Loading...
5. Site Plan for Park Area West to 18930 West 78th St • i . PC DATE: 8/1/90 .E. I CITY QF CC DATE: 8/27/90 � JJJ CHANHASSEN _�1 Y CASE #: 85 1 Site Plan Olsen/v I I STAFF REPORT 1 PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review Amendment for a Gravel Parking Lot 1 ILOCATION: The Easterly Half of the Lotus Lawn and Garden Property Z Adjacent to the Redmond Property. 4 Io 7 APPLICANT: Redmond Products Lotus Lawn & Garden (owner) 18930 W. 78th Street 78 West 78th Street la Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Q . II I1. _J---' 79)491-- Pei.~e IIPRESENT ZONING: BH, Highway Business tr:-..._ 1 ACREAGE: 20,000 square feet ix^ 5 -0'c. .r Cmuncii I DENSITY: g � r - �- -__5 a QL ADJACENT ZONING AND I LAND USE: N - Railroad Tracks S - Hwy. 5 E - Redmond Products IIW - Lotus Lawn and Garden W WATER AND SEWER: Available 1 40 PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : A level site with no improvements. 1 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II Redmond Parking -Expansion August 1, 1990 Page 2 ' PROPOSAL ' On September 12, 1988, the City Council approved a conditional use permit and site plan for the Lotus Lawn and Garden. The proposed improvements to the site were located on the southwesterly half of ' the property, leaving the southeasterly portion of the property open for future expansion. The rear half of the property is a protected wetland. Redmond Products is located directly to the east of the property. Redmond Products has proposed to Jay ' Kronick, the owner of Lotus Lawn and Garden, to lease the southeasterly portion of the Lotus Lawn and Garden property to be used as a parking area for the Redmond employees. ' Redmond is in the process of reviewing the possibility of relocating to a new site and expanding their facility until then Redmond is in need of additional parking for it's employees. The ' type of production that Redmond is involved in requires the overlapping of shifts so that the production is not stopped between shifts. The parking provided on the Redmond site is not adequate ' to allow for the overlapping of shifts and there has been parking of cars in the fire lanes and in other inappropriate areas. To accommodate the additional parking required, Redmond is proposing ' to construct a gravel parking lot on the Lotus Lawn and Garden property. The gravel parking lot will be approximately 19, 000 square feet in size and provide 78 parking spaces (Attachment #1) . The parking lot will be serviced by a curb cut on the Redmond ' Products site entering the Lotus Lawn and Garden site from the east. The curb cut shall have a concrete driveway apron. There will be no additional curb cuts on the frontage road, nor will the ' parking be directed through the existing Lotus Lawn and Garden parking lot. Redmond is proposing to lease the land for the parking lot for 3 years. ' The two issues with the proposal is the use of a gravel surfaced parking lot and the mass parking design of the parking area. The parking lot is being proposed gravel rather than the required paved lot with curb and gutter to accommodate Jay Kronick's wish to use the site for future nursery expansion. A gravel parking lot results in high maintenance, increased runoff, erosion control ' problems and parking stalls which cannot be striped. The applicant stated that they first proposed a paved parking lot but that the owner, Jay Kronick, preferred gravel so the property can be used for plant storage without the need for any restoration. Paving the ' parking lot will result in less maintenance, less erosion of the site (which is important with runoff directed towards the wetland) , will be in conformance with the ordinance and will not be setting a precedent. Staff has agreed that the curb and gutter is not necessary but that barrier curb stops must be provided for all perimeter stalls. Therefore, the parking lot can still be easily restored for use by the Lotus Lawn and Garden expansion. A 1 II 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 inch with ten 21/2 nch 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 II ' 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 1 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. 1 2. The parking lot will be permitted for three year (36 months) until October 31, 1993, and at which time the area must be restored to its original condition. If the use of the parking ' lot is extended beyond three years curb and gutter must be provided around the parking lot perimeter and the site must connect to the storm sewer in West 78th Street. 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 1 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 ro osal P P 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 II 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 I 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 I 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.• 1 I . . • 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 1 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 1 in an amount approved by the City Engineer to cover the cost to remove all of the proposed improvements and restore the site back to its original conditions." ' ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed parking lot plan. 2. Original parking lot plan. 3. Memo from Charles Folch dated July 24, 1990. 4. Memo from Van Sickle, Allen & Associates dated July 18, 1990. ' 5. Application. 6. Planning Commission minutes dated August 1, 1990. • I 1 } CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 1 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Charles Folch, Assistant City Engineer 1 DATE: July 24, 1990 SUBJ: Plan Review for Redmond Temporary Parking Lot Expansion File No. 90-18 Land Use Review 1 In order to improve a parking facility shortage primarily occurring during a work shift change, Redmond Products, Inc. is 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. I PARKING 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 1 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 j , 1 II Jo Ann Olsen July 24, 1990 Page 2 exhibits a sheet drainage scheme to the north consistent with the present condition. Silt fence is shown on the plans to be installed north of the parking lot just south of the pond. It is recommended that Type III reinforced erosion control be installed prior to construction and maintained throughout the life of the ' parking lot. Existing curb will need to be removed for the entrance to the proposed parking lot. It is recommended that a concrete driveway apron be installed. On July 18 , 1990 I conveyed the aforementioned concerns by phone to Mr. Anthony Pini of Van Sickle, Allen and Associates (engineer 11 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 1 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. II 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 I 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 11 I 1 I _ V,n a'a0011 i uro «. *chi-mum*,.0.110,0 aavw 71111 .. .