Loading...
8 a & b. Redmond Products, 18930 West 78th St. I IT ti E A P, I OF I 4 CHANHASSEN I690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 Action b, , a;.,,1n:;_ v I F / _• edo�cec' ° ���' MEMORANDUM ModiNe- .-_.. Rejech ._ _ . I TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Ds!r--S-=20.:: `'f Date Su_ FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner DATE: September 19, 1990 �_ _ G_ . __ I SUBJ: Redmond Off-Site Parking Lot Improvements and On-Site Parking Lot Improvements IPROPOSAL Redmond Products has two proposals before the City Council. The I 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 I summarizes both proposals and Planning Commission action. The two requests were brought before the Planning Commission at separate meetings. At the applicant's request, these have been combined I into a single proposal for review by the City Council. Copies of each Planning Commission report and meeting minutes are attached for review. 1 OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS On August 1, 1990, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal I 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 proposed I 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. The mas parking I would provide 78 parking spaces. Planning staff recommended that the parking lot conform to the ordinance, that it be required to be paved with a bituminous surface and that the mass parking not be permitted. IAfter much debate, the Planning Commission discussed the possibility of treating this proposal as an experiment and allow I 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 1 Redmond Products Site Plan Off-site and On-Site Improvements September 19, 1990 Page 2 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. 1 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 Redmond Products Site Plan li I Off-site and On-Site Improvements September 19, 1990 Page 3 I • IPARKING TABLE Existing On-site 175 I Proposed Additional On-site 104 ITotal 279 Proposed Addition Off-site 78 ITotal 357 II. SUMMARY The existing conditions of the Redmond site meet all of the I 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 II 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 I 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 Ioverlapping of shifts and increase in employees. Although we do not want to appear unsupportive of a company's I 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 I 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 I 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 I {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 I established that could jeopardize the City's ability to regulate future industrial development. 1 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: "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. 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 adjacent to the wetland off-site. A detail of Type III reinforced erosion 1 , 1 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 1 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 its original conditions. 1 7. The on-site parking lot improvements must maintain a maximum 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 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 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 31 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? Conrad: Not to my knowledge. When it was grandfathered in, we allowed it l 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 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 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 well 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 I these things in different ways and unfortunately the ordinance is the ordinance in this one. This will go to City Council August 27th. Thank you for coming in . Thank you for attending . SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR EXPANSION OF THE PARKING AREA WEST OF LOTUS GARDEN CENTER ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP AND LOCATED AT 18930 WEST 78TH STREET, REDMON11 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 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 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 , I 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? 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 long term . What it does with the wetland nearby. I guess I 'll have 1 . Planning Commission Meeting ' August 1 , 1990 - Page 32 ' 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? Foich: 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 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 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 . 1 Planning Commission Meeting • August 1 , 1990 - Page 33 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 II gravel can be striped . Something else in the recommendations , it refers to 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 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 end . Erhart: Did you say you could stripe gravel? Randy Patzke : Yeah . , Erhart: Can you explain that one to me . 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 I new temporary conditional use permits? Olsen: The way we 're processing it is actually a site plan amendment for II Lotus Lawn and Garden for a parking area on the site which will be used by 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 see' 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 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 II do have one more question . The 2 inch bituminous mats that you 're proposing , what 's our standards for parking lots? Folch: That is a 2 inch mat . ' I 1r ' Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 34 Erhart: It is a 2 inch mat . That 's why they always break u . Okay ,Y Y P Y . I thought that seemed less than our normal . Folch: I believe that 's correct . • 11 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 . Ellson: 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. ' Emmings: Well how? Ellson: 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? IIEllson: 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 11 it because this could be a real mess if it happens someplace where there 's 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 . I 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 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 . Erhart: Permanent parking lot? , Krauss: It was a permanent parking lot , yeah . Olsen: And then we do allow off site parking lots in the industrial officil park too . Emmings: Then you think that our parking ordinance is adequate and that I 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 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 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 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 alone with them , they can't convince me either . ' Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 36 Ellson: 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 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 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 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 5x you 're going to be Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 37 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 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 submittec' 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 can I 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 facility , putting down the 2 inch clear crushed rock , I estimate that cost I 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 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 is 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 ill 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 I ' Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 38 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 . Elison: 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. 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 August 1 , 1990 - Page 39 purposes for curb and gutter . Erhart: Well yeah, that's my next question. Olsen: Why not? 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 . Olsen: Because we were trying to make it work . ' Krauss: We are accepting the premise that it's temporary . Olsen: And we've got a condition to guarantee that . ' Erhart: Somehow in my mind these things don't end up temporary . That 's the problem . ' Krauss: But we did recommend conditions that would help to enforce that including the financial guarantees . 1 Erhart : Okay, that 's my only comment . Thanks. Conrad: It seems to me that if it was bituminous , the oil and gas would , 1 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 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 I 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 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 I whereas the gravel may tend to hold it but eventually it probably would 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? Emmings: How can we comment on it without the staff looking at it? i Krauss: We did initially explore some of those options with Mr . Cordell and had problems with it. You lose the, one of the things that 's nice I 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 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 . • 1 • Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 40 • 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? 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. • 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 there for aisle guides or something . • Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 47 have to be shifts there even if Redmond moves to a different building . I 1 just don 't think we ought to be doing this just because we think that something 's 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 of 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 park that have come in and paid the extra money to put the parking lot in . Y 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 'm 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 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 in 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 parking • 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 be a way to do it . Conrad: Okay , thanks. �e Elison: If it wasn't something like this Paul , I was just wondering. Let 's 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 this 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 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 11 Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 48 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. I. 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. ' Wildermuth: 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 CC DATE: 8/27/90 11 flAHASSE _ N �J CASE #. 85 1 Site Plan •• Olsen/v II STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review Amendment for a Gravel Parking Lot Imm LOCATION: The Easterly Half of the Lotus Lawn and Garden Property Adjacent to the Redmond Property. Q V mmi APPLICANT: Redmond Products Lotus Lawn & Garden (owner) 18930 W. 78th Street 78 West 78th Street Clm Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Q . PRESENT ZONING: BH, Highway Business ACREAGE: 20,000 square feet iM' .