PC 1993 09 01CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR ME~G
SEPTEMBER 1, 1993
Vice Chair Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
MEMBEI~ PRI~~; Diane Harberts, Matt Ledvina, See Scott, Ladd Conrad, Nancy
Mancino, and Jeff Farmakes
MEMB~ ABSENT; Brian Batzli
STAFF PRESENT; Paul Krauss, Planning Director; $o Ann Olsen, Senior Planner; and Kate
Aanenson, Senior Planner
PUBLI~ HEARING:
JOHN PRYZMUS FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT I~QR EXPANSION QF ~ GOI,~
DRIVING RANGE MAXI-MINI PUTT COMPLEX TO INCLUDE EXPAN~ION OF ~
BUILDING AND A BATTING CrAGE IX)C~TED ON PRQ~ Z0NI~ A2-
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND IOC~TED AT THE NQRTIi~'EST CORNER QF
HIGHWAY S AND ~ALPIN BOULEVARD~ SWINGS C.~.
$o Ann Olsen presented her la~ staff report on this item. Vice Chair Conrad noted that the
applicant, John Pryzmus, was not present at the meeting and then called the public hearing to
order.
Mancino moved, Scott seconded to close the public heming. Ail voted in favor and the
motion carrie& The public heating was close&
Farmakes: When you were out at the site, did you discuss the batting cages? Ho was present
at that discussion? He wasn't?
Olsen: No.
Farmakes: I guess I'll kind of take this oppommity just for a quick discussion about that
development and I know that the City's always been reluctant to have that development there.
It seems to me, was it 2 or 3 times he came in and had started work or...and oddly enough ifs
not that unsightly. I mean he's done a pretty credible job kind of like, I guess what I would
describe in kind of an old Chanhassen way. A tree put in here. Some brick put in here on
occasion and maybe 3 weeks later a few more bricks. What is the long term plan for that?
Do you think it's like the previous golf course...putting range that was in here. Until
development moves out there and then it gets sold off. Is that what you see there?
Krauss: His long term plan or what the city's envisioned?
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
Farrnakes: Either or. I mean I'm familiar with what it is in the master plan. rm just
wondering is this time line wise, how do you see that fitting in with what else is going there.
Krauss: Well if you're asking for kind of a shooting fi'om the hip reaction, I think it's pretty
clear to all of us that have been involved in what's going on in the city that things are moving
very quickly and it seems like they're always moving quicker. Ladd remembers when we did
the Comprehensive Plan in 1990 and we established that as a 1995 study area. I think a lot
of us thought that by '95, well we'd take a look at it and see, this is a ways off down the road
and let's change it in the year 2000. Well it now looks like to me and I told Nancy this
before the meeting, that I've got every reason to believe that we're going to have to look at
bringing that into the MUSA line in the next year to 18 months. As soon as that happens, the
value of that land completely changes. You've got land that's probably, well we, for the
school site across the street was $23,000.00 an acre. Just put that as a comparable value on
this thing and you can see what is likely to happen. Is a golf project like that viable in that
kind of environment? Probably not. I don~t know what the County Tax Assessor would treat
it as.
Farmakes: Are the tax people, does the County treat that as it would a golf Course?
Krauss: I think so.
Farmakes: Really? So there are some tax advantages to, when it hits MUSA and there is
development there, where does that assessment go then?
Krauss: I don't know and golf courses went through some State law changes a few years ago
because prior to that is when golf courses were being valued based on...had they been
developed and they were getting taxed to death. So they came up with some different way of
assessing them. I assume it applies to that one. Right now he may well have it green acres
for all I know. You know most of the land out that way is under some sort of tax abatement
program.
Mancino: But also I would like to add to what Paul said that the Highway 5 Task Force, we
went and looked at that land and have made some recommendations that will come to the
Planning Commission and City Council as to how that will be zoned.
Farmakes: Well it is zoned now. I mean when it's rezoned, what it's envisioned as. My
point being is that if it's a golf course currently now, or that's the status of it, is that like
agricultural property or are they credited against an assessment usually which is the push to
for an agricultural operation to sell out property for development. Do you envision in 5 years
then that he's going to be putting that up for medium density, high den~ty development?
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
Krauss: It all depends on the...in 5 years. Now, whether or not John decides to pursue that
of course is totally up to, his decision. If you really want to know the implications of' tax
laws on that, we could ask Od/n Schafer, the County Assessor. I know that it's not only
when property's are rezone& It's also when utilities are brouBht to the door and thags not tho
case yet...but lines would have to be extended across there. I also think that, you know I
haven't spoken with him particularly on that but Jay Dolejsi has been very active in following
Highway 5 program and he's in the past given me every indication that he would like to be
doing something with his property and his is the one that's adjacent and surrounds the golf
c.~urse.
Farmakes: What I don't understand here, if that is his intention, and I'm not going to argue
with that, why, has he made any, have you had any discussions with him in regards to that?
Why is he improving the property'if the time line for a sellout is so short?
Olsen: Well if you talk to him, his intent and his love is what's there and he wants to keep
that. He has never, wdve talked to him many times about flint and he's never given me an
indication that he's just waiting for sewer and water to come there and then to sell it. I think
he's going to try to stay.
Farmakes: You do?
Olsen: ...we were talking about the interim use permit and putting a deadline for it. I mean.
he was slightly irate that we would try to close down his business.
Farmakes: Well that's kind of where Pm going with my question. Isn't that really what we,re
been asking to see along Highway 5 is open space type occasionally as we work our way out
to the west'? It's almost on one hand that's what we'd like to see there. On the other hand, it
seems like we've been rather discouraging to that particular development over the history.
Olsen: I don't think we've been discouraging.
·
Farmakes: Just how he's done it?
Olsen: Right .... it's been frustrating because he's always done everything illegally and prior
to getting permission and so thafs where it becomes frustrating.
Krauss: And I know John's always come in here and presented this as staff is looking at him
under a magnifying glass. They're always cracking down on him, The fact of the matter is,
we caught him filling a DNR creek, among other problems that have surfaced from time to
time. Ifs been a very problematic thing. It needn't have been but it was.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
Olsen: We%e always recommended approval of his proposals...
Mancino: But the problem is he always starts everything and then comes.
Farmakes: Well I thought I'd go over that a little bit for those people who are relatively new.
This is sort of a reoccurring playing recorcL I don't know, 3 or 4 times in the la.st 3 years.
Krauss: More than that.
Olsen: More than that.
Farmakes: This particular individual seems to be one of those original people who moved out
west and don~ like people interfering with how they do things. I looked over your
recommendation. They make sense to me. I don~t have any arguments with what you're
saying there. I guess in discussing and looking over a long term period with him, there's a lot
of stuff here that just doesn't make any sense, even for long term use of the property. And I
guess I'm somewhat befuddled but I realize that that's not a part really, specifically what we're
discussing here. But it is a curiosity to me that if the time line is so short, that he would be
making these types of improvements. This type of improvement would be a significant
improvement to that property. Sort of a structural, there really isn't much there structuraLly
than what's being offered. It seems to me he wouldn't be getting his money back out of it.
Krauss: Well, l~m not so sure about that Jeff. I mean John is a guy that's lived through a
public acquisition of his property before. He owned property downtown that we .bought out
in the downtown renovation.
Farmakes: So you think he's improving it to.
Krauss: I don't think he's doing it. I mean Pre worked with people that are looking to feed
at the public trough here and they come to me with proposed office buildings that will never
be built and that kind of. I really don't think iIohn's doing that but I think $ohn's probably
pretty comfortable with the fact that public condemnation or acquisition, you don't do too
badly. You're compensated for the value of your property, whatever it happens .to be at the
time.
Farmakes: Obviously no one's here tonight. The surrounding property owners have been
contacted in regards to the lighting and so on. You~,e received no calls? I have no further
questions.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
Mancino: I have just one question and then I have a few comments on the conditions, which
I do agree with. On the main building, on the west end ifs like somebody has started
construction, new construction but it's not complete.
Olsen: That's because we put a stop work order on it. Thafs one of the expansions. Thafs
the expansion to the building.
Mancino: Okay. And is that under here? One of the conditions. I see the accessory
building.
Olsen: ...well no it's under 14. What he did is he started like a lean to against it... for more
storage area. That's what really started this whole process again. We stopped work on that.
He has to come in for a building permit but then he also has to come in for expansion to his
use .... we*re just stating there that he has to get all the permits approved...
Man¢ino: Okay. Thafs fine with me. I do agree with the approval of the interim use permit
for the expansion also. On some of those conditions, I would like to set up a come due date
as it were for them. For instance, on condition 2, which has to do with the lighting. The last
sentence reads, the existing lighting structures which are being used for nighttime hours must
be removed from the site by May 1, 1994. I would like to add that so before next season
starts, that that lighting has been removed. And on condition number 9. All parking areas
shall have curb and gutter by May 1, 1994. Again, before the next season opening. On
condition number 12. The applicant, must submit a.copy of the current pumping contract and.
receipts from previous pumping, and I put my May 1, 1994 also. And tho last one.is number~
13. The applicant must submit and receive an application for a fence permit by May 1, 1994
so that prior again to next year's opening season all 'those conditions are met And then I
would also like to add a condition number 15, that if the items '2, 9, 12 and 13 are not
complied with by their due date, the City will initiate a revocation of the interim use permit.
That we actually do ask for compliance. And thafs all I've got
Scott: I'd have to agree with what Nancy said because I was looldng at...beeause I mean I
haven't lived through this process but I'm familiar with the property and from reading, it just
seems like there isn't anything that we have done either legally or through whatever process
to intent this fellow to conform. And I thinic that's basically what we need to do is to set a
timeframe and say here are the things and if it's not done by this date, you're out of business.
So I just wanted to add that comment. I have nothing more to add other than tha~
Ledvimc Those datos 3'o .Ann, what do you think?
Olsen: That's fine. We were just saying that that sounded reasonable.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
Ledvina: So that's reasonable, okay.
Conrad: How about for the pumping though? You know if the pumping is a problem right
now, that would be the one that I'd like to do sooner.
Ledvinx Going November 1st maybe?
HarboRs: Of '937
Ledvinx Yeah. And when we talk about pumping, we're talking about the holding tank, is
that correct?
Olsen: Yes.
Ledvinx Let's see. For one of your recommendations, number 2. Do we have an ordinance,
or I do believe we have an ordinance as it relates to so many foot candles at the property line.
Is it appropriate to state that for this? Condition number 2. Well I mean as a quantitative
measurement of that.
Olsen: It'd be limited to the, on the building then...what we allow. He would probably read
into it that he can have...
Ledvina: Okay, so we're being specific to.
Olsen: This one building.
Ledvina: Alright. Condition number 6. Vegetation, topography should be retained. Should
be retained in a natural state in the shore impact zone. Minimum shore zone is 25' strip along
both sides of Bluff Creek. What's the situation now? What's happening there now?
Olsen: He hasn't really been, he hasn't touched it lately.
HarbeRs: Is the word should or should it be shall?
Olsen: Shall.
Ledvina: Okay. Then the next one, the structure shall be screened from view from Bluff
Creek using topography, existing conditions, etc. Does that relate to what's happening with
the trail easement there? Is that why we want that?
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
Olsen: Actually those two conditions were recommended by the DNR...district, shoreland
district. That's what they typically do now.
Ledvina: So from Bluff Creek but that's not like you've got boats or whatever in there. So
the DNR is recommending that just as a standard course?
Olsen: Standard...
Ledvina: Okay, but does that make any sense?