- 0N1 S3Ltll�OSSV �� V10S3NNIW N3SSVHNVHO III I C.'"'=•~""- N1T1V 7D1�1S NtlA 'ON1 sionaOtld ONOW03H l-d6 raws11.�tocer,ar.� • 1 R iq il ill ill lit 1111111 i c) i l'i il . 9 1d ill i; I I I I I 11 I I �B , 0 a i 11 41 ail 1 ' n I I 0 ( 1 I . I 1� iii BIIfHo H. , i 1 ? z A : z ?I I 1 ( < trLcL. .) 11: -....„ -,--.':7) i CL..) Z 1 /9 s \\F1 JO y 45 d { I { { 111 ,E _ O # © is 1 w ill J a • q i I t 1 A-Al .O I ;-� ��fl 4' � ' y1:\ Z Ni.i. _____va_.______.a Q Ct II II I ~ ■1 i Ct ' + II-L-- ' 1 % I\ (.7) 1f. . MASS PARKING PLAN 1 . ATTACHMENT #1 • 1 1 . II N NEW GRAVEL 117'_0» '-f • PARKING LOT _ 75' SETBACK NEW LOTUS - z! CURB I. of _ CUT MOM 0 I C) S IL n I v h - RETENTION :I! ' ill EXIST. � C) 0 POND ',j Z LOTUS I 0 0 I`. iLOT j 00 11 mi I II IN NI ---f-1.--- S SETBACK -� 1 )PrR Ty V AG ROAD nil- F.F011-v 1 STATE HIGHWAY NO. 5 I 1 I 1 1 • - - - - I ORIGINAL PLAN PROPOSED SITE PL SCALE: 1'=60'-0 ATTACHMENT #2 i v4VAN SICKLE, ALLEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4969 OLSON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY • MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55422 • 612/541-9804 TELEPHONE CONVERSATION MEMO 1 TO: Mr. Bob Cordell DATE: July 18, 1990 IJOB: Redmond - Temporary Parking Lot VAA COMM. NO. : 90. 005. 10 BETWEEN: A.J. Pini and Charles Folch, Chanhassen Assistant City Engineer 1 COPY TO: Richard Van Sickle Charles Folch Discussed the temporary ar ' n lot with o parking g l ith F lch. 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 II Telephone Conversation Memo I 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. I 2 . Requirement for a bond to cover the cost of removal of the facility. , Pini thanked Foich for his help and cooperation on this matter. UNLESS NOTIFIED WITHIN 7 DAYS, ALL ITEMS ABOVE ARE ASSUMED TO BE CORRECT I AJP/cmm v719phon I 1 1 I II . LIMA 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. I Chanhassen. MN 55317 Zip Chanhassen, MN 55317 p TELEPHONE (Daytime) (612) 934 4 Code 868 TELEPHONE 949-0726 Zl Code IIREQUEST: I Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development - Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan ' Preliminary Plan 11 Zoning Variance Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision IILand Use Plan Amendment Platting __ Metes and Bounds Conditional Use Permit IIX Site Plan Review Street/Easement Vacation Wetlands Permi II t PROJECT NAME Redmond Products Leased Parking Area . IIPRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION BH REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION IPRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING IUSES PROPOSED Parking ISIZE OF PROPERTY Approximately 20,000 S.F. LOCATION I/ REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST Additional Parking For Redmond Products, Inc. I ' ILEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) ,, Land Development Application Page 2 FILING INSTRUCTIONS: I 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 , that he is familiar with the procedural prequirementsbof callifies applicable City Ordinances . ' `� � /J Signed By � d Date 7-/L- fa 1 Applicant The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been ' • authorized to make this application for the property herein described. _ Signed 8 �'"' .��������,,��rr By airli 1/��I'V Date f • er / 1 1'; /11C ih / Date Application Received I Application Fee Paid • City Receipt No. * This Application will be considered .by the Planning Commission/ Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their meeting. 1 IIPlanning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 31 I Erhart: Yeah , but we 've allowed boardwalks . ' Conrad: I think they 've gone over 100 feet haven 't they? Erhart: What we ought to do , if that 's where we 're going , then we ought to reference boardwalks perhaps in our ordinance and suggest that that 's what . . . ' Wildermuth: Haven't we allowed a . . .pathway at times? 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 CENTER ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP AND LOCATED AT 18930 WEST 78TH STREET , REDMOND PRODUCTS. 1 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 , 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 • Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 32 I Charles address the engineering conditions but as far as it being maintained , we 're just not comfortable with gravel . , Conrad: Do you want to address that if you can? Folch: Well basically , any time you have a situation like this where 11 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 II 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 II 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 damper 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 o 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 II 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 11 II 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 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 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 . Planning Commission Meeting 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 . I 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 . 1 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 . I 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 II 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 I 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. 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 11 II 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? II . 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 . 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 36 1 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 II 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 II 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 II 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 thell 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 II 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. 1 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 II I 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? 1 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 Planning Commission MeetinII g ng 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 . 