^01e.1 ^ .nuncil� DENSITY: g.�- a Q ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - Railroad Tracks S - Hwy. 5 E - Redmond Products W - Lotus Lawn and Garden W WATER AND SEWER: Available ui PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : A level site with no improvements. 11 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial I 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 Iused 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 1 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. 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 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 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 • Redmond 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 II 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 1 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. 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. • 1 1 1 CITY OF • CHANHASSEN � 1 111 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: _ Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Charles Folch, Assistant City Engineer DATE: July 24 , 1990 111 SUBJ: Plan Review for Redmond Temporary Parking Lot Expansion File No. 90-18 Land Use Review In order to improve a parking facility shortage primarily occurring during a work shift change, Redmond Products, Inc. is 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 removal and restoration of the area when the use is no longer needed. PARKING 1 The City typically requires a paved surface with curb and gutter as a fundamental design criteria for a parking lot. A gravel surface is not desirable for a parking lot facility. This type 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 likely 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 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. DRAINAGE 1 The existing land for this improvement drains to the north into a ponding basin. The grading plan for the proposed improvement 1 1 • • Jo Ann Olsen July 24, 1990 Page 2 I 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 maintain 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. I I Jo Ann Olsen July 24, 1990 Page 3 I 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 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 . 1 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 . CDF:ktm i c: Gary Warren , City Engineer I I 1 I 1 I I ' --.----7-141 :vu. 31 Li va •∎--•-1 '�NIR.01,VI M..1.M Y 1,44 VlOS3NNIW'N3SSYHNVHO "w 110*M0101D�O1Qi1D7J� G�. ,;_-- "ON'S10f100tJd ONOW03d ^...W:_.r r N37 iY 3 DI�1S N9 Ill LLJ MK.a d M I IS 1 j R ss If! 4 El I of ill 11111i1 i o J g$i of i: 1 ill II R i b 'IC2 I 1 11 1 1 11 1I c1 a 1 iy. ' 1.t„ 9e= I a I5 1;eee! Ei11ae1pq EI A 10 ( ( 1 ' Io a 2 7 7 2 I ' _ (-/4 I - Z 9 J I1 V�r tn O o CC ip I- 16'L69'��.LL_� - om- =_'"�=- U I 1 I/, /! q A i ti cn d • • o- n ( t yy � ' 6 I C I i :: z LiJ c v' i : S r,i ... N i ; k _ Ica _ I.— ems—s O z til{ f Q � \ 1 l 1 I iI ; ti I I MASS PARKING PLAN . ATTACHMENT #1 I • G' • I -j ��° 1 :III. i U PLI� O NEW GRAVEL 1i7_0- __it (7:: 47_ PARKING LOT 75' SETBACK 1 2 NEW 4 It LOTUS to, .,• CUT li ! 1Il - �I 0 0 - ;;; III n v RETENTION .I� ' �1 n U POND '!I 'L' ,:...t EXIST. I n U I LOTUS I n v i� LOT i n v I1 o U II : : !;. ----""(-'- 25' SETBACK )P TY -------- - R�Ap FRpN-AGE 1 r STATE HIGHWAY NO. 5 I I 1 • - - - - 1 • ORIGINAL PLAN PROPOSED SITE PL/I\ SCALE. 181.---60'--0* ATTACHMENT #2 VAN SICKLE, ALLEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. • ' 4969 OLSON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY • MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55422 • 612/541-9804 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 I. Assistant City Engineer COPY TO: Richard Van Sickle ' Charles Folch 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. II RECEIVED ' JUL 2 3 1990 CITY OF CHANHASSEN ' Consulting Engineers • Civil Structural Telephone Conversation Memo , July 19, 1990 - Page 2 of 2 I 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 the facility. ' Pini thanked Folch for his help and cooperation on this matter. UNLESS NOTIFIED WITHIN 7 DAYS, ALL ITEMS ABOVE ARE ASSUMED TO BE CORRECT AJP/cmm v719phon ' 1 I LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: Redmond Products, Inc. OWNER: Lotus Lawn & Garden (Jay Kronick) ' ADDRESS 18930 W. 78th Street ADDRESS 78 W. 78th St. Chanhassen. MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Zip Code ' TELEPHONE (Daytime) (612) 934-4868 TELEPHONE 949-0726 Zi p Code REQUEST: ' Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development ' Zoning Appeal _ Sketch Plan • Preliminary Plan Zoning Variance Final Plan ' Zoning Text Amendment _ Subdivision Land Use Plan Amendment Platting ' Conditional Use Permit Metes and Bounds Street/Easement Vacation X Site Plan Review ' Wetlands Permit PROJECT NAME Redmond Products Leased Parking Area - • PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION BH REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION PRESENT ZONING ' REQUESTED ZONING USES PROPOSED Parking ' SIZE OF PROPERTY Approximately 20,000 S.F. LOCATION REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST Additional Parking For Redmond Products, Inc. i ' LEGAL DESCRIPTION -(Attach legal if necessary) • '1 City of Chanhassen Land Development Application II Page 2 • FILING INSTRUCTIONS: II This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or II clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the City Planner to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements I applicable to your application. FILING CERTIFICATION: The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all I applicable City Ordinances. ' Signed By , Date r—fkli, Applicant I The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant ' authorized to make this application for the property hhs been - described. P party herein -Signed By '�' / � .. Date I f.7- U II Cr --7Z277 f � �j k�PC11Cih) V ,./ • Date Application Received I Application Fee Paid. I City Receipt No. •• • * This Application will be considered .by the Planning Commission/ I Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their meeting. II II ' Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 31 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? Conrad: Not to my knowledge . When it was grandfathered in , we allowed it . 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 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 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 you for coming in . Thank you for attending . SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR EXPANSION OF THE. PARKING AREA WEST OF LOTUS GARDEN 1 CENTER ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP AND LOCATED AT 18930 WEST 78TH STREET, REDMOND PRODUCTS. Jo Anne 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 ' 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 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? 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 long term . What it does with the wetland nearby . I guess I 'll have 1. • Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 32 ' 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 1 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 ' 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 . II You 'll have to deal with that somehow and I guess one of the more importan 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 I 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 inc 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 cos 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 oil 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 I 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 I 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 wetlands and the gravel will have less runoff and the clean gravel will bell 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 I - 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 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 1 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 to 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 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 1 end . Erhart: Did you say you could stripe gravel? Randy Patzke: Yeah . Erhart : Can you explain that one to me . 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 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 see 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 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? Folch: That is a 2 inch mat . I . 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 34 1 • 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 . 1 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 all 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 I 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? I 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 I 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 lik 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 . Ellson: 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 . 1 Emmings: Well how? Ellson: Parking attendant that takes your key and when the other person 1 comes , takes your spot or who knows what. Emmings: Where do you put the car in the meantime? He drives around? 