Olsen: ...I don~t know. I think I'd rather have...To be honest, they're all about 25' distance...
Farmakes: Aren't they actually screened? Isn't there a rise that comes up and then goos
clown...
Ledvina: Bluff Creek is what, 30 feet below the elevation there?
Olsen: I wouldn't say 30 feet but...ifs not real visible.
Ledvina: And I was reading on number 9. All parking areas shall have curb and gutter. I
was reading somewhere in the old City Council Minutes where curb and gutter is not
specifically required by ordinance there.
Olsen: ...commercial use, it is.
Ledvina: Okay, so it is required by ordinance, okay.
Olsen: Technically yes.
Ledvina: And then number 10. I guess I understand what you're saying here but I'm just
wondering if we shouldn't make this language a little more explicit now and I was going to
ask Brian if he was going to be here'but I guess we have the condition here that it shall be
valid until these 3 things but I'd like to add that if any of these conditions occurs, the interim
use permit becomes invalid so there's no ambiguity there. I think you can read into the...but
okay, that's what we were discussing with Nancy. But this relates to the MUSA line. Even if
he does comply with those other, fuses if you will for the submittal of that other information,
these other 3 conditions I think I'd like to see a little more specific.
Conrad: But Matt that doesnt mean you don~t want that use there. You just really want to
review it at that point in time. Or are you saying you don~t want that use there when one of
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
these things happens?
Ledvina: Well if you say the interim use permit shall be valid until, if one of those things
happens then it becomes invalid, right?
Conrad: Then my interpretation would be.
Lodvina: That's how I would explicitedly like to say it, if that's what we're saying.
Conrad: But aren't we saying it's up for review then?
Olsen: No, I think what this condition says is that it would be done...but he always has the
right to apply for an extension.
Scott: In condition number 10 where it says, shall be valid until the MUSA line is expanded,
to the property or what? I mean the MUSA line gets expanded all the 6me.
Olsen: Right.
Scott: What's the proper.
Krauss: To incorporate the site.
Scott: Okay, to incorporate the site.
Harberts: Well since we're getting detailed oriented here. Does that mean flint the day that
ifs expanded? You know when the line is on the map or whoever makes the line official or
you know, what's the time line? Is it 30 days from the 6me someone says the line's
expanded? I mean what constitutes the expansion? Is there like a public hearing and then by
City Council action or by Met Council action?
Kxauss: Well, yes to both. It takes a full action of tho Planning Commission public hearing
to approve a comp plan amendment which is then sent to tho Metro Council to review and
approve. Only after the Metro Council approves it can the City Council give final approval.
Harberts: Okay, so ifs based on the final approval given by the City Council. And does that
make tho permit invalid fight then and there or will he have a period of 6mo in which to ask
for an extension or what's the process? If this happened July 1st and ifs in the middle of the
season, you know are we all good guys and say okay, you've got to the end of the season?
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
Krauss: ...he's got that right.
Harberts: So that's the call that's taken then?
Olsen: If you want to be technical, yes. As soon as...is approved by the Council.
Harberts: So then he needs to get right in here and.
Ledvina: He's got to follow the issue.
Krauss: Given the way the process goes and the fact that he's a property owner anyway...heql
know about it at least a year in advance.
I-Iarberts: Oh okay. Yeah, because of the process that's involved. Okay.
Ledvina: Well we are saying then that if any of the conditions, item 10 occurs, the interim
use permit becomes invalid. Okay.
Conrad: And that's what you want?
Ledvina: Yeah, I think that's reasonable.
Conrad: Taking you beyond that. Because, if I were him that would make me feel nervous.
What are we looking for though?
Ledvina: We're talking about the triggers for the life of this interim use permit. We didn't
want to put a date in there. It's just saying that when these things occur, the permit is no
longer valid. I think that we've got some, we have ideas that when these things occur, that
uso is no longer going to be appropriate and that's why we, thafs why staff has laid it out this
way.
Olsen: You have to have a date. You have to have some sort of timeframe.
Ledvina: If we have a situation where we're going to re-evaluate it, what teeth does that give
us? I mean.
Harberts: We have to put the ball back in our court and thafs what happens with the permit.
When it terminates.
Ledvina: Right. Because then he still has the permit
Plimnlng Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
Mancino: What's very interesting, has ]'ohn attended any of the Highway 5 Task Force
meetings?
Krauss: Yeah. I think he was at the one where we put all the separate access boulevards
should go through his property...lanes from Highway 5.
Mancino: And he knows that ifs going on? Okay, good.
Conrad: Matt, anything else? Diane.
Harberts: Well I think some comments by Jeff earlier about the open space certainly has
some merit. I guess that's my comments. I would certainly prefer to see some open space
along Highway 5 myself. I guess what really concerns me is there's a process set out here
that the city uses to in a sense help manage the growth and development and character of the
community. It's not being followed, and we're not doing anything about it except okay maybe
he might give us the money for the Surface Water Management. I mean are these all
conditions then that he has to pay the funds before he's going to get this permit and continue
his business? I mean I think he's well aware that he in a sense can't go out on his own and
my concern is that, are we able to keep him in check now? We're doing it in the best interest
of the community. That's why the ordinance is there. Do you feel that this is going to keep
him in check? I don~t have any problem with that use out there but what I have a problem
with, is he going to be right back and doing his development himself without the city. I
mean where's the teeth here? When do we start getting a little nasty?
Olsen: ...conditional use permit and...his track record isn't.
Harberts: Ifs horrendous.
Olsen: ...I don't know if this is any stronger than the other ones...
Harborts: So what happens if he basically doesn't meet these approvals? He doesnt get the
permit and he still opens his door.
Olsen: Well if you approve the permit with these conditions, you have essentially what you
then do is...revoke it and we have done that before. We have...revoke a conditional use
permit and...
Harberts: It gives us the better teeth in the sense if we have to close it down?
l0
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
Olsen: ...you just have to go through the whole revoking pmcess...The Council will have to
revoke it and then...
Harberts: I don't have any problems with the recommendations...my greatest fi'ustr~on is,
maybe we have to start showing some teeth and maybe this is beginning of the process. I
would hate to see every single developer get away with murder here. Thafs my comments.
Conrad: Thanks. On condition number 1 it said golf videos. Are we all comfortable? Is
that what is there right now or are they miscellaneous videos?
Olsen: Well right now there are like 5 videos...
Conrad: But they're not all golf?
Olsen: No...
Conrad: Do we care? Are we trying to be consistent or overly consistent or is that a big
deal?
Harberts: I don't think it's a big deal.
Olsen: They are showing videos of your swing...
Conrad: You didn't see me play but you're right on $o Ann.' It seem~ like we're being overly
picky on that one and I think the building limits what he can do there. It's either do we allow
videos. I don't want somebody going out and checking if they're golf videos or not I guess.
Harberts: Well where's our ordinance or what are we going to do? ...to everybody, else too.
Conrad: There's some big issues in here and I'll skip that one for a second. Curb and, going
down to 9. Curb and gutter. What he's seeing on this is, Paul you said 2 years. This is 2
years so we're going to force him to put in new curb and gutter for 2 years. I.~ him stay
open for 2 or 3, or whatever he's been open. Now we're coming back saying curb and
gutter. So you know, Paul's saying 2 years. This permit is expired. I wouldn~, there's some
contradictions here that make me feel uncomfortable. I don~t want to close him down and I
don't want to build up some costs unless I felt that there was a return. If he had curb and
gutter, he's going to do it for 5 years. Yeah, maybe. So that one has me, I'm really.
Harberts: Let me share with you my thought process on tha~ You know basically again,
maybe I'm a little too process oriented at times but we have a city ordinance and ifs there.
11
Planning Commission Meeting- September 1, 1993
Ifs been established for a particular purpose. If the owner has a problem with it, then he
should be in here. He should be talking to the city. I mean we're doing our role, which is in
a sense guiding development according to the guidelines that are there. If he has a concern
with it, that is why a public hearing is there. It would have been very easy for him to write a
letter and say hey, it's only going to be for 2 years as I see it. I mean get real here folks.
You know it may be 2 years but we have...and that's basically what my thought process is.
The guidelines that we use. Do we start making business decisions for him? If this is a
concem to him, then I would think it would be in his best interest to communicate this to the
staff or participate in the public hearing. He also has an opportunity to participate at the
Council level. So that's where my thought process is.
Conrad: So if he were here and he said he didn't want to do it?
Harberts: I'd listen. 2 years, curb and gutter, it isn't cheap. You're fight, we may be paying
for it but like I said, Highway 5 may go through in 2 years. The expansion may happen in 2
years. Who knows. It may not happen for another 5 years so it may be warranted then. But
like I said, from a business owner, I fl~ink we have to be careful that we don't start managing
businesses...
Conrad: Curb and gutter necessary, for erosion or pollution or for.
Olsen: ...how it will be in 5 years...storm sewer and where it will be directed to but it is a
condition...and there are some wetlands and the creek fight there...
Mancino: Well fight now the parking lot has standing water on it in one area when you drive
in.
Conrad: That's why there's a boat there.
Mancino: But he's done wonderful landscaping around the perimeter of the parking lot at this
point.
Harberts: That way you can't see in. To see if you~,e got curb and gutter.
Conrad: Is everybody comfortable with curb and gutter? It is a pain in the neck for a 2 year
proposition. We can close him down.
Ledvina: I'd like to see it out of there.
Mancino: You'd like to see curb and gutter out of there?
12
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
Ledvina: Yes. Taking the requirement out of the recommendation.
Harberts: I'd debate it with you.
Ledvina: I see your point 100%. I think I'm looking at just what Paul had said about those
improvements and paying for improvements and if there's a practical consideration of where
we are, diverting that surface water flow to a treating system, then I would say yes but all
we're doing there with curb and gutter is concentrating the flow into uncontrolled areas so I
don't see tho value to it Other than aesthetic or for the sake of the process. I don~t know.
take your point very seriously but I think this might be a place, yeah. I see that being very
expensive.
Conrad: I would see it fitting into, what's the purpose? If'there's a real solid purpose.
Because it's.
Mancino: It's our ordinance.
Conrad: It is our ordinance.
Mancino: It is our ordinance.
Conrad: And I know it's his job to really come in and talk to us about it and it's our
engineer's job to tell us why it should stand.
Mancino: So I feel it would be unfair to say no and then have somebody else come in and
say yes.
Conrad: Have we not made exceptions in the past? We have.
Olsen: Frank Beddor.
Conrad: Yeah.
Krauss: ...post a bond...in fact just recently he asked for his money back without installing...
Conrad: Didn't we have one out, we had another out in the industrial park. On the other
side. Maybe that never went in.
Olsen: Stockdale.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
Conrad: Stockdale, that's it. See they were real incensed that we were going to.
Krauss: It is a standard but I guess Jo Ann and I are a little uncomfortable being knee jerk
about it. I mean if we can't explain why en~neering fee, Is so strongly about it. I mean if
they ask for engineering to re, assess their condition in light of the limited duration...lagifimate
water quality, water volume reasons to do this and if not...
Conrad: That's a good comment. I think we should get out of this thing. We could drag
anything out for at least an hour here. There's just no doubt. We can have no one in
attendance and we will still make it an hour long.
Ledvina: I'd like to make a motion.
Conrad: Before you do that, just one more question. Contributions for the surface water
management fund. Are we talking about $10.007 Are we talking about $100,000.007 What
are we talking about there? What do we think?
Olsen: ...it's more than $10.00 and.
Conrad: And less than 100. Thanks $o Ann. Is this going to be another one of those things
that puts him out of business?
