing our eyes to what was actually
occurring on the site. We believed that the ordinance should be
enforced in a consistent manner throughout the community. Staff
emphasized that if the Planning Commission felt that the parking
lot surface should be gravel and that the mass parking should be
permitted, that variances should be granted or the Zoning Ordinance
be amended. Since it would be difficult to prove hardship and the
Planning Commission did not feel that the Zoning Ordinance should
be amended, the Planning Commission, again stated that they wanted
to recommend approval with staff's conditions but to allow the
parking lot to be constructed as the applicant was proposing.
Redmond Products has already made another application to add
parking on their existing site which will also result in variances.
Staff does not support this proposal but note that it's review will
be scheduled before an upcoming Planning Commission meeting. It is
obvious that there is a parking shortage with Redmond expanding the
number of employees on their site and the fact may be that Redmond
has outgrown the site. It is difficult for staff to be directed to
enforce the City Code on paper but to allow an "experiment" to
occur on the site without being properly approved. Therefore,
staff is still recommending to the City Council that the ordinance
be enforced and that the site plan be approved with staff's
conditions and that these conditions be what is applied to the
construction of the parking lot. To clarify that staff is
recommending against the mass parking configuration being used, we
are adding to Condition #1, the following:
•
1. " . . . and that the mass parking area proposed by the applicant ,
not be permitted.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION '
"The City Council approves of Site Plan Review Amendment #85-1 with
the following conditions: '
1. A revised site plan shall be submitted showing that the
parking lot shall be paved with a 2 inch bituminous mat and
that the mass parking area proposed by the applicant not be
permitted.
11
Redmond Parking Expansion
August 1, 1990
Page 6
' 2 . The parking lot will be permitted for three year (36 months)
until October 31, 1993, and at which time the area must be
' restored to its original condition. If the use of the parking
lot is extended beyond three years curb and gutter must be
provided around the parking lot perimeter and the site must
connect to the storm sewer in West 78th Street.
3 . A revised grading and landscaping plan shall be submitted
providing the required berming and landscaping.
4 . Type III reinforced erosion control shall be installed at all
locations shown on the plans prior to construction and
' maintained for the life of the facility. A detail of Type III
reinforced erosion control shall be shown on the plans.
5. A concrete driveway apron (city standard) shall be installed
' at the entrance to the parking lot.
6. The applicant shall provide the City with a letter of credit
' in an amount approved by the City Engineer to cover the cost
to remove all of the proposed improvements and restore the
site back to its original conditions. "
' ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed parking lot plan.
2. Original parking lot plan.
3 . Memo from Charles Folch dated July 24, 1990.
4 . Memo from Van Sickle, Allen & Associates dated July 18, 1990.
5. Application.
6. Planning Commission minutes dated August 1, 1990.
•
•
I
I
•
CITYOF
f
mo CHANHASSEN 11
)04, if'.
Air P. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 II
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
II
MEMORANDUM
I
TO: Jo Ann Olsen , Senior Planner
FROM: Charles Folch, Assistant City Engineer I
DATE: July 24 , 1990
SUBJ: Plan Review for Redmond Temporary Parking Lot Expansion
File No. 90-18 Land Use Review
. 1
In order to improve a parking facility shortage primarily
occurring during a work shift change, Redmond Products, Inc. is II proposing to lease some adjacent property to the west for a
parking lot. The parking lot improvement is proposed to be a
temporary facility constructed of crushed rock with no curb and
gutter or storm sewer . The applicant has expressed a desire to
construct the parking lot in this manner in order to facilitate II
removal and restoration of the area when the use is no longer
needed.
II
PARKING
The City typically requires a paved surface with curb and gutter II
as a fundamental design criteria for a parking lot. A gravel
surface is not desirable for a parking lot facility. This type
I
of surface will be a constant source of erosion. During the
spring thaw and at various times during the year, the lot will be
muddy and will require frequent maintenance. Snow plowing will
Ilikely disturb and disperse the gravel surface.
A mass parking scheme is proposed to maximize capacity. This
will force many cars to be "double parked" and blocked in. This
II
again is not an ideal condition, especially during an emergency
situation. Striping of parking stalls to maintain organized and
orderly parking is not feasible on a gravel surface.
I
DRAINAGE
The existing land for this improvement drains to the north into a
II
ponding basin. The grading plan for the proposed improvement
II
11
11 Jo Ann Olsen
July 24 , 1990
Page 2
exhibits a sheet drainage scheme to the north consistent with the
present condition. Silt fence is shown on the plans to be
' installed north of the parking lot just south of the pond. It is
recommended that Type III reinforced erosion control be installed
prior to construction and maintained throughout the life of the
' parking lot. Existing curb will need to be removed for the
entrance to the proposed parking lot. It is recommended that a
concrete driveway apron be installed.
On July 18 , 1990 I conveyed the aforementioned concerns by phone
to Mr. Anthony Pini of Van Sickle, Allen and Associates (engineer
' for the applicant) . Mr. Pini acknowledged my concerns and
provided some suggestions to remedy these potential problems .
Mr. Pini stressed that the applicant is aware that an ongoing
' maintenance program will be necessary for the parking lot and
that erosion control must be maintained for the life of the
facility. The applicant is also proposing to install a 2-inch
mat of "clear" crushed rock to control potential muddy spots.
' Being that the parking lot is to be used on a voluntary employee
participation basis , the applicant does not anticipate any major
problems for egress of vehicles .