1 Ellson: 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 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 . Erhart: Permanent parking lot? . Krauss: It was a permanent parking lot , yeah . Olsen: 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 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 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 along with them , they can't convince me either . • Planning Commission Meeting ' August 1 , 1990 - Page 36 • Ellson: 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 I 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 I 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 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 ste 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 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 I 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 1 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 short term and also to help us. . .remodeling of that front lawn. Certainly III 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 August 1 , 1990 - Page 37 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 ' 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 submitted 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 can 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 facility , putting down the 2 inch clear crushed rock , I estimate that cost 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 is 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 is II 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 is 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 II Planning Commission Meeting I August 1 , 1990 - Page 38 stabilize real well . It pushes apart when cars are driving on it and therJI 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 . I Ellson: Okay . Wildermuth: I feel a strong sense of obligation on the part of the I 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 II 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. II 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 an in a temporary situation I think it 's appropriate . I think we have slippe 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 II 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 ll 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'I 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 I not requiring curbs on the one on Quattro 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 i 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 b temporary . • Elison: That 's the biggest thing right there. • I 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 II parking lot . Olsen: There 's a specific condition. I 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 II -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 II 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 39 purposes for curb and gutter . Erhart: Well yeah, that 's my next question. Olsen: Why not? 1 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 . Olsen: Because we were trying to make it work . Krauss: We are accepting the premise that it 's temporary . Olsen: And we 've got a condition to guarantee that . Erhart : Somehow in my mind these things don 't end up temporary . That 's the problem . Krauss: But we did recommend conditions that would help to enforce that 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 1 benefit one way or another? See I 'm not sure . Oil sinking into the earth no matter what is not good . 1 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 ' 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 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? ' 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 ' 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 ' 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 . Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 40 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 II do like staff comments . Anything else? Randy Patzke: Did you address the mass parking. . . i 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 II 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 brough 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 toll 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 II 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 II 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 . Elison: You could . ' 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 11 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 I 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 there for aisle guides or something. 11 i ' Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 41 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 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 own facility so if somebody should have to move a car , we only have one row 11 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 1 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 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 . . . 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. • Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 42 I 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 II 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 theril 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" 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 conditiona]' 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 I 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 . 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 11 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 I comfortable with that . It 's going to , the person it will cause problems for would probably be Jay. 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting 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 parking 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 . ' 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 ultimately if it 's impossible to park everybody on the site , well maybe the 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 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 a letter from him basically stating concurrence with some sort of agreement to that effect . Emmings: We agree not to enforce the , this particular condition pending ' 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 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 Redmond 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 ' 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 a 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. I think it 's up to Redmond and that 's their business. Not ours. Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 44 Erhart: Why do we have an ordinance then? Conrad: You're absolutely right . Yeah , your ordinances should be there 1 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 II in curb and gutter , buy some more land and take care of your needs . That 'll 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 recommendation 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 til 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 II 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 tc' approve it that way , go ahead and let us consult with the City , well . whatever . Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 45 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 ' 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 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 . Ellson: 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 . ' 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 taking a risk . Anytime you deal with the City , I guess that 's kind of a risky deal . Ellson: 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 the other way . Emmings: Are you German? ' Krauss: Half , yeah. 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 . Ellson: I pictured it that it was an experiment for x period of time. If 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. 1 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 Plall 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 in 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 location shown on the plans prior to construction and maintained for the life o 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 al 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 noti 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 II 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 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 47 ' have to be shifts there even if Redmond moves to a different building . I just don't think we ought to be doing this just because we think that ' something's 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 'm ' 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 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 in 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 parking 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 be a way to do it. Conrad: Okay , thanks . ' Elison: If it wasn't something like this Paul , I was just wondering . Let's 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 this ' 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 ' 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 II 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 agree to a large extent with Commissioner Erhart that Codes are Codes and II 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 tes11 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 dther 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 i shifts that way and they create a parking problem. Wildermuth: What 's your limit? Parking? I Krauss: Yes. Very much so . Parking is one of the major determinants . Wildermuth: Geez . A company is successful . They hire more employees . Conrad: Well Paul , what we're asking you to do is to look into that optio and advise the City Council in terms of whether that 's an option . It look 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 I that was presented by Paul? - Emmings: Yeah. I liked your response . , Planning Commission Meeting September 5 , 1990 - Page 23 PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR EXPANSION OF THE PARKING LOT RESULTING IN VARIANCE TO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT 18930 WEST 78TH STREET , REDMOND PRODUCTS. Public Present: Name Address Eugene Strobel Redmond Products Sandra Reitsma Redmond Products Larry Perkins Randy Patzke Redmond Products Redmond Products Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Eugene Strobel : My name is Eugene Strobel . I 'm the engineering manager ' with Redmond Products . What we 're proposing to do is increase the parking from 175 parking spaces to 279 . This is to meet the current needs and some future needs that we 're looking at for the site . A few things that were mentioned in the staff report that I 'd like to clarify . One , we are asking for a variance for the percent of impervious paved area and that 's increasing it from 70% to 79% . However , this is based on the adjusted square footage of the site . It doesn 't take into consideration the entire ' site which extends beyond the frontage road . And if you incorporate the 1 acre plus property that sits south of the frontage road , that would drop that percentage down below 70% . Secondly , the berm on the south edge of the property that we 're cutting into , we will not change the height of that berm . What we 're doing is terracing the north side of the berm which is the building side so the view from TH 5 will be as it is now . The height II won 't change . We should not make the parking lot more visible . We are proposing to move the entrance , the easterly entrance to the property further east and the center line of the driveway would be 40 feet from the property line . Our adjacent neighbor , his entrance is very close to his ' property line so there is a close proximity . However , I 'd like to point out that this is 1 of 3 entrances to our site . It 's not for truck traffic . It 's a secondary entrance to the employee vehicle car parking and where we expect traffic in and out of the parking lot would be during shift change or at the start and close of the business day so we don't feel that that would represent a hazard to other traffic on the adjacent property . Also , I 'd like to point out that the variances that we 're asking for are not ' temporary as indicated in the report . We 're not looking for a short term solution to a problem that we have currently . So the amendments to , if it should be approved , of putting it back into original condition in 3 years is not something that we 're looking for . We have other spokesmen from Redmond Products to talk about other issues. Conrad: Go ahead . ' Sandra Reitsma: Hello . My name is Sandra Reitsma . I 'm Director of Human Resources at Redmond Products and I just had a few comments after looking through the staff report . What I 'd like to do , you 've gotten a little bit of history of our growth at Redmond Products and I 'd like to address some of the demographics of our work force in that growth . In 3 years we have Planning Commission Meeting September 5 , 1'990 - Page 24 • more than tripled the number of employees that we have working there . We 've gone from 75 employees to over 250 employees . We are aware we have a parking problem . We do carpool but it 's not enough . We have currently 25 employees . 