Krauss: Well, there is the...city that's not paying. That includes your house and everyone
else.
Conrad: Okay, good. Any other discussion? Anything else? Is there a motion?
Ledvina: Yes. I would like to move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Interim Use Permit #91-1 to allow the expansion of Swings site in the form of an accessory
building, expansion to an existing building and expansion to the parking area with the
following conditions that are identified in the staff report with the following modifications.
Condition number 2 shall be modifiecL The last sentence to read, the existing lighting
structures which are being used for nighttime hours must be removed from the site by May l,
1994. Modifying condition number 6. Vegetation and topography shall be retained in.a
natural state in the shore impact zone. Minimum shore zone is a 25' strip along both sides of
Bluff Creek. Modifying number 9. All parking areas shall have curb and gutter by May 1,
1994. If upon further review the engineering department deems that curb and gutter necessary
from a surface water management basis. Number l0 to read. The interim use permit shall
remain valid until, (1) the MUSA line is expanded to incorporate the site, (2) construction of
a frontage road across the property occurs, and (3) tho property is rezoned. If any of these
14
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
conditions occurs, the interim use permit becomes invalicC Number 12 to read, modification
to the first sentence in that condition. The applicant must submit a copy of the current
holding tank pumping contract and receipts from the previous pumping by November l, 1993.
Number 13 to modify the last sentence of that condition to road. Alternatively, tho fence
must bo removed by May 1, 1994. And to add an additional condition number 15 to read. If
conditions number 2, 9, 12 and 13 are not complied with, tho City will begin the revocation
process for the interim use permit.
Mancino: Second.
Conrad: Any discussion?
Mancino: I just have a friendly amendment. On nomber 13. That first sentence I'd like it to
read, the applicant must submit and receive an application for a fence permit.
Ledvina: I'm sorry.
Mancino: The applicant must submit and receive an application for a fence permit.
Ledvina: And receive a permit for the fence.
Mancino: Yeah, and receive a permit, thais what I mean.
Ledvina: Okay. That's fine. I can live with that
Mancino: And on 15. I would like it to read that if any one of the items. Not all of them
but if any one of them are not complied with.
Ledvina: Agreed.
Conrad: And Matt, you kept golf videos in number 17
Ledvinx Yes. I think thais what he's proposed so it's reasonable to identify that as a
condition. Specifically to what he's proposed. Thais not arbitrary.
Conrad: Any other discussions?
15
Planning Commission Mooting - September 1, 1993
Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded tlmt the Planning Commi~,sion recommend approval of
Interim Use Permit ~91-1 to allow the expamion of Swings site in the form of an accessory
building, expamion to an existing lsdlding and expmsion to the im~ area wilh
following conditions:
The ~sory building cannot exceed 800 square feet, must be painted earth tones and
can only be used for golf videos in conjunction with golf lessons. No batting cages
are permitted on the site.
,
Lighting may be located only on the buildings for security. In no case shall any lights
be directed on adjacent properties or glare onto abutting road right-of-ways. No
lighting shall be permitted to extend the hours of operation beyond sunset Existing
lighting structures which are being used for nighttime hours must be removed from the
site by May 1, 1994.
3. The hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunsec
.
The applicant shall comply and receive any permits required by the Watershed
District, DNR, and any other legal jurisdictions as it relates to utilization of the site.
No storm water may be muted directly into Bluff Creek. A storm water sedimentation
treatment basin must be included in the storm water management plan.
.
Vegetation and topography shah be r~ed in a natural state in the shore impact ....... .~
zone. Minimum shore zone is a 25' strip along both sides of Bluff Crook.
.
The structures shall be screened from view from Bluff Creek using topography,
existing vegetation, color, and other means approved by the city.
8. Appropriate erosion control measures shall be taken during construction of the site.
.
All parking areas shall have curb and gutter by May 1, 1994. If upon furfl~r review
the ea~ineerin~ de~ de~m~ ~ curb md ~mt~r necessmy from a ~ut'ace w~r
manage~nt basis.
10.
The interim use permit shall remain valid until, (1) the MUSA line is exlmnded to
incorporate the site, (2) comtmction of a frontage road across the property occurs,
and (3) the properly is rezoned, ff m~ of these conditions occurs, the interim use
permit becomes invali&
16
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
II.
The applicant shall pay a cash contribution into the City's Surface Water Management
Fund for downstream water quality improvements if tho on-site storm water treatment
facilities fail to meet the city's water quality standards (NURP). The city's storm water
consultant, Bonestroo, will calculate the contribution based on the site plan.
12.
The applicant must submit a copy of the current holding tank pumping contract and
receipts from the previous pumping by November 1, 1993. A pumping~contract must
be submitted annually to the Inspections Division. Pumping receipts must be
submitted when tanks are pumped and when the annual pumping contract is submitted.
13.
The applicant must submit an application smd meeive a permit for a fence. The fence
must be shown on a registered survey and all property comers located by a surveyor at
final inspection. Alternatively, the fence must be removed by M~ l, 1994.
14.
Permit applications are required for additions and/or buildings approved for
construction. The applicant should contact the Inspections Division for building
permit application details before beginning or continuing any construction.
15.
If conditions number 2, 9, 12 and 13 are not complied with, rite Cit~ will begin the
revocation process for the interim tree permit.
All voted in favor and the motion carried ummimo~.
Conrad: This items going to go to the City Council when?
Olsen: It will probably go the 13th.
Conrad: And then what will we do? Is it your standard procedure lo Ann to send him a
copy of our motion? Yeah, okay. And would you strongly encourage him to attend the City
Council meeting. Good, thank you.
Harberts: And would you do this before your last day?
Olsen: Yeah.
Harberts: You're pulling your last official act.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
PUBLIC
PREI.IMINARY PLAT TO RI~PLAT LOT 2, BII)CK 1, OUTLET C ~ Q~ D
B~~~O ADDmQN
QF A H~L ~PAN$10N ~ R~TA~ B~ ~ ~~Y S~
~~AN~
Public INesent:
Narn~ Addw,,~
Brad Johnson
Truman "Tim" Howell
John Rico
Kevin Norby
Herb Bloomberg
Vernelle Clayton
Lotus Realty
Architect for Applicant
Attorney for Applicant
Landscape Architect for Applicant
Bloomberg Companies
Lotus Realty
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chit Conrad called the public
hearing to onier.
Brad $ohnson: Mr. Chairman, Planning Commission members. Brad $ohn~n...Our plan. this,x.~
evening is to make a review of where we're at. We're going to go through it part by part It's
kind of fun with the architect here to discuss the site plan, landscaping and then any questions
...plat itself which John Rice will address. Kevin Norby, who is our landscape architect will
address the landscaping issues that exist and try to fie that into your current ordinance that
you're considering after we're done here. As much as we can, as we said we would do... And
then Tim Howell will address the basic...site plan. He's the architect for the project. We
tried to bring quite a few visuals so you can kind of get kind of a picture of how this all will
look when it's all done .... tougher to deal with issues that are already there... As far as the
staff report, our position so far is, and thafs why we're going along with the parking study,
that there is currently plenty of parking front of the buildings...Frontier and the hotel but you
can't see it until you do a complete integrated study. Wek, e done two other studies like this
for this project and other projects that we~ve had and we've always had...so we'll see. As far
as the plat, and some of the questions the building inspector has raised, we just have to
assume that whatever we're going to do, we'll meet those standards. We're not prepared to
agree however with everything today because we did buy this from the city and so they are
part of, not the Planning Commission but the City. So we have to determine who has the
18
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
expense of making some of tho major changes that may have to be made to tho building they
sold us. And finally on tho signago, we will bo asking later on for basically tho standard
signage plan that is available in the CBD district and we'll... So Tim, do you want to start
off?
Truman Howell: I'm Truman Howell...architect. Several years ago we prepared the and did
tho construction development design of a resident motel as you see it today. At that time
thoro was some discussion of expansion. Future expansion and obviously...tying the
restaurant and Frontier building. So as Kate indicated, one of the attempts was to try to tie
these things together for that... However, as you can see there's obviously there's a large
room in here. We've used the same elements in the construction of the actual new portion. I
don't know if this is.
Mancino: Can you bring that up?
Truman Howell: When those ink drawings are blown up, by tho way, tho colors get a little
garrished so believe mo ifs not going to be this garfish color.
Farmakes: Excuse me. It would bo helpful if you'd bring it in front of the podium so...
Truman Howell: This is tho now construction of tho 36 room motel expansion attached to the
existing motel with a colonnade...and would allow actually interior walking directly into what
is now the Animal Fair building, which you'd have a now front put on it so tho two would be
connected. There would bo an outside dining area adjacent to tho restaurant. Under the, I. .:..~
think this is a large tree that we,re all seen in tho front yard of the Animal Fair building. The
reason behind this clone in here was actually suggested by tho city. That we break that off so
the thing...and we have no problem with leaving that opeax, either partially or totally. But that
was...trying to fie this thing together we do have, we didn't want to, not want to enclose the
back of it because then all of a sudden you,re got more retail space and what have yot~ It's
merely protection coverage for the dock area. Then tho Frontier building, as it exists now,
extending down the mansard roof. Providing a walkway to the back. And using the...of the
arches hero, pulling the glass wall back so that it no longer is at tho front of tho building but
it moves back so there is a colonnade under that as well. I havenk seen these photos which, ...
so these are all new to mo. However I have seen this one and what this is. Anyway, this is
an attempt to, in this profession we call tho hole inbetween. We're trying, we're filling tho
hole so to speak and this was then an attempt at having to see what would bo filled in there.
What it would look like. There's a considerable difference. I think this gives a better feel for
tho connection than perhaps tho other drawing. This would bo the new entryway for tho
restaurant, i.e. Animal Fair building. This would be the connection hero. These obviously
would be the same type of windows, dormers, ere, etc. Another building...was that taken
19
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
from the air?
Krauss: It's taken from a hot air balloon.
Truman Howell: Hot air balloon? That is very beaufifiil photo. Anyway, from the rear,
there was a question of what is it going to look like from down the street by Market, or
Highway 5. And this is basically the way it looks now and hopefully how that would be
affected.
Mancino: So you'll still see the old Frontier building from Highway 5 to the east of where
we're looking?
Trmnan Howell: In here?
Mancino: Yeah.
Truman Howell: Well the back of it would not be covered. Yeah, we're not building
anything on top of that part. Actually I took some photos, additional ones that.
Aanenson: That's why...
Truman Howell: Oh, okay. Fine. Well from the ground view, this is what you actually see.
You see the bowling alley and the big, these are from Highway 5.
Ledvina: Could you pass the bird's eye view?
Truman Howell: Sure. Then I think the question has arisen as to the, I'm sure it's in your
packet. Whether or not a truck can get back into that area and turn out of there. This lane
that we see in here is actually 27 feet. This one is 26 feet and I think the ordinance...
Krauss: ...it's 26.
Aanenson: We're talking about a delivery truck.
Truman Howell: I understand. We're not talking about a semi because we're talking about a
step up vehicle that in fact does most of the delivery of goods and foods, that kind of thing to
restaurants. I've been...restaurants for 15 years and they don~ bring semi's in. They do their
turning of the buildings so they do bring step tracks and you would have to.
Aanenson: They wouldn't all be semi's but they wouldn't all be steps.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
Scott: Well ifs like Sysco. I don't think Pve seen Sysco make a step truck delivery and they
seem to deliver to most restaurants in town.