Taking Mr. Pini ' s suggestions into consideration, I am still
concerned about a number of items . First of all , the issue of
' emergency egress of one or more parked vehicles has not been
adequately addressed. Subsequently, the idea of "double" parking
seems to be an inappropriate proposal . Stall striping is not a
viable option on a gravel surface. Without stall striping it is
' difficult to achieve organized and orderly parking on a regular
basis . Finally, the applicant acknowledges that an ongoing
maintenance routine would be necessary for a gravel parking
' surface. However , the time and material cost to maihtain this
type of lot for a period of years may in fact approach or exceed
the initial cost of paving the parking lot. If a gravel surface
is permitted, the applicant would have to enter into a
maintenance agreement with the City and provide the necessary
securities .
' It is my conclusion that the temporary parking lot should be
paved at this time and will not adversely affect the opportunity
to revert the area back to its original condition.
RECOMMENDATIONS
' 1 . The applicant shall as a minimum pave a 2-inch bituminous mat
over the entire parking lot and provide barrier curb stops
for all perimeter parking stalls.
1
I
Jo Ann Olsen
July 24 , 1990
Page 3
1
2 . Type III reinforced erosion control shall be installed at all
locations shown on the plans prior to construction and
maintained for the life of the facility. A detail of Type
III reinforced erosion control shall be shown on the plans .
3 . A concrete driveway apron (City standard) shall be installed 1
at the entrance to the parking lot.
4 . A maximum time limit of three years shall be defined for the
parking lot. This will confirm its "temporary" status . If
its life is desired to be longer than three years, it shall
be constructed with curb and gutter .
5 . The applicant shall provide the City with a bond or letter of
credit in an amount not less than the cost to remove all of
the proposed improvements and restore the site back to its
original conditions .
CD F:ktm
c: Gary Warren , City Engineer
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.,,,...—T,:.�r:w," ICI Ar ..ow
""° "°"°"" V.OS3NNIW 'N3SSVHNVHO 01411/t .ry roue*Ilo 110/0"avw Ytw ..
••- ONI 'S31tlI005Stl 'ONI SlOflQObd ONOW038
l-dS
_ •— N371V 3 DIOIS NtlA i'I ir— mots V tgosv»MP M
IOW w,rv�Mal rm.
1
1
e
I ,�I z ! WWII g
I I 1a II III:IIQgppQI N (
I
I
1
1//: --) ( I I ( I ) =...A
1 1
1 J
2 e li 11 41 . _
J
0
zz I-
al • - 3 O
1111 tl
, .,,,, ,, ,, li .
ii r 3 4 i 'Y p O
a i •
8 I ��• w<
} 1 I o / 1 :1110 a
it I ii 4 0
ee K Q
1 i v ' w
1i I
<9i \ i CD
I
Poi t.4 1
riiv,..4.A...\
iI
I l 797'Ha) 1' 1\ (7)
1 1
I
I MASS PARKING PLAN
•
ATTACHMENT #1
I .
G' . �J
c, � I
U
M 11 t
NI
NEW GRAVEL 117'_0"
PARKING LOT f
75' SETBACK
( -::
2
o)
1 IiiNEW III
`fib CURB
LOTUS - _ ■ , ; CUT I
_ o;
_ I 111
: i ! 111 � �oj n v - tint
I,�
`.-°1 0 v 1 1 RETENTION
EXIST. I 0 0 POND i TiLi
-- LOTUS i . 0 U
--/ LOT 0 v �-- � ;�
0_ I I ii
11
- I ),
N -- 25' SETBACK
PER ....--- L______J til
-
Rp Ap
FRpN1AGE
1
STATE HIGHWAY NO. 5 '
I 1
I
1
I
ORIGINAL PLAN PROPOSED SITE PIN
SCALE: 1"=60.-0*
ATTACHMENT #2
•
' VAN SICKLE, ALLEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
4969 OLSON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY • MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55422 • 612/541-9804
/I
I
TELEPHONE CONVERSATION MEMO
TO: Mr. Bob Cordell
DATE: July 18, 1990
JOB : Redmond - Temporary Parking Lot
VAA COMM. NO. : 90 . 005 . 10
BETWEEN: A.J. Pini and Charles Folch, Chanhassen
Assistant City Engineer
COPY TO: Richard Van Sickle
Charles Folch
I
Discussed the temporary parking lot with Folch. The
following are his comments/concerns :
1 . Folch did not feel that the plan as submitted was very
desirable for the city or the owner.
2 . The city needs to be very careful to not set the wrong
kinds of precedents .
3 . The parking lot will be a constant source of erosion.
4. The parking lot surface will be muddy, will require
constant maintenance and will be susceptible to
displacement by snow plowing.
5 . Mass parking was questioned with respect to emergency
egress of "blocked in" vehicles.
RECEIVED
JUL 2 3 1990
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Consulting Engineers • Civil • Structural
. n
Telephone Conversation Memo
July 19, 1990
Page 2 of 2
Pini responded by suggesting that:
1 . Erosion control be left in place and maintained in good
condition permanently (ie. for the life of the
facility)
2 . We are proposing a 2" thick surface of "clear" crushed
rock which will help to control "muddy" spots.
3. Maintenance is anticipated and will be provided by the
owner. It is certainly in the owners interest to
conduct such maintenance.
4 . Mass parking is quite common and is not anticipated to
be a problem for the owner or employees . Employee
participation is to be on a voluntary basis.
In a subsequent phone conversation Folch indicated that the
city would consider the proposed plan and make a
recommendation to the Planning Commission, but that there
would be certain provisions that they would recommend be
attached to the approval . These provisions would include
but might not be limited to:
1 . A definite time limit for the use of the facility with
an agreement to remove the lot after that time.
2 . Requirement for a bond to cover the cost of removal of I
the facility.
Pini thanked Folch for his help and cooperation on this 1
matter.
UNLESS NOTIFIED WITHIN 7 DAYS, 1
ALL ITEMS ABOVE ARE ASSUMED TO BE CORRECT
AJP/cmm 1
v719phon
1
i
1
1
1