53 of those work on the second shift . Our day is from 7: 00 in the morning until midnight . Our office hours are from 8:00 to 5:00 so II we 've got different times that people are coming in . We have 175 parking spaces . At any given point in time we may have up to 60 temporary employees working there so we may have over 300 employees there over the course of a work day . The average age of our employees is 32 and over 56% I of our work force is female and those two figures can show you one of the reasons that we have problems with our carpooling . We have a daycare issue . We have people who are coming in and wanting to drop off children different places in the morning . We have them picking up different places in the evening . We have people that are coming from as far away as Anoka , St . Paul , Roseville . I personally live in Elk River . We come into Chanhassen . We work here . We spend our money here during the day . We I need places to park . 35% of our employees live right in the Chanhassen/ Eden Prairie/Chaska area but over 30% of the employees come from these distances that I 've talked about . We wouldn 't normally be coming into Chanhassen . At year end we anticipate about 260 employees . If we 're able to continue our growth , we 're looking at the possibility of 300 employees at the end of next year . We 're a successful company and we would like to I keep that success here in Chanhassen . Thank you . Larry Perkins : I 'm Larry Perkins , the Chief Operating Officer at Redmond . I 've been here 5 months and probably should take the blame for some of the changes in the strategic planning at Redmond . As most of you know we had site plan and some things that we were going to do , in fact starting this summer out on a site . I think it 's a 54 acre site out in your industrial park . After coming to Redmond I caused us to do some strategic looking down the road 5 to 7 years as to just where we would be in sales and where we might want to be located to manufacture those items . Basically what it amounts to is that 's too large of a facility that we had planned . If we 're going to get that large , we would have to look at all kinds of other issue including sites , other states and that sort of thing . We like it very much here and would like to stay in Chanhassen . We 'd like to develop this site little bit more so that we can maximize the possibilities on this site and we think that it has considerable opportunity to us and also to the City of Chanhassen . By the way I should mention I was a City Councilman myself an put 3 years in that position so I can appreciate some of the things that you folks have to go through and some of the things you have to wrestle with. It 's not easy all the time . We want a long term solution. We don ' want short term approaches or band aid approaches because that doesn 't do either one of us any good . We can't plan long term if we have short term solutions or band aid approaches . Our growth , as Sandy mentioned , has been phenomenal . We 've had a 50% compound growth rate in the last 5 years and II we expect to continue to grow , probably not quite at that percentage rate but I 'd like to point out we 're the number one selling hair conditioner in. the nation today . We 're the 5th largest hair care manufacturer in the nation and every bottle , about 3 1/2 million bottles has Chanhassen, Minnesota on the bottom of it so we 're proud to be here and consider ourselves partners with you folks and hope that you may be amendable to some of the things we 'd like to do. , • 1 • Planning Commission Meeting ' September 5 , 1990 - Page 25 ' Emmings: Can we get a little royalty off each bottle since our name is on there or not? Larry Perkins: We pay $160 ,000.00 in real estate taxes of which I know the City doesn 't get all of it . Emmings: Let me say thank you . Larry Perkins: But we hope that we 're good coporate citizens and I think have a decent reputation in the city of Chanhassen . What we say we 'll do , ' I think our record would show that we have done . In terms of landscaping and that sort of thing , I think we probably go overboard and certainly would in this area as well . 5 years ago we had 40 people . Today we have 250 people and we 'd like to be able to max this site out at 325 to a maximum of 350 people . To do that of course we need parking and strategically we think we need a minimum of 300 parking spaces . The investment that we would be making . There are so many things that fit ' together . Strategically this is a very important part of it . The parking issue . There are other important issues that we 're studying and it 's kind of a. chicken and the egg type thing but they all have to fit together . As soon as they do fit together , we would like to invest some 6 million '. dollars here at this site . About 2 1/2 million of that would be in building modifications and the rest of it would be in equipment . All of the modifications would be inside the building footprint . There may be ' about a 2 ,500 square foot external expansion which would be very minimal but most of the expansion will be done inside the building without effect to the exterior . If we are not able to get these variances , I don 't say ' this in any way in a threatening manner . Just you have to understand where we 're coming from and what we 're going through for a decision making process . We need to expand . We know that our growth plans call for that . We will have to look at other sites . Having been a president of a public company in Minnesota , I 've gone through this process before . Was in the food processing business and have looked at many different sites . I can tell you that unfortunately , as much as I love this state , it 's not the best state to do business in in the manufacturing environment . For example , if we went to South Dakota , this facility with about 200 people and it would be about 2 million dollars a year more profitable to be in South Dakota . That 's $10 ,000 .00 per employee per annum in terms of Workmen 's Compensation , property taxes , income taxes and that sort of thing . So that 's why we chose not to develop this site out west of town in the industrial park . We would not ever get to the size that was previously ' comtemplated on that site but we do think we can get a little larger here and then our plans would call mostly likely for another site someplace else in the United States. But we 'd like to expand and put this other 50 or 75 ' jobs into the economy here and invest in these other assets . Other things , we 'd like to have a fairly quick decision. We 'd like to do this before winter because as Sandy had pointed out , our growth rate is such that we need to plan -ahead . We 're flying a fast moving airplane and you need to plan those approaches well in advance of the airport so to speak. I think that 's sort of a summary of where we 're coming from. We appreciate your consideration and we are asking as Jo Ann pointed out , for these variances but we will do them very , very carefully such that they don't change the look or appearance and I can assure you of that , both from the east and from the south and we 'd try to hold every commitment that we made to you and then some and that 's our intention . Thank you . Planning Commission Meeting September 5 , 1990 - Page 26 Conrad: Thanks for your comments . Are there other comments? Any other perspectives on this? Anything? Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart : I 'm having a hard time maintaining my wishy washy nature . Let me verify two things . We 're talking about a variance to go to an impervious I surface area of 79 .3% still? And a variance to the setbacks from , the front setback of 30 feet to somewhere between 9 and 14 feet . With that I can find no reason at all to support the proposal and agree with staff 's recommendation to deny it . And I do say that we welcome very much Redmond into the village but I don 't think we have any precedent for allowing that kind of surface area for any industrial site in the city . Correct me if I 'm wrong . Ourselves and everybody else sticks to the regulations and we do that to essentially protect each other . That 's my comments . Emmings: When one of these fellows spoke he said that if we computed it al different way they carne up below 70% . Can you tell me what 's going on there . Olsen: What they 're talking about is , I don 't have the surveys out here II but there 's , you have West 78th Street , the frontage road and then there 's also some property . . . It 's essentially separated and I believe isn 't that under MnDot 's control? , Eugene Strobel : That would be my question is why , I don 't understand why we 're only taking the property north of the frontage road when we pay taxe on the property south of the frontage road also . If you include that greer� space south of the frontage road and north of TH 5 , it changes the calculations so even with the additional paving we 'd run below 70% . Krauss: I don 't have the tax statements here and I 'd like to look at it but I 'd be astonished to find out they were paying property taxes on right-of-way for Th 5 and for the frontage road . That 's controlled by MnDot . What this appears to be is a fairly common occurrence where right- of-way is taken by easement instead of right-of-way dedication . You often times have residential lots that are platted to the center line of streets " You measure the setback from where the easement line is that establishes the city 's authority to build a road. That gives no difference in this case . As with the homeowner that lays claim to the center line of his II street , we normally say no . We have an easement for that and that 's just not the case and they don 't pay property taxes on that either . Emmings: So you 're satisfied that the 79% number is correct? ' Krauss: Yes . Larry Perkins: I think our point is to have drainage and to have , impervious or non-impervious land , I think our point is that it is there and if you 'd just expand your horizons and take a look at it , you 'd find that it is there . So if it 's intent that we're after , we think we comply II with that . I Planning Commission Meeting September 5 , 1990 - Page 27 Emmings: Well yeah , I suppose if we could expand our horizons we could be doing a lot of things but I suppose we calculate these things the same way every time on each lot , or try to and by the way we do that apparently you come up short . I guess based on that I can 't see any ground to grant a ' variance . Like Tim , I agree with the staff report that it should be denied . I also , I may be dead wrong about this but if the alternatives is moving to South Dakota , I don't think it 'd be the parking lot that makes them move to South Dakota . It will probably be the 2 million bucks so anyway , that 's the way I look at it . Conrad: Annette . ' Ellson: How many parking lots are on the Lotus think that they wanted? ' Olsen: 78 . That 's if they do the mass parking . Ellson: Right . That 's the one idea . And then this is another 200 plus or whatever . Olsen: Yeah , right . Ellson: And they want City Council to look at both proposals so they 're actually looking for close to the 300 right there? Additional to what they have right now? Olsen : No . It 's a total of 200 . Ahrens: 357 total . Ellson: Okay . I was getting those numbers mixed up . ' Randy Patzke : One thing to remember is that we 're talking , Redmond 's requesting . . .only on their site plan for the setback variances in terms of the surface area . The issue at Lotus is only a temporary and maximum of 3 year solution . Where a variance is permanent solution to their parking needs . Conrad: But including the Lotus . Randy Patzke: No . ' Conrad: So Lotus is no longer needed? Eugene Strobel : Lotus is an option . ' Ellson: You wouldn 't do both? Larry Perkins: We maybe would. We maybe wouldn't . We 'd like to have. as ' many options as we can. We 've also learned that when you plan , you over plan . Ahrens: But you have 279 parking , you 're proposing 279 paved parking Ispaces . I . 