Truman Howell: Sysco? Yeah, they have large trucks for over the road deliveries. From
here to Milwaukee but when they*re delivering to locally, they're broken down into smaller
units. This is the way ifs done, I don~t know maybe Perkin.~ doesn't deal with them. I don~t
know. They bring in a smaller truck but if you're talking about bringing a semi into hero and
turning, I would grant you that that's probably going to be a problem. But standard driveways
in most communities is 24 feet so I think we%,e got adequate space for bringing in a truck
and turning it. As a matter of fact, we%,e got more length here than most areas do. We%,e got
actually two lanes of parking that will allow us to bring in the truck, turn it back and then
bring it out. And ifs not right at this space either. Ifs several feet back. This width is 20
feet. We can certainly widen that We can certainly reduce the size of these.
Aanenson: That was the other question about tho dumpster location and...
Truman Howell: Oh the dumpster, it's behind the dock. We can actually go around behind
the building and pick out a dumpster and the most logical place for it to be back in the back
side of the dock. Back of the building which serves as a screen. That would not be a major
problem.
Harberts: You feel that with the, you can get a big truck in there with parking all around it?
Truman Howell: I'm just saying that it's done every day like this. I would guess that it would
make do here. You've seen, certainly you%,e seen the restaurants around this part of the
country. In your own town here. How big is the space for the Riveria is taken care of. How
big is the space where...McDonald's. They have to have...and this for example, this width is
20 feet wide. This is approximately, that's about 40 feet. This is only 6 feet and it's about
250 some feet deep. If you would like I could do some overlays of a truck.
Aanenson: That's what the condition was to put a template on there...
Truman Howell: I'll be happy to do that The other issues...Basically the expansion. The
connection into the restaurant. The wall we're talking about, I'm proposing a stairway on the
Frontier, blocking out the view of the dock. The existing Frontier building. My
understanding of the present sign ordinance is that we're allowed on each building 15% area
of the front of the building and that each tenant can have one sign no greater than 64 square
feet. I also understand that a pylon sign is allowed for each piece of property and this is
what we assume that we'll be dealing with. We don~t plan to violate any of those. We did
21
Planning Commission Mooting - September 1, 1993
indicate in our submission that the type of sign we're looking at is the sign that you see on
Team Sports, Sporting Goods front. And that would be, and I can identify for you a band of
that across all the buildings if you would like.
Farmakes: Are we to consider those three separate businesses then?
Truman Howell: Well they're certainly three separate plots.
Farmakes: Are these 3 separate businesses?
Truman Howell: Yeah.
Farmakes: So this isn't an addition to an existing operation?
Truman Howell: I'm talking about here, here and here.
Farmakes: That wasn~ my question. My question is, is of the development that we're
reviewing in these plans, this is an addition to the Country Suites?
Truman Howell: Yes.
Farmakes: Is the restaurant to be considered a separate business7
Truman Howell: Yeah. Ifs on a separate piece of property.-~ Okay, in terms of where are you-,,;
going I guess. Maybe I'm not understanding.
Farmakes: I'm asking the question. If I'm looking at a Holiday lnn~ they may have several
buildings attached with a runway. One of them may have a restaurant in it.
Truman Howell: This is a separate operation.
Farmakes: Do we consider them a separate operation under separate ownership?
Truman Howell: Yes.
Farmakes: So they're renting tenants?
Mancino: But ifs only two because the expansion is expansion of the existing motel.
Truman Howell: Exactly. And then this is separate.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
Farmakes: So you're proposing that this is in fact three separate businesses? Or two
separate businesses.
Truman Howell: Three separate owners.
Farmakes: Three separate owners?
Brad Johnson: Each building is a multi-purpose building.
Farmakes: So the signs that you're putting up then will be three separate signs? Three
different signs?
Truman Howell: I didn't say that. I said I think that's wh~ the Code allows us to do.
Farmakes: I'll let staff sort that out and thafs ambiguous I think ansae to a pretty specific
question but.
Truman Howell: Are there, my understanding. There are three separate businesses here.
There is a motel, there's a restaurant and there's a retail operation. I'm not trying to be
evasive. That's what my understanding is.
Farmakes: No, I'm even leaving the retail section out of that. In the expansion, we're talking
about signage. We're talking currently about the three buildings that we're looking at. One
is the existing. Two are being proposed to be added onto that. Correct?
Truman Howell: Okay, you're reading these as one building.
Farmakes: No, Pm not saying they're one building. That's my question. Are they three
separate businesses or are they two separate businesses, disregarding the retail across the way.
Truman Howell: Yes. Yes, the restaurant is seParate from the motel. And the motel
expansion is a part of this operation.
Farmakes: Is a part of that operation. Okay. So we're looking at sign, the sign packages you
talked about also include the retail section?
Truman Howell: Yes. That's one I think is very important for me to address that that be
taken care of.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
Farmakes: The confusion of what I was asking was when you're talking about the proposed
buildings that we're looking at here with whether or not the addition, in terms of signage is
considered a separate building.
Truman Howell: No, but it would be part of this business.
Brad Johnson: Jeff, if I could.., under your guidelines, or the ordinances that we operate
under in the downtown CBD district, we're allowed one sign per business. Is that correct?
Wall sign. We're allowed one pylon per lot.
Farmakes: I believe that it's dependent on frontage, isn't it?
Brad 1ohnson: No. And the wall signs are 15%. The standard wall signs. The wall signs
that we're allowed on a wall, all the buildings we've built so far in the city have the same
standard. 15% of the front of the building can be used for signage. But each tenant, and this
is important to remember, can only have one sign and the maximum size of that sign is 64
square feet. So that limits the total number of signs you're having. I guess if you wore to
look at the hotel as a tenant in two of these locations, you could say tho hotel can only have
one sign. But it tums out that in the hotel addition, there's also retail. On the first floor.
And then therefore, the businesses that are in there have a-right to a sign based on your
ordinances. This is not a PUD. Ifs the downtown CBD where we would prefer to go strictly
by your ordinances like we did at Town Square.
Mancino: Kate, would this be in compliance with the new ordinance that's coming through?....?
Aanenson: What they're proposing or what...
Mancino: What they're proposing. What they're using as a guideline.
Aanenson: The new sign ordinance does not allow pylon...
Mancino: Just monument. No pylon sign. Okay.
Farmakes: Did I overlook the retail on the 36 unit expansion? Is that in our.packet?
Truman Howell: On the first floor there's two shops...
Mancino: It shows it on my drawings.
Truman Howell: There's a beauty shop and gift shop.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
Conrad: Okay, anything else? Does the restaurant have a name?
Truman Howell: No, I don't think it does yet.
Conrad: Brand name or?
Brad Johnson: No.
Conrad: Anything else?
Brad Johnson: I'd prefer...then I'd like to add some comme~lt~ about the staff report
Farmakes: So on our plans on page 2 1 think it is. Two areas that are marked as shop should
be retail, right?
Aanenson: I was unclear on that Going on what they told me before, that there would be
two shops, I was unclear...
Farmakes: Yeah I looked at it and I thought it might have been maintenance or something.
Aanenson: I thought it was something where they were going to have...I had no idea it would
be like a beauty shop.
Conrad: Okay. It is a public hearing. Any other commonts on the:.proposal?- Okay. Is there
a motion to close the public hearing?
Brad Johnson: John Rice would just like to add a little comment now on the plat itself.
Because you're ultimately doing a plat as part of this proposal.
Conrad: Okay.
Brad Johnson: And he'll give you some background information. And then Kevin will
address the site plan, some modifications that we will be doing to that plan you received.
John Rice: Hi. My name's John Rice. I'm the attorney for Bloomberg. I don't want to turn
this into more than you ever wanted to know about Chanhassen Mall. l~ll partly be guided by
whether or not you have any specific questions. Herb did a colored in drawing, which I think
he did, of the Chanhassen Mall and the Animal Fair buildings and this is before the major
part of the Kirt building was, before thafs fight here. And the hotel then that was built right
in here. And at the time that we did the Bloomberg Addition plat, we did the parking lot and
25
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
we put separate driveways and here's that open space thafs now in there which is...about right
here. This orange builcling which has been removed. And that was included in the Animal
Fair portion of Lot 2. The part that was not required for the hotel. Now we're taking that
part for the hotel and drawing a line with just a slieht jog up to tho street. Then in tho
Animal Fair building here, over here on the comer, that will, the new restaurant will require
space down into the pink building here which at least Herb and I call the city building. Just
by the fact that Bloomberg owns it but flmfs the large building and we were there the other
day with the surveyor and Herb was looking at it and the extension down, partly in response
to taking care of the problem with the wall. That we can't have a wall that meets the building
code where you are right on the lot line. There is a set of columns across, running from east
to west which would fit very well and would be a good place to put the wall that would be
the dividing line between the new restaurant addition, this way and the old city buildings
down to the south. And obviously that wall to be built would have to comply with the code
requirements and would provide a good clean break as far as a new lot line for the south line
of the restaurant. And that's really about it unless somebody had some questions I might be
able to answer.
Brad Johnson: Kevin. Kevin has addressed the site plan that you see that Tim gave us.
Remember one of our jobs a couple of weeks ago was see what we could do about applying
the new ordinance. Kevin.
Kevin Norby: My name is Kevin Norby. I'm with Norby and Associates, landscape
architects. I think what we want to do is just make it clear that we're worldng with staff and
talked with Paul and attended the Tree Board meeting the other night-pertaining to. the-new...- .... -~
,.
ordinance. I think Nancy's probably the only one of you that have seen the new landscape
plan. We're just making some changes on the site plan that we're hopefully trying to meet the
new ordinance, new landscape ordinance. Currently I just saw the report tonight and some of
the recommendations and concerns there but we are falling short of the landscape
requirements. I think in talking to Paul and Kate, I'm not sure that the new ordinance is
what's going to be, we're going to be held to. I think the old ordinance, maybe because of the
property, retrofit. So I don't know, maybe Paul has something to say about that but we have
added some more landscape islands and some more trees and we're still worldng based on the
number of parking stalls to try to make this all meet your requirements. I don~t know if
anybody's...
Mancino: Well is what we have here.
Kevin Norby: Well the plan that I had at the Tree Board meeting, it's different than that...and
moving around a little bit and I'm not sure that even that is correct just based on information
we got as far as the parking counts and that sort of thing. So I guess what Pm saying, we're
26
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
going to continue to work through and try to meet the ordinance and I think it's up in the air
fight now as to what you're going to require of us.
Krauss: Kevin and I have talked about it. I think we're developing a protty good parking lot
landscaping ordinance. It's sort of difficult to throw that at a site that was developed 25 years
ago and make it fit. When these things have occurred in the past, we've always taken the
position of our intent is not to totally put a stop on any development from happening but to
as realistically as possible approach the current standard and work out the issues. And I think
Kevin's site plan is an attempt in that direction. I mean theoretically if were to throw the
current ordinance, which...
Mancino: 8%.
Krauss: Yeah, they'd probably have to knock off 20 rooms of the hotel to make it a yard area
because there's no way else for it to comply.
Mancino: How close are we going to get?
Kevin Norby: The plan that you saw the other night, ...require 5%. We're currently at about
3%. So I think there's some room there to work but we're not sure we've resolved all the
parking issues either.
Mancino: What's across the street in Town Square? Is that 5%?
Aanenson: Market Square?
Mancino: No, the one directly across the street
Krauss: I've got to believe... I mean that 5% has been a standard for a long time.
Kevin Norby: I have a copy that I can lay in front of you if you want to look. I'm not sure
that that's even the most current, I mean when you get into what we've got but I'm not sure
this parking is accurate.