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, II 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 an 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 11 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'tl get me wrong . I 'm having a hard time understanding why you 're recommendingi 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 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. • Elison: 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 . 1 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 II one is not being directed into the storm sewer so that 's one of the main I II • 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 . 11 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. 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 ' 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 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 . I Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 40 I/ 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 II 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 II 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 II 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 II . 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. 1 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 11 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. 1 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. 1 I II ' 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 that would be very , plus a couple up in front . Our people are right there ' and we could keep the keys for the other cars at the front desk so I don't think it would be an insurmountable problem. ' Krauss: I don 't wish to be argumentative but I see it as a more serious problem than that . Look at the plan there , you 've got 4 rows , well 3 rows that are buried. Emmings: What plan? Oh , that one . Conrad: Go back in and tell me how this affects the City? They're going to jump the curb so we don 't have curbs . They 're going to jump the berms 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. I Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 42 1 Krauss: We have requirements for parking stall width and aisle width that 'll 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 . II Chanhassen could be innovative and see . The problem is once it 's there , it 's the dickens to fix . I 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 the 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 II attach a condition to the site plan but the site plan is effective to the extent that they build the parking lot the way you approved it and then as long as they do that , they 're consisten with it . This is not a conditional' use permit . This is not something that you're adding conditions to that periodically you were allowed to re-evaluate. Then if something is not complied with , withdraw your original approval . Your site plan approval basically is permanent. Conrad: It 's really a parking. It really specifies the parking structure. Krauss: We could probably work out something cooperatively with them. It could be difficult to enforce . Bob Cordell : See if this didn't work. . .on our part and we'd have to do something to accommodate it. If we wouldn't, continue to try to do something that we couldn't implement, we'd go back to a reasonable plan. We feel we can do it. Otherwise we wouldn't have suggested it but I agree with you that again, if we couldn't get it in here in this density and we had to put another row in, well we'd like to move it and we would do that. Emmings: You know it would seem to me that, let's just say we did allow , the mass parking. I think Paul 's right. I think it's going to create problems . That's just my sense of it but it's not going to create problems, if it creates problems to the east they're on Redmond property. If it creates problems to the , it's not going to create problems to the TH 5 side I don't think because there 's trees and plantings in there so I 'm comfortable with that . It 's going to , the person it will cause problems for would probably be Jay. 1 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. I Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 44 Erhart: Why do we have an ordinance then? I 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 II 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'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 . I 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 . 1 Ellson: We 're not . We 're approving the way you guys have written it with an experimental period of time or whatever . I Olsen: What they're doing , we would actually have to, they 're not doing what was approved and they're not meeting the ordinance . I Emmings: That 's right . I don't know why we can't decide on an informal basis to approve it this way and decide on an informal basis we 're going to' allow them to conduct an experiment with. Ellson: And then after 3 months or 2 months when they come back and then you give them an official variance. Is that what you're saying Jo Ann? How do you let them do it year after year? Olsen: Or if it doesn't work, what do we do then? I call them up and say II 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 to approve it that way, go ahead and let us consult with the City , well . whatever . . 1 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 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. I • If Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 46 Conrad: Okay . Is there a motion? Steve . I 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 o the facility. A detail of Type III reinforced erosion control shall b 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 . I All voted in favor except Erhart who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1 . I Conrad: And the reason for your opposition? Erhart: Number one, I think there must not have been enough on the agenda II 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 JI • 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 IIpark 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. 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 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 • " IL Planning Commission Meeting August 1 , 1990 - Page 48 agree eo a large extent with Commissioner Erhart that Codes are Codes and I ' 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. Elison: 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? I 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 1 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 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, Elison 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. r I