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 5 , 1990 - Page 28 Larry Perkins : That we would own and control and know that we have those assured forever . 1 Randy Patzke : The parking spaces on the Lotus property . . .owner of Lotus . That 's only a temporary situation . Conrad: Annette , anything else? Ellson: Well , I like the idea of the alternatives and maybe it 's not carpooling becauase of people at daycares but I believe it was brought up before about using some of the open lots and shuttling people or doing things like that . I think it 's like Tim said , it 's a pretty huge precedence and in my opinion it is a band aid . It isn 't the long term solution for them . It 's their short term band aid and then heaven forbid that it gets only worse and ooh , it 's just such a precedence for anybody else who wants to do this that it really concerns me . I guess I 'd like to know that they 've tried this shuttle and that they 've done other things . I mean people who work downtown certainly walk a long ways to their offices at times . I can 't go along with it . Sorry . 1 Batzli : Jo Ann , has there been any effort by the applicant to show a hardship to get these' variances other than they 're expanding and they need 1 additional parking? . Olsen: That 's the hardship . Batzli : That 's the hardship? I guess I can 't support granting variances based on that as the hardship so that 's where this is . Ahrens : Well it doesn 't seem to me like this proposal really solves your I problems . You have temporary parking spaces . 70 temporary parking spaces . You 're anticipating employing over 300 people right? And you only are proposing a permanent solution for 279 parking spaces . Sandra Reitsma : It 's a 2 shift operation . Ahrens : Right . But you have overlapping shifts which create a need for all of those parking spaces at least temporarily. Larry Perkins: We do have some carpooling that occurs already. We have 1 175 spaces now. . .maximum of 300 with the temporary employees now . Ahrens: Right but you 're using , you 're right now using your temporary 1 parking 78 . Sandra Reitsma : No . . . 1 Ahrens: Well you know, I don't- think it meets the requirements for granting a variance either . Bottom line , that 's how I feel . There 's, not all hardship . Except I can see where they think there 's a hardship because they don 't have enough parking spaces but I don 't think under our ordinance it meets the requirements . Conrad: Your truck parking area seems to be huge and there 's only a few parking spots . I drove it the other day . It seems like you just have a I Planning Commission Meeting September 5 , 1990 - Page 29 I huge area for your truck turn around and there 's no way you can convert ' that to employee parking? It 's just humongous . Like I think I could drive one of the big semi 's in there and turn it around with one hand . Seriously . Well , that wasn 't a serious comment but it 's huge and I 'm surprised you haven 't looked at that for additional parking . You 're talking about doing some things on the Lotus property . I 'm just kind of amazed that you haven 't considered in your own parking lot . Isn 't there something that you can do there? ' Randy Patzke : Not really because at . . .are required. . . When you do get a trailer in there , backed up to the door . You get another one pulling in ' and one pulling out , you will find that area gets to be quite congested . Conrad: I was in there the day there were no trucks . I guess I just hit it wrong . I Randy Patzke: Was it by any chance a Friday? Conrad: I don 't know . No . It was yesterday . No trucks and it just looked huge . But anyway , that 's your business . Rana, Patzke : . . .when you gets trucks in there , you 'd be surprised at how fast it L:i.11 fill up . Larry Perkins: I guess that what occurs to us . It does look huge and it ' sounds like a lot of cars . 179 cars is not that many cars . . .look at that plan , in many , many cities that would be just a very , very acceptable situation . We just hate to have this be the criteria that forces us into ' another mode when you. look at the elevations , the side views , the trees. and all the other sorts of things . The pond is already there and so on , we . . . to have something like this cause us to have to go elsewhere . ' Conrad : We were hopeful you were going to move out a little bit west and satisfy that need . Yeah , I hear what you 're trying to do . Certainly understand that and I appreciate the problem that you 're trying to resolve . ' I have a tough time with the variances myself . I guess we are looking for the long term and I think if we got within a 1% or 2% variance , I think we 'd do some real , we 'd be interested. Or at least I 'd be looking at it seriously . When we 're talking about 10% variance to the impervious surface , it 's defeating some of the things that we kind of hold dear to our industrial development and it 's tough . I don 't know that the Planning Commission 's going to be real receptive as you heard and we 're pretty , you Iknow our job is to make sure the ordinances are right in the first place and kind of adhere to them . When we see problems , we try to change the ordinance . That 's really what our job is . Granting variances makes a lot ' of people upset .. Especially the other business neighbors and then it basically says your ordinance stinks to begin with so take a look at it and that 's what we try to do . Real carefully and come up with a better ordinance if that 's what 's needed . The City Council probably would be more receptive to your concerns and your business perogatives and alternatives and I think they may pay a little bit more attention to your . I sure like to see a long term solution . I guess I 'm really not satisfied that we have a long term solution hearing your numbers . I think you 're trying to get some alternatives out there that do anything because the employee 's have got to be irritated . They can 't be pleased you know and I can empathize I Planning Commission Meeting September 5 , 1990 - Page 30 1 with that . We have to deal with employees occasionally and that 's tough . But I guess I have a problem with the variances in this particular case . really like our 70% . It typically controls amount of use and there 's a lo of reasons for that 70% . I 'd like Paul to make sure that we 're calculating it in the right way in terms of what the applicant brought up across the street . If that can be calculated in , then I think I 'd take a different I look at it . I don 't think it would meet the intent of what our 70% impervious surface is but still I 'd have to take a different . . .I sure would hope we could use Lotus . I think we are pretty flexible on how you could 1 use Lotus and I have no idea what City Council will come in on that one . It 's not a long term solution and I understand that . I wish we could help you find a long term solution for your employees . I don 't have it . I just, don't have it yet you can see I 'm not bending a whole lot on our standards so I 'm probably of no use to you right now . Larry Perkins: The 70% versus 80% , that I understand your concern on that . . . Let me assure you on the employee issue , we don 't have unhappy employees . We have a waiting list . We have very , very low turnover . You can talk to anybody that works at Redmond and see that it 's a very , very desirable place to work . It 's an extremely successful company . It shares it 's wealth with it 's employees . Also , we have lots of balls in the air as to our long range planning . This is one of them . It 's a very , very ke one . We will design that facility to the size of the parking stalls . Now bear in mind we have 175 now . That 's . . . The impervious one , that 's a little bit tougher one . I understand that . . . Conrad: I didn 't want to apply that . I just didn 't to always be a human I resources person . Concerned with your shift changes and problems of where to park but yeah , I wasn 't insinuating they weren 't happy . I 'm hopeful that you can do something on the site next to you . Other than that , I don 't have any good solutions for the problem other than my drive thru . Is there a motion? Erhart : I 'll move the Planning Commission recommend denial of Site Plan II Amendment Request #85-1 as shown on the plans dated August 21 , 1990 . Batzli : Second . ' Erhart moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denia of Site Plan Amendment Request #85-1 as shown on the plans dated August 21 1990. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Conrad: We thank you for coming in and we like you being in town and you I are a good neighbor but I think in this case we 're holding to some standards . Again , when you talk to City Council , they probably have a different perspective on things . Thanks for coming in . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved, Elison seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 15 , 1990 as submitted . Al voted in favor except Batzli who abstained and the motion carried . CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Conrad: Report from the Director . Has everybody read that? Great report " I II • _ P.C. DATE: 9/5/90 CITY O F C.C. DATE: 9/24/90 1 � � CASE: 85-1 Site Plan BY. Olsen/v 1 '�' Il_I I , STAFF REPORT , I PROPOSAL: Site Plan Amendment for Expansion to the Redmond Parking Lot II-. Z LOCATION: 18930 West 78th Street I (445 APPLICANT: Redmond Products 18930 West 78th Street 1 aChanhassen, MN 55317 1 < • \ I - I EXISTING ZONING: IOP, Industrial Office Park IACREAGE: 7.47 acres ADJACENT ZONING I AND LAND USE: N - Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, Pacific Railroad and Eden Prairie S - Hwy. 5 1 Q L r E - Lyman Lumber/ABC IW • Lotus Lawn and Garden SEWER AND WATER: Services are available to the site. I EE: (f� SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The site is currently fully developed wit, the Redmond Products warehouse/office an production. 