Brad Johnson: Thanks Kevin. I'll just try to address some of these and then...somewhat
difficult to change a lot of things quickly... As far as the landscaping is concerned, that
parking lot was designed by the city and was paid for by the city. At the time...at that
particular time. Maybe when we do the parking lot presentation Fred, we can talk a little bit
about...periodically nm into this kind of problem. Because you basically have a lot of
buildings that are already in town and they are where they are and simultaneously we're trying
27
Planning Commission Mooting- September 1, 1993
and many of them were developed as a lumber yard or as ~..and they were not developed as
a retail, specifically retail facing toward 78th StreoL And when we came in as a redeveloper
years ago, it's been a long range goal to try to get the whole city facing 78th StrooL..and as
we go through the process of doing thaL..we're not planning something now, we're planning
something old. We'll work with the site plan as much as we can and also remember that tho
only thing that we're really changing doing is the newest addition is strictly just the hotel
addition. We're remodeling...in addition to th~.. As far as the parking is concerned, we
agree with the staff that Fred should study this and figure out what the uses are and some
technicalities do exist in that the hotel rooms themselves, or the meeting rooms and the
restaurant are under a lease to the hotel. And they will be run by the hotel and for the use of
the hotel, not the restaurant. So the restaurant will cater to the hotel guests and I think we
commented...Those are meeting rooms for the hotel... We already do have meeting rooms in
the hotel which we'll no longer uso and they will be redone back to meeting, or back to hotel
rooms, I think. That's part of the plan. Right now two hotel rooms have been turned into
meeting rooms...corner and they're basically suites that were redesi~ as a meeting room.
So it's very important as far as the parking plan, from out point of view, for you to realize
that these are two meeting rooms in the hotel itself, are not being used by the restaurant. And
the parking therefore, at least a share of it, 50% or more, will be hotel guests that are already
accounted for in our parking plan. Now we're doing a lot of this at the request of the city.
The city, not the City Council or this, but the people in the community have wanted mooting
rooms. And we've had a number of requests f~om the-industrial section who would like to
use our hotel but we can't uso the hotel because you have no meeting rooms like we'd like to
have. Secondly, we'd like to use the hotel but you can't ~ lunch and these are things that
we've been going through. And so what you see before you is again, not a perfect - .. ....
configuration because we're retrofitting an area and trying to fill with thaL As far as signago
is concerned, I always concern myself about signage. I do not believe we~ve had a public
hearing on any new ordinance. I do not believe that ordinance has boon presented to the
Chamber of Commerce. I do not believe, I just got a copy of it re, cently and it has had no
public comment other than the meetings that the community has so I don~t think it's fair at
this time to use that particular ordinance in advance of this approval, specifically because it
has not been even presented to the business community as a whole. Corroc[~
Scott: No.
Brad Johnson: And in addition to that, so what we're saying is we'd like to apply what we~ve
used in the downtown historically and modify that probably a little bit like we've done in the
past. We've simply said, each tenant gets one sign for each business. That sign can bo as big
as 64 square feet if it's okay, and it has to do with how the building's laid out and that there
is a pylon sign for each lot. So technically this particular project qualifies for a minimum of
2 pylon signs and a potential of 3. Because if you look at tho hotel as an addition to, you
28
Planning Commission Meeting - S~tember 1, 1993
know the hotel use is just an addition and theyk, e already got a pylon sign and they probably
wouldn't want. They probably would want another pylon sign but that maybe something
pushing a little too far. We do have businesses that are going to go into the lower level of
the hotel addition. Two small ones. One is the hair salon. It's already in town and it's asked
to move over there. And then we have a coffee shop potentially that would also be in there.
Just a quick in and out like a donut shop or something that would ancillary to that site. The
hotel, as we say doesn't have a name. We have not shown you on tho plan where the sign
would be and as Tim had said, we'd probably come back with a sign plan designating what
you would call... That building may be a restaurant for a while. Maybe it's not a restaurant...
but once we commit to a sign plan, that goes with the...in the downtown area so we have to
be, it's very critical to the business people in this commtmity that people can find them. Two
main vehicles for advertising in this community, and...i$ their sign and the Villager. Thafs
their primary sources of getting people from our community to some place. So one, we have
to advertise for it and people have to be able to find it. And if you don't have a sign, it
doesn't work. So that would be our sign proposal...and have sort of a schematic of what we
can see that to be and then we'll deal with the staff...and decide not to apply your own
ordinances, that's your own business. We have to ask for variances, I think you do too. As
far as the site plan itself is concerned, there were a couple of questions. I think in general we
have tried to, in absence of Fred's study, antic/pate getting as much parking out here in front
as possible. And I think let's just hold off the parking discussion until we see the various
mixes of how parking looks. I suggest you drive by the Frontier Building tonight on the way
home and see how many cars are parked out in front, which is sort of a peak restaurant time.
And I suggest you come by the hotel around. 2:00 and see how many cars are parking in the
hotel parking lot during that time.' .There's just a certain swing. I'mean it has sort of s~..:-..-..- -
restaurants with hotels. There's a noon 6me...fl~ 6me. But other issues that have come up is
that, and these are firings that as the...I wasn~ sure I agreed to but we have closed this
entrance here because it does get comfusing and it also takes up a lot of parking. And with
the new light going in over here, it was our feeling that we should direct the people there.
Now I'm a resident of Chanhassen but I also work here and I know that certain things work
and certain things don't work. For example, I was opposed to the curb in,you know where
the curb is out here and the clock tower is, because I live here. I said that will never work.
You need a straight road. It didn~ go that way. Okay. And the en~neers told me it couldn't
but now some people have come back and said, well why is it the way it is. It should be a
straight road where all the tra~c comes down 78th. Well what's happ~ing is that now
less and less traffic is using 78th and more are using Galpin, they said well that's going to be
years away. Well we're trying to get to the point that that road is being used but they
literally ought to close 78th to make it work and with the new stop lights over, it may be feel
that 78th is that way. But the point being is, currently if you look at Town Square. We went
through all these types of plans, there is no stacking requirement in a situation like that
Town Square has 3 restaurants and no stacking requirement for traff/c to back up here. The
29
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
bowling alley and all that over here doesnt have it. All of the Dinner Theater, which has
hoards of people coming out of there at a certain time of the day, and look. There are no
stacking lanes towards the front. The point being is that when I leave this place today, I don~
like, I park my car right here. I don't like to have to jog and go this way. Okay. It just
doesn't work. Secondly, if this whole lane requires every car that comes in here to jog back
up against the building, we're going to have a tremendous amount of traffic here and very
little on that road. Thirdly, and Fred can substantiate this, the total amount of traffic into a
restaurant. The restaurant, has anybody in the restaurant business? Okay, if you had one
turn of every chair every hour, would you consider to be pretty good? In a sitdown restaurant
situation.
Scott: Well you'd like to do better than that. That's how long it takes somebody to eat
generally speaking so.
Brad Johnson: About an hour, okay. So and your code said they anticipate that each car that
comes will have 2 people. That seems to be common. You know some come with I and
some come with 4. So a restaurant that's very success~ will generate on tho average, 1 car
per minute. And I'd welcome you to go look at the Riveria during ifs peak time and watch
how many cars come and go. It's not a lot of cars. A Hardee's generates 1 car every 30
seconds to a minute. There's not a lot of cars. Very su~ McDonald's, about the same.
Okay. So thafs not a lot of traffic. Look at your clock and the next car that will come in
and out of there. In the hotel side, which is over here, it has, or will have 120 rooms. Those
rooms will fill between the hours of 4:00 in the afternoon to 8:00. So if everybody was
coming and going a couple of times, the hotel will generate about 1 car every-2 minutes,-. So-.
you really don~ have what you call a lot of traffic genern~rs there. You have a lot of them
parked but my only...I think that can remain open. I don~t thinl~ Paul we~ve had any problem
whatsoever at the Town Square one and that's how thafs lined up and I don't thinir we've had.
Aanenson: But you also have more curb cut openings into West 78th Street. You have a lot
of traffic funneling into one curb cut.
Brad $ohnson: But you're saying a lot of traffic. Lots of traffic.
Aanenson: I talking about access points onto West 78th Street.
Brad $ohnson: Town Square?
Aanenson: Are you talking about Market Square or Town Square?
3O
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
Brad Johnson: Town Square. Town Square is identical to what Fm suggesting and it's got 3
restaurants.
Krauss: Town Square?
Brad Johnson: Yeah, it's got the Riveria, parking lot. It's got Chin's. It's got the video store
and it's got Little Ceasars. If you look at all that
Aanenson: They also have more access...
Brad Johnson: Two.
Krauss: And the...
Brad $ohnson: I don't know how you expect me to handle it, I donk think there's any
traffic...but I really think you're going to create a tremendous problem here. I donk have the
money to hire the engineers to prove you wrong or right, okay. But I don't think wek, e got a
problem. I think we get carried away with stacking and I think it just screws up parking lots
personally. And if we do have, maybe that's the thing but I think thitt's an issue. I don't want
to have to hire an expert but maybe Fred you could address the question as far as traffic in
and out of your study, I don't know. But there's a way of saying yes, if we really need
stacking. I think it's a problem because I'm there. AU you're really going to do is drive
everybody over to here and it's just not going to work. It hasntt shown up yet because we
haven't closed this off.
Krauss: I think ifs real hard to deal with this out of context and maybe it is something that
Fred can touch on. You know you're being asked to base your hypothetical decision on the
fact that the problem doesn't exist today and there's nobody there in the first place. We're
putting a stop light at that intersection. It's going to back people up and that's what stop
lights are intended to do. They're going to back into the property. You're not going to be
able to just spin out whenever there's a break in the traffic, which is the case now. There will
be considerably greater levels of traffic than there are fight now. Certainly, if nothing else it's.
going to be a 180 degree...
Brad $ohnson: My point is, I think we're creating a problem in the loss of this user friendly,
that's all. I don't think the stacking...Market Square because they have over stack lanes and
people are driving through them but that's my opinion... But I think that's an issue and I don't
want to let it die because I think it's a poorly designed parking lot at that point...and I do not
want to have to hire BRW or somebody but maybe Fred can just say, do a whole study at this
time.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
Conrad: For the same price Fred.
Brad Johnson: Fred knows this parking lot probably better than anyone. In fact you may
have...
Conrad: I tell you, if anybody knows it Fred, you're going to help us. You don~t even have
to do a study. You could tell us right now but weql hold off.
Brad Johnson: As far as Highway 5. Somebody asked a question about Highway 5. If you
take a look at, and I've used this with the HRA. If you drive down Highway 5 now and look
at downtown Chanhassen, the Dinner Theater appears to have a peaked roof in the ev~ing
because you look right through the top and you're looking at the top of our two other
buildings over there. I mean just drive down there, the whole line of it's changed over the
years as we developed buildings in that area. So I don~t know, has anybody done that? Drive
over there tonight and you'll see. It appears that downtown Chanhassen now, it's sort of a fiat
roof...appears to have peaked roofs but you're really looking at the professional building and
Heritage. It just looks a lot nicer and what we're suggesting here, as we fill in another void
over there with that, it will take us a while to get around to the front or back, or whatever
you want to call the Frontier Building, but I think we~l again help the visibility from that
We're not trying to do anything with the back of the Frontier Building...but the question
comes up, I think you'll see a lot nicer effect. As far as, there's a number of things we're
going to have to go back to staff this week with. You know Nancy came and visited
yesterday. She said, why are you going to be here? We're just looking for other objections
or concerns and then we'll go back and work it out over the next few weeks but I just wanted'
to go over that right now... Agree with items l, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9.
Mancino: You said you agreed?
Conrad: With those, yeah.
Mancino: Okay, 1.
Brad Johnson: 1, 3, 6, 7, 9. We have some questions about dedicating additional right-of- -'
way at this time to the city because we don~t know what it means to us. It's a new wrinkle.
...again we're going to need it in the year 2000, well. Take it in the year 2000. We're not
really, we don't really feel one way or the other about the 5 parking stalls in the service entry
area. We said we know we need parking and until we know where we stand on parking,
somebody says you can't build a building, you~e got to tear down another building to get 5
parking spots, there's a lot cheaper place for us to get 5 parking spots. We're not...Nancy
suggested maybe part of it should be landscaped. We don't care. We just need, we know we
32
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
need a certain amount of parking. As far as the sign, I gave you my opinion on the sign
which we don't agree...and we don~t think that's tho current ordinance and probably isn~ in
good faith because the city put it there. They required us to move it there when they did up
the parking lot. Now these are things that have gone on in the past. We made to relocate it
to that location. So thais the way it works. We said we~l even improve the...we never used
it. That kind of thing. Parking study we've agreed to. The fight-of-way, we had a question
and that's kind of where we're at. I think the one that we anticipate that we're going to have
to talk with the staff with is parking, which we~ve got to wait for Fred. I don~t know if we
can talk to staff about the sign plan. You guys will have to read the ordinance because they
have their opinion and we have our's.
Conrad: And the next time you're going to bring in a schematic for us? I think thais real
important.
Brad $ohnson: We*e done enough sign plans for buildings here. We know it takes a while
to get through this because we all understand signs but we use Town Square and Market
Square as an example of how the sign will go. In all those cases we have set up sign bands
and we've agreed on various height stipulations... I guess our only real argument here may be
how many pylon signs we have. I think we probably want it to be 40 feet high so we can see
it from the highway. They want to have it at the road but that's, what we're going to have to
discuss. We'd like more traffic off Highway 5...for the retailers, okay. Thafs whore we are
and I don't know if, we'd like to have some input from you on architecture and other things
that...
Conrad: We'll give you some commentS. Still public hearing. Any other commentS?
Anything else? Is there a motion to close the hearing?
Fammkes moved, Scott seconded to close ~be public heating. AH vo~P.A in favor md the
motion carried. The public heming was close&
Conrad: More than likely we're tabling this and so it's coming back. So as Brad just
concluded, I don't know if ifs the time to drill. It's a time to give them our opinions so then
they know when they're coming back what they're fighting or what they're not fighting. Or
issues that you want clarified so I really don~ think now is the time that you want to make
some detailed commentS other than talking to the developers about where, certain of the
conditions in here or anything else. But kind of in a little bit more general terms. Maybe.
Diane.
Harberts: Oh thank you. Kate, in your report you talked about the reluctancy to provide the
cross parking agreement
33
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
Aanenson: Without doing a parking study...and we need to make sure that that"..enough
parking for those uses without...
Krauss: The Frontier Building's under different ownership, and $ohn Rice and I have
discussed this for years and ifs one of the most complex, convoluted pieces of ownership
you'll ever see. But there are different ownership situations and somebody who's going to the
restaurant or owns the restaurant for the hotel has no right to send people over to the Frontier
building. At some point in time ifs very clear that it's going to be owned by somebody else
who's going to say it's my private property. Get off. The only way to protect that is to have
a permanent cross access easement" If in fact we conclude that there's sufficient parking over
there, but that that cross parking isn~ going to firmly guarantees the right"..and Frontier
building customers to cross over. Park on each other's property. That's standarcL
Aanenson: And that would apply to the bowling alley...
Harberts: So are you saying that if it's deemed that sufficient parking, that there is not
existing. If existing parking is not sufficient without these crossovers, are you saying then
that you'll be knocking on the door for instance of Southwest Metro and saying can we use
your.
Aanenson: No, he's got additional parking to the rear of the building. Additional property to
the rear of the building but we're saying there needs to be a way to get people to' that location
thffs attractive and accessible.
Krauss: Southwest Metro really doesnt enter into it for a couple of reasons. First of all, take
for example room on Bloomberg owned land to resolve it. Secondly, as much as we respect
Southwest Metro, you're not the property owner. I mean it's the city that owns it and you
have a long term lease and we're obligated to maintain it.
Harberts: And I'm sure that if it came to a discussion point that the City would consider the
$96,000.00 investment that was using public tax dollars in that transit facility.
Krauss: Right, but we're not in the habit of leasing the same thing twice.- You can go to jail- .
for that sort of thing but there's ample room to fix it. Diane, we~,e looked at &is 8 or 10
times...
Aanenson: Plus the parking will be in closer proximity than Southwest Metro.
Krauss: It's too far away.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
Harberts: I think it's good to table it simply because there's a lot of parking issues. I think
the project is good. This area, I~e been c, ommonting to some people, is certainly Irind of a
focal point for Chanhassen and you know with the signage and everything, I'd like the plans.
It's getting some of this other stuff worked out because it is retrofitting and we certainly
recognize that. So I know some of the commissioners may want to understand why, some
logic behind a variance, things like that but I do understand that it's a retrofiL Maybe it's a
give and take thing and again, because it's a focal point of Chanhassen, I guess I'm concurring
or I feel strongly with what staff is saying for the signage. So the comments in terms Of tho
signage. Yeah, I wish it was a little bit cleaner but do you feel th~n that that parking study is
going to help address some of this? Do we take the curb cut out here or whatever.
Aanenson: We're going to ask engineering for more detail too based on the signal and
stacking and that sort of issue.
Harberts: Okay. Otherwise I guess I really lend support to the concept here. I understand
this is in the TIF district. I don't know if that makes any impact. Brad made a comment
earlier though, confused me a little bit about somebody, with city ownership, who*s
responsible for some costs here. I don~t know if that's an issue so I think it's good that it's
being tabled so when the plans come back, that all these questions have been addressed or
whatever from city staff perspective.
Krauss: Well yeah, that was a new wrinkle for me but, and if there's anylidng to it, it's
between Brad, or Mr. Bloomberg and the HRA.
Brad Johnson: He's right. It's the HRA that sold it to us.
Harberts: Oh okay. I guess my primary concern is just centered around the, if there is
impact to the Park and Ride locations, that there will be some discussions occurring before it
comes back for final site plan review. But I like it I know Country Suites is very successful
in terms of people utilizing the space so I'd like to see more of it I think it will be a good
addition to Chanhassen.
Ledvina: Well I saw the first draft of the architectural proposal and one that we have in front-
of us tonight I must say is a great improvement so I'd like to commend the proposer as far as
those changes are concerned. I think it works much better. I guess while I share Diane's
concern about the parking and even the signage, I thini~ there has to be some discussion. I
understand the applicant's concern regarding future ordinances and thafs a difficult situation
as well but I think those things can be worked out. And I did note some things on my
architect or my landscaping plan but I'm just going to pass on that and wait until we see a
new plan on that and look at that next time. But other than that, I do support the proposal.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
Conrad: Okay. Joe.
Scott: Yeah, I like the proposal and I'll save my comments I guess for the more detailed
package that we'll get when the parking gets taken care of. That's something that concerns
me and it's going to be an interesting trick to see how you can utilize the land south of the
property to get people who are going to be parking down there safely into the building but
that's, I'm sure somebody can figure that out So I have no more comments.
Mancino: I don't really have any new ones. I would supper tabling this and figuring out
parking. Landscaping, with the new ordinance, I would like to see reaching 8%. I mean I
think 3% is too far away from 8% to me, which is what our new ordinance is suggesting. It
hasn't passed yet but I would like to see something closer. Maybe a 5% in there with the
landscaping. And what have we done in the past Kate about when we are in the process of
creating a new signage ordinance or whatever the new ordinance is and someone comes in
and gives us a plat to review. What have we done historically?
Krauss: Well strictly speaking Brad, you're right. I mean an ordinance isn't an ordinance
until ifs had two readings and be~m brought before the City Council and the public. On the
other hand, this is a project in the Chanhassen Central Business Distri~ Everyone of which
is done on a cooperative basis with the city. Just as a general nde, it seem~ inappropriate to
be asking the city to be a partner to some extent in a project and then throw the book at us
and say, well this is exactly what the Code says. I mean I think fl~t there's a lot of, there's
ample mom in the process to reach an accommodation and thafs what's been done in the past.
Mancino: Okay. So that's what we would expect from this project also. To see the
cooperation done between the applicant and the city. How much TIF funding are they
receiving?
Krauss: I honestly don't know. Maybe Brad can answer that. I think the last I heard, they
were going with the standard. The 3.
Brad Johnson: For any type of remodeling project in the downtown.
Mancino: What is that?
Brad Johnson: Three years of taxes.
Mancino: Three years of taxes. Okay.
Harberts: So what does that amount to?
36
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
Brad Johnson: How much?
Harberts: Yeah. Ballpark figure.
Brad Johnson: $120,000.00.
Harberts: Total, or per year?
Brad Johnson: Total.
Harberts: For 3 years. For the entire project?
Brad Johnson: That's Frontier. Most of the TIF, by the way, is just generated by the motel.
That's the only thing...Ifs more to make the whole thing feasible. YouX, e got realize that any
remodeling of an exterior increases rents and the only way to increase value and it's hard to
deal with that over time but remodeling does not increase rents. Improving the property does
not increase rents necessarily.
Mancino: That's all I have.
Conrad: Okay, Serf.
Farrnakes: I also support tabling this until we have a more concrete presentation. I will take
the opportunity though to throw out a couple of reactions..I think the architecture is fine..
Continuation of the Country Suites item. I think ifs integrated fairly well with the walkway
with the existing structures that are there now. It worries me I-guess somewhat that we have
such a long length of a wooden structure, I mean the entire length of 78th but there is, that's
being modified I guess by the stone work on the walkway. I'd like to get, when this comes
back, a legal opinion on the issues of our ordinance. Are we, for the current hotel. The
proposed hotel and the restaurant and meeting room~ if there are agreements for use between
them or among them, are we dealing with separate businesses there. If there are long term
use agreements between one business and another, should we be looking at that as a business
or separate business? The two retail areas, in the current hotel and I've seen other uses
similar to that. The Holiday Inn over by... They're talking about a coffee shop and haircut
place. That seems inconsistent, although many types of operation do not have signage
packages. They're considered part of the use within the hotel and the primarily customers are
hotel customers and that brings me to the restaurant Again, it seems primarily used as a
revision marketing wise as a use for the hotel customers. And I understand that there are
other ideas or for local usage. I'm not sure, does the city have for local use, has the city had
any feedback as to what, I mean is there a commitment to that or is that pay as you go? I'm
37
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
talking about the meeting rooms in the restaurant and you were talking about for local use.
That it's really a city need. You also stated that the meeting rooms, the agreement for using
the meeting rooms with the hotel. Is there an hour use or my question is.
Brad Johnson: When you book a room, you get to use them. You have to stay there.
Farmakes: I think as part of the presentation I would like to know more about what that
agreement should be.
Aanenson: What the relationship is.
Farmakes: Correct. There will be a liquor license for the restaurant and the application?
The restaurant is dining type.
Brad Johnson: ...Bennigan's.
Farmakes: So there is a bar out front?
Brad Johnson: Chili's. Yeah, ifs a standard. About 20°,4 of it is...I'd love to have you tell
me that 80% of the use is from the hotel because then we woulcln~t need any parking but in
real life about 80% of the business will be outside of the hotel. In total dollar amounts.