2000 LAND USE: Industrial I . • v_ _ ■8.r. • ri.7 /I ••t w„.:......„„=__,..:_.,_ \, ! - frMa(/ r 00£8 - �,NN1 �, N3N1 2 r? -). 7,N ooze — 4, 11j ►�i 1 A *fa,” •411;412■44.71 0018 ►" � � s rn a a. 1- .4i II ii q Vsli - .44a. 0 03 1 44■v: : ;,0, - : -,:o- 0008 1 F* eg AIM .1.> ►-__ - �/ ,::Om --am 0 i t�� ,efMHJI DAL. -,,!Prvire'l .4•• • 0011PP .t1";OP mot. III 1�' r 0061 RE,.... ..� O� d0I , . .: �!!► 4 IN Ng „--------------Olv'ildf•Pr-gr::_„_ - - -rt _ 0081 '� r / gar in a m is ;yt, rwr-,. >:,111 m u radiiii—E--Ba.,. 1 . 0011 Z�3 3$1 S H = I',� 3 / . •..'-c nant �,;MA / i 1 �� 111..hr:; 11711111, n11© it 0091 �0 4: - GAL. 'i-; A t Arr tl/Z!!. f " Nei -_ '_am _ 4./44 00S/ 0,\--C\/ .\(dcAni ...._.......„.. .... .. , --- i iiim.w jr irAe. J. 81,ormi _ , c4). ......... iii). �� , we. ,‘ _min• 11a� OOti \I C`� �'`iil,_l11/■ ■oluPI - OM x .1-4.:1-,‘Qiith. UI ' . 'P � � • y't a 0021 � i\ .> ' e, I • �1`- 3U3WMOOVHS./ �immi '. 447, Amami IP'wit 000l . i : A Cam,' l � '-'1,11/1111M , rip c'da ��4 ' _'� ' 1� A 0069 7-1-- __. -- sn.L 0 7 '1 tic t• 0089-_ ... No f A j' \\ i. I . Redmond Site Plan Amendment . I September 5, 1990 Page 2 IBACKGROUND On February 25, 1985, the City Council approved a site plan for an I office warehouse facility for Redmond Products. The original site plan was for a 30,700 square foot warehouse and a 9,280 square foot office area (Attachment #1) . II On April 20, 1987, the City Council approved an expansion to the Redmond Facility. The expansion was 63,180 square feet of office, manufacturing and warehouse area. The second phase of site plan I approval resulted in a total impervious surface of just over 50% and a total of 129 parking spaces provided. I In 1988, the applicant received a building permit for an accessory structure (cold storage warehouse) located at the rear of the site. In addition, the applicant added additional parking to the site for a total now of 175 parking spaces. The cold storage warehouse and I the additional parking spaces all met the Zoning Ordinance requirements and the total impervious surface of the site was still below the 70% maximum. The small site plan provided as part of I this packet illustrates the existing site conditions for Redmond site. I On August 1, 1990, the Planning Commission reviewed a proposal by Redmond to construct an off-site parking lot on Lotus Lawn and Garden site. The applicant requested several variances to the ordinance by proposing gravel versus bituminous, mass parking I versus parking aisles and no curb and gutter. Staff agreed the curb and gutter was unnecessary since the parking lot was temporary and would not be connected to the storm sewer. But staff did not I agree to recomending approval of the gravel surface and mass parking. The Planning Commission approved the site plan with staff's conditions but during discussion suggested that staff consider allowing the parking lot actually be constructed as I proposed by the applicant to act as an "experiment" (Attachment #2) . The proposal was to be reviewed by the City Council on August 27, 1990, but the applicant requested it to be postponed until the I City Council could review both applications at the same time (Attachment #3) . IPROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to add an additional 104 parking spaces onto the Redmond site. The applicant is proposing to locate the ' I additional parking spaces 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 I reconfigured. The larger site plan illustrates the existing parking lot configuration with the dashed line and the proposed 1 1 Redmond Site Plan Amendment September 5, 1990 Page 3 parking lot configuration with the solid line. 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. The applicant is proposing to cut into the existing berms on the south and east side of the site for additional parking area and use railroad ties for a stepped retaining wall. The applicant is proposing to replant existing trees and shrubs so that the overall site will not have it's landscaping reduced. Cutting into the berms will result in more of the parking area being visible from West 78th Street and Hwy. 5. 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. PARKING TABLE Existing On-site 175 , Proposed On-site 104 Total 279 ' Proposed 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. As was brought up during the review of the off-site parking lot for Redmond Products, the overlapping of shifts and additional employees are resulting in the I I IIRedmond Site Plan Amendment September 5, 1990 IIPage 4 need for parking over and above what is typically required on an II 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. I 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 II 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 Ialternative means of "commuting" to work must be employed. Staff cannot recommend approval of the proposed site plan since the I proposed changes on site result in a new curb cut which is located too close to an existing curb cut and will result in traffic conflicts, is exceeding maximum impervious surface allowed and is I within required setbacks resulting in a more visible parking area. The hardship is self created and would set a poor precedent for other industrial development. We wish we could find a way to work with the applicant to accommodate their needs and note that staff I is supportive of some additional parking on the Lotus Garden Center site. However, we feel that this request is excessive. The applicant has stated they wish to remain on site until they are II sure their success and expansion of business is proven not to be temporary before they relocate to a larger site. They have stated that as with the off-site parking improvements they will agree to I return the site to bring it into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance after they relocate. If the Planning Commission and City Council approve the site plan as proposed, staff would recommend I approval conditioned upon the site being brought into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, however, we do not believe in, nor support the idea of allowing temporary variances. IPLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On September 5, 1990, the Planning Commission unanimously I 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. IRECOMMENDATION I Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends denial of Site Plan Amendment IRequest #85-1 as shown on the plans dated August 21, 1990." I A • • Redmond Site Plan Amendment September 5, 1990 Page 5 ' Should the Planning Commission recommend approval, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. The handicap stalls be signed and posted as handicapped and only used by persons with a handicap sticker. 2. The applicant agree to replace the berm on the south side of the site and bring the parking area back into conformance with the 30 foot setback and the applicant will remove other impervious surface, if necessary, to maintain a maximum of 70% impervious surface by October 31, 1993. 3 . The applicant shall receive any permits, as necessary, from MnDOT and the Watershed District. ATTACHMENTS 1. Site Plan original recording/expansion approval and conditions. 2. Planning Commission minutes dated August 1, 1990. 3. Letter from Redmond dated August 27, 1990. 4. Staff report for off street parking lot. 5. Memo from Charles Folch dated August 30, 1990. ' 3. Existing conditions on Redmond site. 4 . Site plan with proposed parking reconfiguration. I 1 i I; 5027590 City of Chanhassen Carver and Hennepin Counties, Minnesota IIn the matter of Chanhassen Planning Case : 85-1 Site Plan Review IIOwner: Thomas Redmond Applicant: Ryan Development Street Address : 18930 West 78th Street - P.I .N. . ILegal Description: That part of the Fast 479.05 feet of the West 628.05 feet of that part of the Southwest Qyarter of Section 7, Township 116 North, Range 22 West II of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying southerly of the right-ot-way of the Ctucago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railway. IPurse: Site Plan Review for Redmond Products, Inc. Zoning District: P-3, Planned Community Development The above entitled matter was heard before the Planning Cat mission `� on February 13, 1985 and up for final action before the Chanhassen City Council on February 25, 1985 1 The City Council ordered that a site plan approval . ) be granted based upon the documentation contained in Planning File 85-i Site Plan Review with the following conditions: II 1. Submission of a revised landscape plan incorporating staff's recatri ndations as contained in the staff report dated February 13, 1985 prior to issuance of the building permit. 2. Compliance with the recommendations of the City Engineer in his memorandum dated February 8, 1985. 3. Installation of concrete curbing along the perimeter of all paved areas. 4. Any rooftop mechanical equipment must be screened in a manner consistent I with the materials of the principal building. 5. If additional employees are retained beyond what has been represented to the city in this application as indicated in the letter of February 6, 1985, the II applicant shall insure that adequate parking areas are installed to accamodate said increase if necessary. II State of Minnesota) )ss Carver County ) I, Barbara Dacy City Planner for the City of Chanhassen, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing with the original record thereof, and have found the same to be a correct Iand true summary thereof. Witness my hand and official seal of Chanhassen, Minnesot- , this 20th day of August , 1985 04.:;.4 '44,,.;• I 1 ALAI' _40‘ MAW or p `', .4v, *v k-'`. 'anha- sen City Planner I NOTE: '- '* =4, . .s it' .." a I 3 . .., ..- 3ti rryrroue:“..1. �,' 1 CITYOF - . ClIANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 April 22, 1987 , Mr. Bob Cordell, General Manager Redmond Products 18930 West 78th Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Cordell: This is to confirm that the City Council at their April 20, 1987, meeting, approved the site plan for Redmond expansion as shown on the plan dated March 20, 1987, with the following conditions: , 1 . Submission of a revised landscaping plan incorporating staff' s recommendations prior to issuance of the building permit. 2 . All vehicular areas must be paved and have concrete curbing along the perimeter of the paved areas. ' 3 . All rooftop equipment must be screened in a manner consistent with the materials of the principle building. , 4 . An access roadway will be provided to three side of the building in accordance with the UFC 10.207. ' 5 . Fire Department connection will be placed in an unobstructed quick access area. 6 . Exits shall be provided along the north end of the building in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. 