Farmakes: I guess I'll wait and see what the presentation is on the signs, ge issue. Some of-
that I think relates to, are we dealing with separate businesses here?- Or are we dealing with
2, 3, 4. The retail section, I haven't heard as much about it. It just seems to be, so I'm not
going to discuss that at this point. But my interpretation of what we're getting into talidng
about signage commitments and 40 foot tall pylon signs, I question if they work or whether
or not the signage would work as identified for TH 5. They*re too far away. Obviously the
40 feet would be certainly out of character. I'm a supporter of moderate signage but I also
agree that it is important to identify businesses depending again on the size of the business
related to the size of the sign. So that we avoid the type of clutter and redundancy that
accompanies poor signage use. I think under our current ordinance, on one hand in this
presentation we're being asked to ignore some ordinances that we have on the books .and on
the other hand we're being asked to follow specifically other ordinances. I guess if I was
convinced that these are certainly separate businesses and tho city is willing to stand behind
that, I'm certainly open to apply whatever that presentation is more...but as the point was
made, I think the city is a partner in this and there certainly are areas for negotiation in the
issue of parking and I don't see why there's not areas for negotiation on anything else. I
certainly think that it would be a nice development addition for the downtown area. I
certainly would support, if we can work out these other issues. I think certainly for the
38
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
signage proposal, I would ask that certainly the intent of what we're looking for be served.
And I think also on the parking, I would like to kind of list~ to reason on that because that
particular area had been developed certainly years before...
Brad Johnson: Can I add one comment? Apprecia~ what you said and I think woql come
back...but I just got to make sure we don'C..in re, al life the r~usurant is a totally separate
operation...and there are two current tenants in town that would disappear I think if nobody...
They're in the building now...
Farmakes: I did want to list some concern about the signage subcommittee. There was a
committee put together. Half of the committee was made up of Chan Chamber of Commerce
members. President of the Chan Bank and Mr. Borg from McDonalds.
Brad Johnson: There were no downtown retailers...
Farrnakes: Well I guess, it's hard to list the bank as being considered retail although...ifs
certainly located downtown. But they are a Chanhassen business owners and they do deal
with the same problems that I think any business in town so I just wanted to let you know
that there were members on that committee. In fact, they made up half tho committee.
Conrad: A lot of business people still have concerns with visibility. We struggle with that
all the time and there's a compromise here but if you went and surveyed them, Joe you might
know better but, I don't know. Even recent developments. They're always going to want
more. For sure, so ifs hard to really assess accurately whether .we're giving them fair ..
exposure. But the one thing for sure is, we have to give thom reasonable exposure, and that's
easy to say but hard to define. But there's no reason to hide people. There just isn't. Just a
couple, I like what I see. I think the challenge is to figure out how to get people from the
back to the front. You shake your head Brad, I don't see it friendly. I see the front row
friendly, and I'm not real concerned about the 3% because the front visually looks good and
usually greenery breaks up big parking lots. It makes things look, for people. This looks, the
front looks for people to me, and I know Nancy, and I'd like to have the $ but on this case,
and I'm not trying to say developer don't try. But on the other hand, the front seems real
good. I'm concerned with the back. I'm concerned with the passageway to the front. I'd like. .
to eliminate more parking in the front and dump it to the other side but Fred, I hope you can
find some great solutions for us because I'd really like to take some parking spots from the
front and put them some other place. But thafs what your smdy's going to tell us. But again,
I don't have a problem with, I know we're going to work out the signage. I don~t have a
problem with that. I just really do have a problem with the passageway. So I don~t want it to
be a dark, dreary place coming through. Ifs got to be friendly both sides and that makes it a
workable project for the owners. That's my biggest concern. Nothing really, the other things
39
Planning Commission Meeting- September 1, 1993
we're going to solve. There's no doubt in my mind. Anything else? Anything. Okay, is
there a motion? We probably want to table this.
Mancino: I move that we recommend that we table this request until a parking study has
been done for the entire Chanhassen Mall, Bloomberg Addition and it comes back to us.
Conrad: Is there a second?
Scott: Second.
Conrad: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion?
Mancino moved, Scott seconded to table the pmlimimy plat to replat Lot 2, Block, Outlot C
and Outiot D, Bloomberg Addition into 3 lots and ft site ~ review for a hotel expmsion
and resem,vant between Country Suites Hotel and Frontier Building until a parking study has
been done for the entire Cbanhassen Mall, BIoomberg Additio~ All voted in favor of talding
and the motion carried.
ZQNmG QRDINAN~E AMENDMENT TO LAND~C~t. PING REQU1REMEN~ FQR ~ITE
PLAN REVIEWS.
Public Present:
Nome Addrus
Harold Schobelstad
Tom Dunlap
Kevin Norby
Southwest Metro Transit
Chanhassen Tree Board
Norby and Associates
Paul Kmms presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chair Conrmi called the public
hearing to order.
Harold Schobelstad: Good evening. My name is Harold Schobelsta& l~m a landscape
architect with...I'm here to add a layer of complexity if you will to ibis particular ordinance.
What I would like to do is make a couple of introductory commentS and then address the
ordinance in particular. Our office is a planning consultant to Southwest Metro Transit
Commission. We are also planning consultants to l~innosota Valloy Transit Authority,
southern suburbs south of the Minnesota River, as well as Metropolitan Transit Commission
4O
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
so we in our history have done a great deal of transit planning and design and consulting
services. In our capacity with Southwest Metro, and again the roason...ordinance tonight here
is the fact that Southwest Metro is thinking about park and ride lots in the city of
Chanhassen. What effect will this planting ordinance, this landscape ordinance have on future
park and ride lots in tho city of Chanhassen. Some observations that we have made, and
again this is...realm of public comm0nts now. In Our capacity aS planning designers
consultants for these various groups we have boon asked to look at numerous park and ride
lots in the metropolitan area, and specifically the ~v~'innesota Valley Transit Authority asked us
to investigate criminal activities that are taking place in park and ride lots. Again, one of
those things that aS landscape architects we're not trained to do in school but it's something
that we end up doing professionally. Consultation with the Eagan Police Department, where
these particular park and ride lots that had increase soon criminal activity taking place in
them, resulted in contacting not only Eagan but perhaps another dozen police departments
throughout the metropolitan are~ It resulted in reviewing park and ride lots throughout the
metropolitan area and coming up with several conclusions aS a result of that investigation.
Fortunately, or unfommately, landscape ordinances play a part in enabling criminals to
conduct their crafts with relative safety. Safety problems in apprehension. Planting ordinances
apply, letter of the law if you will, based upon ordinances...do enable criminals to, aS I
mentioned, do everything from steal cars to vandalize cars. They address not only the
professional criminal but the vandal. This is again, all a result of our investigation into what
is happening in other metropolitan areaS. As I said, this adds another layer of complexity to a
planting ordinance to an ordinance that other communities in this particular ordinance is not
unlike many other, many landscape ordinances. The one that I mentioned in Eagan in
particular. The ordinance is very similar. What has happened in Eagan, and other ~---.
communities aS a result, is that wonderful jobs have been done by other landscape architects.
By developers. By building owners to create this perim~r around parking lots which make
the parking lot rather benign to the passers by but also aS a result, berms, plantings, especially
around the perimeter, have created a visual screen that in the caSe of park and ride lots, and
I'll address that particular item, creates problems. Why is that o~g? It's really a
function of short term versus long term and perhaps aS a solution or an amendment for again
this added layer of complexity to your landscape ordinance, we would just aSk you to look at
perhaps further defining in this particular case, what parking lots are all about I mentioned
short term and long term. Park and ride lots are traditionally historically developed
independently a long term parking scenario. What that means is people show up early in the
morning. Jump on a bus. Go to work somewhere else and come back later on in the
afternoon. As compared to short term parking. Target parking lot would be a good example
of short term parking. We're not looking necessarily by uso. We're more looking in terms of
duration. Again, an example in other cases in the metropolitan area have indicated that these
long term lots, perhaps single purpose lots, are the gr~ targets. Again, our concern hero
tonight that Southwest Metro is in the process of planning, looking at separate uso park and
41
Planning Commission Mooting - September 1, 1993
ride lots within the city of Chanhassen. And Southwest Metro has to abide by planting
ordinances that require a rather dense perimeter treatment of berming, fencing, and planting.
Is that Southwest Metro is opting itself up to a public safety issue, and that is a concern on
the part of Southwest Metro, or really any other transit provider in the metropolitan area,
because ifs a public relations issue. If a park and ride lot is not safe, the...put down that they
receive less ridership as a result of some of these ancillary facilities. It's something that was
not really considered when park and ride lots were ftrst thought of as being a good solution to
providing ridership, or increasing ridership. Case in point is 1-394 and all the new park and
ride lots that have been installed along 394 and have abided by MinnotoHka, St. Louis Park,
Golden Valley. All the various landscape ordinances along that particular corridor. They
have been treated very, very similarly to the two lots in question in Eagan where 3 or 4 or 5
years down the road there is going to be a very dense screen ali the way around a single use
parking facility along 394. They're single use. They're just for park and ride lots. There's no
adjacent retail. There°s no mix use in that particular parking lot. There's...What we are
asking tonight is just perhaps again a further refinement. Perhaps a further dexemition of the
planting requirements as it relates to parking lots. I think part of the ordinance already
addresses that. Interior landscaping, there's a height restriction in terms of a 2 foot max on
shrubs with an interior parking lot island. What that allows people to do when they're
traveling around a parking lot is to be able to see. Something that we would ask you to look
at would be screening for visual access as well as scr _e~ning for visual impact and this is
again dealing more with long term specific use, perhaps park and ride but other particular
uses that are more in line with long term parking, and again this is a direct reaction to
comments that we've received from law enforcement. That says long term parking lots will
be, and will continue to be, targets for crime.-. With that I guess-that's .the only .comments thai ~..
I would have. If you have any questions.
Conrad: Specifically, have you looked at the, gone through our ordinance?
Harold Schobelstad: ...yes.
Conrad: And as you talk about outside scr _eening, what, you~e said make a difference
between long term and short term but specifically where would you recommend we look at in
terms of the wording right now? I*m not sure that we're.
Harold Schobelstad: I don~ think we're that far apart In terms of uses or duration or what
plant material goes around or what constitutes a screen. I think what needs to happen here is
just a recognition on the part of the Planning Commission, and in the letter of the law of the
ordinance, that there are different kinds of parking lots. And based upon duration I think
would be a good way to deirme differentiation or classification. Keeping in mind that if you
42
Planning Commission Meeting - geptemb0r 1, 1993
have a single use, long duration kind of parking facility, it is going to be a target in the
future.
Conrad: What comes first? Obviously when you have long term parking you have criminals
who are going to go there. Something causes that. Scr _eening doesn't cause criminal
behavior. Long term parking causes criminal behavior.
Harold Schobelstad: Screening enables criminal activity. That has been the net result of any
Farmakes: But if parking is 20 cars deep, aren't the first 10 cars blocking your view from the
other 10 cars?
Harold Schobelstad: Not necess~ly.
Farmakes: ...I can only see so far through the cars.
Harold Schobelstad: But specifically, and again this is based upon experience, those kinds of
parking lots also have relatively quick turn overs. A Southdale. A Target. A mixed use
development parking lot tend to be larger.. Those particular lots have more turn around.
They have more activity. Criminals don't like them.
Farmakes: If the perpetrator was to do something, what you're saying is that if a squad car
can drive by on a city street and they look into the parking lot unobstructed from a 360 -
degree angle, that a criminal is less likely to go in there?