7. Installation of all fire protection systems and appliances ' shall be in accordance with recognized standards. 8. Any expansion of the site shall receive site plan approval. ' 9. The applicant shall be required to physically pipe the roof drainage from the proposed building to the storm water deten- tion pond proposed for the northeast corner of the site. 10. The excess 15 cubic yards of fill presently in the existing detention basin be removed. 1 Mr. Bob Cordell April 22, 1987 Page 2 11. Silt fence and other appropriate erosion control measures shall be utilized to control erosion the site consistent with ' the requirements of the Watershed District and the City of Chanhassen. ' 12. The applicant shall provide a watermain connection between the existing 10" watermain from the west and the watermain servicing Redmond's hydrants. ' Condition #12 requires the looping of the watermain from the northwest watermain to the existing watermain servicing the Redmond fire hydrants. The detailed expansion plans should include this looping of the watermain which must be constructed to city standards. You should contact our City Engineer, Gary Warren, to obtain the required information and to determine the ' cost of the project. You should also submit a revised landscape plan with increased landscaping around the docking and vehicular areas. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, „:„1,4„4/_ Jo Ann Olsen ' Assistant City Planner JO:v • • Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 31 ' 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 ti reference boardwalks perhaps in our ordinance and suggest that that 's what . . . Wildermuth: Haven't we allowed a . . .pathway at times? Conrad: Not to my knowledge . When it was grandfathered in , we allowed it, 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 precedent than anything else because I really don't think , in this II particular case we 're talking about as we 've been saying . I don 't think 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 II ordinance in this one . This will go to City Council August 27th. Thank you for coming in . Thank you for attending . SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR EXPANSION THE ' A N OF HE PARKING AREA WEST OF LOTUS GARDEN CENTER ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP AND LOCATED AT 18930 WEST 78TH STREET, REDMONII PRODUCTS. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Conrad: Okay , thanks Jo Ann. The applicant is here and would like to maki 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 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 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, II 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? 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 long term . What it does with the wetland nearby. I guess I 'll have 1 • Planning Commission Meeting ' August ' 1 , 1990 - Page 32 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 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 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 11 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 Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 33 1 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 t, 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 I 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 I end . Erhart: Did you say you could stripe gravel? I Randy Patzke: Yeah . Erhart : Can you explain that one to me . ' 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 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 sell 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? ' Folch: That is a 2 inch mat . Planning Commission Meeting 11 August• 1 , 1990 - Page 34 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 . Orsen: 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 . Ellson: 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. Emmings: Well how? I . Ellson: 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? Ellson: Like a parking attendant where the thing is all filled. t 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 1 Planning Commission Meeting 11 August 1 , 1990 - Page 35 no land to expand to . I 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 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 . ' Olsen: And then we do allow off site parking lots in the industrial offic 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 fii� was proposed after . . .with Charles. Emmings: So the only alternatives here are the two that have been set 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 I Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 36 Ellson: 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 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 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 II 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 I 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 II 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 I requiring that that area on the side as a temporary area to help us in the 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. IIEllson: 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 I is it? How much cheaper is the gravel per square foot than the bituminous? Everyone says it 's cheaper . Is it like 5x you're going to be I 11 Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 37 1 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 I $20 ,000 .00 . Ellson: For which? ' Randy Patzke: For upgrading because we not only have to put the blacktop 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 submittell 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 can" 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 facility , putting down the 2 inch clear crushed rock, I estimate that cost 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 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? 1 Ellson: There were some conflicting opinions on that concrete or gravel is 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 1 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 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 1 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. ' 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 Quattro 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 I 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 Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 39 purposes for curb and gutter . Erhart: Well yeah, that 's my next question. Olsen: Why not? 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 . Olsen: Because we were trying to make it work . Krauss: We are accepting the premise that it 's temporary . Olsen: And we 've got a condition to guarantee that . 1 Erhart : Somehow in my mind these things don't end up temporary . That 's the problem . Krauss: But we did recommend conditions that would help to enforce that including the financial guarantees . Erhart: Okay , that 's my only comment . Thanks. Conrad: It seems to me that if it was bituminous , the oil and gas would , I 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 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 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 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 1 the current site . Are there any comments on that? 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 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 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. Planning Commission Meeting August .1 , 1990 - Page 40 ' 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? 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. 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 there for aisle guides or something. Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 41 Emmings: How many spaces with, if it 's striped and they have ordinary 1 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 III 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 no 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 ow, 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 II 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 I but really the berms. Randy Patzke: You require a concrete car stop anyway so essentially you d have a curb . And you do have a 2 to 4 foot high berm on the other side. . .' Ellson: Maybe we can have a trial period and evaluate it after x period o 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. • Planning Commission Meeting August . 1 , 1990 - Page 42 ' 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. 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. I . Krauss: We could probably work out something cooperatively with them . It could be difficult to enforce. • 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 II comfortable with that . It 's going to, the person it will cause problems for would probably be Jay. • Planning Commission Meeting 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. , Emmings: Have Jay patrolling his lot line with a shotgun you know but , so maybe it 's not a problem . I 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 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, th' 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 I 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 II letter from him basically stating concurrence with some sort of agreement to that effect . Emmings: We agree not to enforce the , this particular condition pending 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 I 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 foil 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 wha 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 al 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 lik that and I still , I 'm just not persuaded that this is hurting Chanhassen. think it 's up to Redmond and that's their business. Not ours. I • • Planning Commission Meeting ' August 1 , 1990 - Page 44 ' 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. IErhart: 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. ' Ellsop: 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 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 o, understanding between the City and that as long, that will allow them to 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 ' 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 .. . I Emmings: Sure . As far as I 'm concerned it could. Krauss: Well that 's where I 'd like some , see that's . 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 takin� a risk . Anytime you deal with the City , I guess that 's kind of a risky deal . • I 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. Emmings: That 's the problem. So am I but I fight against it. Fight it I 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 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. 1 • 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? 1 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 ' have to be shifts there even if Redmond moves to a different building . I I just don 't think we ought to be doing this just because we think that something 's 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 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 tha could be , in terms of time spent and nuisance , much higher than this . We're talking about an insignificant investment . When you're talking aboull the kind of growth we 're talking about, we're talking about employees . I ' 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 I 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 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 parkin"' 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 be a way to do it . Conrad: Okay, thanks. ' Ellson: If it wasn't something like this Paul , I was just wondering. Let's 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 I institute some sort of experiment to see if it would work? Outside of this 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 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 11 11 Planning Commission Meeting ' August 1 , 1990 - Page 48 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. Wildermuth: 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? I - Emmings: Yeah. I liked your response. I o i R E D M O N D P R O D U C T S 1 N C. City of Chanhassen I August 27, 1990 To th e Honorable Mayor of Chanhassen, and All City Council Members : Redmond Products, Inc. has submitted to the City of Chanhassen two proposals for parking site modifications . The original proposal has been reviewed by the Planning Commission. It has come to our attention that this proposal is on the agenda for the August 27th City Council meeting. Our second proposal is scheduled to be reviewed by the Planning Commission during the September 5th meeting. We wish to present to the City of Chanhassen, in one session, our comprehensive site plan. After discussing our desire with Jo Ann Olsen, it is our understanding that this item will be postponed until after the second proposal is reviewed by the Planning Commission. We appreciate the opportunity to condense discussion on this issue to one meeting. Sincerely, 1 REDMOND PRODUCTS, INC. Sandra L. Reitsma Director of Human Resources c.c. Paul Krauss, Plannin g Director Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner Don Ashworth, City Administrator ' 1 18930 West 78th St.• Chanhassen,MN 55317 1 934-4868. 1-800-328-0159 CITYPC DATE: 8/1/90 OF \ '� CHANHASSEN CC DATE: 8/27/90 I ;LI, CASE #: 85-1 Site Plan .ly - Olsen/v 1 I STAFF REPORT I PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review Amendment for a Gravel Parking Lot I Imm LOCATION: The Easterly Half of the Lotus Lawn and Garden Property 1 4iii Adjacent to the Redmond Property. 1 V J APPLICANT: Redmond Products Lotus Lawn & Garden (owner) 18930 W. 78th Street 78 West 78th Street IChanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Q I ' I • 1...i: 5, r'••44 .17,,.♦ —_ ✓ Fr 1 Pv. PRESENT ZONING: BH, Highway Business Tr'• -k=!745 ACREAGE: 20,000 square feet • __ _ DENSITY: ?-�1_i a QL ADJACENT ZONING AND 1'� LAND USE: N - Railroad Tracks I Q S - Hwy. 5 . 0 E - Redmond Products • t W - Lotus Lawn and Garden 1 tW WATER AND SEWER: Available 11E75 PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : A level site with no improvements. 1 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial II Redmond Parking Expansion I 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 111 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 111 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. 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 = 11=1111 lot works, as in downtown around the Metro Dome, 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 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 ' 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 211 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 Redmond 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. I . • • 1 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. 1 6. Planning Commission minutes dated August 1, 1990. 1 • • 1 1 1 1 CITYOF 1 4‘11 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937-1900 • FAX(612) 937-5739 pMEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Charles Folch, Assistant City Engineer DATE: July 24, 1990 1 SUBJ: Plan Review for Redmond Temporary Parking Lot Expansion File No. 90-18 Land Use Review In order to a improve parking a p p g f cility shortage primarily - 1 occurring during a work shift change, Redmond Products, Inc. is 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 1 gutter or storm sewer. The applicant has expressed a desire to construct the parking lot in this manner in order to facilitate removal and restoration of the area when the use is no longer 1 needed. PARKING 1 The City typically requires a paved surface with curb and gutter as a fundamental design criteria for a parking lot. A gravel 1 surface is not desirable for a parking lot facility. This type of surface will be a constant source of erosion. During the spring thaw and at various times during the year, the lot will be 1 muddy and will require frequent maintenance. Snow plowing will likely disturb and disperse the gravel surface. A mass _ parking scheme is proposed to maximize capacity. This 1 will force many cars to be "double parked" and blocked in. This 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. 1 DRAINAGE The existing land for this improvement drains to the north into a ponding basin. The grading plan for the proposed improvement 1 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. 1 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 maintain 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. i 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 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 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 . ' CDF:ktm c: Gary Warren, City Engineer • 1 ,. 1 i 1 VlOS3NNIW WaSSVHNVHO '� tmr�°u'"°*"°s°w°�°"°�r°au "' a.�"` NI S31YlOOSSY V °Mt:. �-d$ ea.�•••••••.^ ^OPtl SlOf10Otld ONOWG3tl �— 11371Y 'TOMS WA A sr « = — i 1 iftijjjIijjit o } i i I g 1 i I . f Gay 1: ii1 ii: 1Iti , i11 • a . , I l:: II 1I ' Igo lei J I I I I I I I I l ''' I n 1 I dil ii 16 II 1l4. Y, g l Ili itt N ; I * � M . m s a a : ? o I I /. i I I J 2 I CC ;a I II J, ? Z 16'L69�+3'----R---!— - ----w- - 0 V r IA I 1/4/i/ / I l E y N I• 1iI I 163111111/1111111111 ; ;� z �, C11111/1111N111111 ; t a LA il ' �, 11111111111111111 4 I ��I�W�� Ili 1 Q I I ~ �� I vi r 1: lairin. ■ • . I • I MASS PARKING PLAN ' . ATTACHMENT *1 I 1 I I I . Y U of I N O! 1 * I NEW GRAVEL 117_0• PARKING LOT �- 75' SETBACK 141 1_I t I _ i (T\ g 1 I — . , -- , r- NEW s LOTUS = .. CURB I I CUT 11 ! 111 - L_,C C) 0 1 III - c° n 0 1 \ RETENTION !ii ._ ' I =-- EXIST. 0 v I POND !:! Z —LOTUS— I c-- LOT , n v 4------L-1 III :Ii ..._, 4 - I 1 N ----r"-- 25' SETBACK -� I ■ RTY ..."-P-----..~r ..[... ...._,.. ..,__.,-_j- tifii_ 11,.....----- -cp,GE Rp AD I STATE HIGHWAY NO. 5 1 1 I 1 I I . ORIGINAL PLAN PROPOSED SITE PLAN SCALE: 1•=60'-0" I ATTACHMENT #2 f vAVAN SICKLE, ALLEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4969 OLSON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY • MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55422 • 612/541.9604 TELEPHONE CONVERSATION MEMO TO: Mr. Bob Cordell DATE: July 18, 1990 ' JOB: Redmond - Temporary Parking Lot VAA COMM. NO. : 90. 005. 10 I BETWEEN: A.J. Pini and Charles Folch, Chanhassen Assistant City Engineer ' COPY TO: Richard Van Sickle Charles Folch 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 ' ' 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 ' the facility. Pini thanked Folch for his help and cooperation on this matter. ' UNLESS NOTIFIED WITHIN 7 DAYS, ALL ITEMS ABOVE ARE ASSUMED TO BE CORRECT AJP/cmm ' v719phon • I . LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION • CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, )Q 55317 (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: Redmond Products, Inc. t3+TNER: Lotus Lawn & Garden (Jay KroniI) ADDRESS 18930 W. 18th Street ADDRESS 78 W. 78th St. Chanhassen. MN 5537 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Zip Code Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime) (612) 934-4868 TELEPHONE 949-0726 I REQUEST: Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan Preliminary Plan Zoning Variance __ Final Plan "— __ Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision ' Land Use Plan Amendment Platting Metes and Sounds Conditional Use Permit , Street/Easement Vacation X Site Plan Review Wetlands Permit 1 PROJECT NAME Redmond Products Leased Parking Area PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION BH ' REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING , USES PROPOSED Parking SIZE OF PROPERTY Approximately 20,000 S.F. . 1 LOCATION . REASONS FOR THIS REQtST Additional Parking For Redmond Products, Inc. 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) Land Development Application Page 2 FILING INSTRUCTIONS: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and ' plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the City Planner to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. FILING CERTIFICATION: The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies that be is familiar with the procedural requirements of all IIapplicable City Ordinances. • ' Signed By kdegf Date 7--/k12,Applicant • 1 • The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has 'been authorized to make this application for the property herein described. AK Signed By � � Date —7/027/ -0 ' • Date Application Received Application Fee Paid ' City Receipt No. II . • * This Application will be considered .by the Planning Commission/ ' Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their meeting. • I CITY OF CIIANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM r TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Charles Foich, Assistant City Engineer (�,�� DATE: August 30 , 1990 SUBJ: Review of Site Plan Amendment for Expansion of the Redmond Parking Lot File No. 90-18 LUR. Having reviewed the proposed site plan amendment I have a strong concern with the relocation of the easterly entrance to the parking lot. The proposal would relocate this entrance approximately 40 feet to the east leaving it approximately 30 feet from the entrance to the adjacent property to the east. Although I am not aware of any specific requirements for spacing of parking lot or driveway entrances, good judgement would question the safety of allowing this situation. It should also be noted that the frontage road, West 78th Street, is located within the Trunk Highway 5 easement, thus a MnDOT access permit may need to be acquired to relocate the entrance in question. r I would recommend denial of the easterly entrance relocation. However, if approved, I would also recommend that MnDOT review and a permit be acquired if necessary. ktm r r 1 r I