Harold Schobelstad: More importantly if the criminal was in.~de the lot and can see out and
notice tho squad car coming by. Or notice any car coming by, that criminal is less likely to
conduct business there. And again, this is based upon interviews.
Harberts: It's a major crime problem over on the 1-394. My understanding is that they have
been very hesitant to having that much screening again because it's a very significant problem
with crime.
Mancino: So is there security? Is the Transit Authority going to issue some security that
happens then?
Harberts: No. They're at their own risk...What we try to do though is we encourage the local
policy departments to maybe drive through, ~hings like that but there's a lot to be said that,
when any passerby can go through and just look. We've had some of our park and ride lots
43
Planning Commission M~ting - September 1, 1993
where there was criminal activity that was in the process but because someone was driving
by, they were able to alert the city and it was stopped.
Harold Schobelstad: Two cases in point. The...Eagan that we wore originally brought in to
investigate, were down on MnDot right-of-way. By MnDot, according to city plans and
ordinances and they were done about 7 or 8 years ago. They were down with comprehensive
berming and planting that was great in terms of the plant materials used, the quantity, the
quality. Like I mentioned, they're like 7-8 years old now so the plant material has grown up
and matured, especially the dense, 3 to 4 row deep of shrub hedge that was planted around
the perimeter as a result of the ordinance...Those are the lots that are experiencing activities.
As I had mentioned, the 1-394 lot also done by MnDot, also done according to local planting
ordinances, has the same plant materials...3 or 4 or 5 years from now, that same plant
material will grow up and the same problems will occur with the same potential will occur
that is already happening in Eagan.
Conrad: Interesting. While most park and rides will be on major roadways and if we wore
putting on Highway 5, we'd probably screen it. We would probably not think that that is
something that we want to show off. We would berm it and plant it.
Harberts: Well, when it will be a sing)e use.
Krauss: ...that's the key and I'm familiar with the two park and ride lots Harold's talking
about because I live down the road from one. One's across tho street from...and you literally
cannot see from those homes into the park and ride lot because the berm...and the landscaping:~
is so thick. But you're talking about very large park and ride lots and people are in at 7:00 in
the morning and the criminal is pretty well guaranteed nobody's going to show up for the next
8 hours, and you cannot be...I don~t know if we have a unique situation...but the one park and
fide lot we do have is down behind...it's across the street from the shopping center and next to
a hotel and bowling alley. The key thing goes back to...came up with this thing 40 years ago.
If you can keep activity, if you can keep an area vital, griminals dontt like it. Now, as you're
aware, we're working with the Southwest Metro and the possibility of different park and ride
options but one of them is along Highway 5. It's a mixed uso project. I think those are
ideally, from a crime standpoint...people coming in all tho time and that's the real. secrec- The
ones that are tho most difficult, the ones that...the original one we were looking at out on Dell
Road was...parking lot. I had conversations with Jim Lasher about it a couple of years ago
and when we ~ looking at it, he wanted to have it looking exactly like the ones in Eagan
do, so you don't see it. Now maybe there's some kind of...I don~t know of any other use that
has a similar problem. I mean when...long term, short term, arguable somebody's...than a park
and ride lot is.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
Harold Schobelstad: Maybe it's the difference between public and private...
Krauss: But we're talking about one particular type of parking lot thafs different from any
parking lots that we have in the city. I thinle we have to come up with some Idnd o£ a
combination for it...
Harold Schobelstad: I think that perhaps the way to go is it long term, is it short term, is it
public, is it private, is it mixed use versus non-mixed use. I think the added layer of
complexity here is perhaps an onus on city staff that you have to take a look at this but if
there's some flexibility in the ordinance to be able to say this is single use, long term and we
want to protect the people that are using this particular facility.
Mancino: ...public safety.
Farmakes: How large are you talking about?
Harberts: 300 to ~00 cars.
Farrnakes: If I was driving into Chanhassen and seeing 500 parked cars there, I'd have a
problem with that. I don't see how that's not_.different than a car dealership. Small number
of cars. What does the metropolitan airport do for long term parking? Do they provide drive
by security?...
Krauss: I hope that we find some uses for Southwest Metro parking would be a mixed ~use-......~
project and then there...
Conrad: Paul, do you see any verbiage in here that needs to be done to talk .about short term,
long term parking?
Krauss: Short term, long term for me doesn't do it. By definition a lot of things are long
term. Office parking lots. Anything that you'd go into, the only thing thafs short term is like
Market Square where everything tums over...every hour.
Harold Schobelstad: And you have to think_Jaw enforcement community too. Non-corporate
headquarters type long term office parking definitions. Corporate headquarters are typically
that private property kind of no trespassing...but longer term office parking, that doesn't
appear part of that corporate campus are also prime targets because it is long term type of
parking. They know there's not going to be a lot of turn around. Again, if you have office,
retail, restaurant, yeah. There's going to be. Again, that's mixed use.
45
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
Farmakes: Are you talking property on here? Do they give you a percentage breakdown of
what they're talking abouff
Harold Schobelstad: It's vandalism by amateurs and car thor by the professionals, and
everything inbetween.
Krauss: You would probably tend not to have the bodily harm type of thing because when
people are coming in, they're coming in droves. When people are actually leaving...
Mancino: And they did a comparison between those that have had perimeter landscaping
versus those that don't'?
Harold Schobelstad: The police reports, they're...
Farmakes: Is it because of the economy that we're building one single...such a large central
parking lot?
Harberts: You have to remember too that transit is a public service that's being provided so
we are trying to do it to economies of scale. And given the configuration of the way service
deliveries will be happening in this corridor, youql see the fewer, larger'park and ride lots and
there's a lot of different I think laudsc~ing alternatives I guess and what we're looking for is
that flexibility because public safety is a big question and has beam demonstrated that it is a
big problem. I think we kind of got over that, well I guess Chaska's not too, very good
example but I think it's a nice example of some alternative landscaping. Over at tho Chaska----.~.
brick...
Harold Schobelstad: ...interior islands that are planted.
Farmakes: How many acres is that?
Harberts: It's small...
Mancino: It's really well landscaped. I think we're going to get-down to. security-issues and
also having security in park and rides.
Scott: I think too also that, I mean although it's not addressed in this particular ordinance,
now that, I mean we're aware of it I flainir public safety will become aware of it. I don~t
think that we should take the time to try to do anything with this ordinance right now. What
I think we should do however is that tho park and ride lot's going to come swinging by us,
when that thing hits and say oh okay. Wall weql be focusing on it Youq_l be helping us with
46
Planning Commission Meeting - geptember 1, 1993
it and it's very easy for us to say oh, well this is the reason why. Let's exempt this from
Section such and such and then the City Council. Oh, that makes sense to us and then it will
scoot through. So I don't want to take the time doing thaL
Harold Schobelstad: ...there is that potential...
Scott: You can change any ordinance at any time.
Farmakes: ...parking lot of that size...that many cars parked in that, 6 acres of cars, you're
going to have by itself natural obstruction to view...you're going to have a hard time stopping
that.
Harold Schobelstad: Please don~t look at it as a sea of 600 cars all by itself. It's not intended
to be that. It's that size because it's not just going to function as a parking IoL It's also going
to be somewhat of a transfer point. There will be buildings. There will be plantings. There
will be plazas. There will be other amenities on site that just don't make it a sea of parking.
Scott: Diane, are you comfortable having this thing go through the way it is but then just,
now I think that we're a lot more edu~ as to the risk and then I think it will be easy too
for us to say, well in this particular instance ordinance-A,. B, C is fine. O, single use, long
term, out in the middle of nowhere per se, we're going to want to work on it.
Krauss: We can always try. I mean I'm not adverse to trying to come up with some
language...back it up and say, well I'm long term.
Scott: Yeah, I'm a car dealership.
Krauss: I don't know of any parking...that hasn't made exactly the same argument.
Scott: Yeah, that's why I'd rather leave it like this.
Conrad: I don't see the verbiage in here that doesn't give the flexibility. I think the
flexibility is there to treat this. There's not a hard rule that says you have to berm 6 feet or'
whatever. I'm looking under vehicular areas.
Harold Schobelstad: ...that says something about the goals of the ordinance. The intent of
the ordinance is really what all this technical shift in the ordinance is ail about. Tho goal of
the ordinance is to create or minimize the visual impact
47
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
Krauss: And when you look and it says, 20-118lA, parking loC..now we can change thaL
That's been in the ordinance for 5 years...
Harold Schobelstad: ...based upon concerns that are now coming to the...b~ some of
these kind, rather unique facilities are maturing and with their maturity comes problems. It is
a public safety issue.
Harberts: We have the opportunity here to learn from experience. You know at Southwest
Metro we're not here to ask, change your policies just for us but recognize that transit is here.
To help us be successful, to reduce some of the safety issues that have been demonstrated in
other areas. We're looking for, if this is an informational, is it comfortable with that. That's
fine. Ideally language even something to the extent that transit may require or may be able to
have some flexibility or something. I don~t know.
Farmakes: How would be this be different than a large scale company coming in, putting in
6 acres of parking around it's facility and work from 8:00 to 5:00 in the afternoon? It would
be the same premise.
Harberts: Well, but when you're looking at a company like that, you're also looking at, do
they have vendors that come in delivering products?
Scott: Or people leaving for lunch.
Harberts: Do they have other customers.
Farmakes: Usually there's not...such a large scale employer.
Krauss: You also have a building with windows...
Farmakes: Some are so large it makes no dit:~'erence.
Krauss: But they may also have internal security. I mean there seem.~ to be three approaches
to dealing with the problem. One is a physical one by design...transparent and impossible.....
One may be to address the security issues on it somehow. And tho thir. d one is to .try ancL...
mixed uses so there's not the problems in the first place. I tend to favor that last option for a
lot of reasons but it's not always going to be possible to do it.
Conrad: Okay, thanks. Other public input? Kevin, youNre looked at our ordinance. Okay,
we've got somebody else.
48
Planning Commission Meeting- September 1, 1993
Tom Dunlap: Hi. I'm Tom Dunlap and I'm on the Tree Board along with Nancy and I'd just
like to say with respect to that, that's interesting that something we didn~ bring up at the last
meeting. It crossed my mind and I cant remember why it slipped and we didn~ discuss it but
the safety issue. I would like to state, at least my reading o£ the way that ordinance roads
now is that it really sets some bounds. But any time you set bounds, it also creates a lot of
freedom and I think we just heard from a landscape architect here who knows the issue and I
don't believe it's the city who's going to be designing the landscaping for any project they
would bring in. I believe it would be a landscape architect who also knows those issues.
And I don't know that there's any great reason to change what you have in front of you. I
would be concerned about the least common denominator type of thing as discussed before.
There were some things when it was brought to the Tree Board that we actually...from what
was on there. Based on some input that was made, and I think there was some very good
input made on behalf of the developers but I would recommend going ahead with this...And I
don't believe that there's...At least I didn't, it wasn~ obvious to me.
Conrad: Okay, good. Thanks Tom.
Kevin Norby: Again my name is Kevin Norby. I'm a landscape architect. I wrote a letter
after the last meeting. I'm not certain if you got a copy of that. I think Paul got a copy...but
just some quick comments about the ordinance and I think most of the changes that have been
made are good. The only thing that I didn't see in thoro that I sort of hoped to see was
maybe a recommendation to improve shrubs and/or ground cover list At least the attempt ~
A lot of what we're seeing over in Market Square again and the use of variegated do~d
and purple leaf...middle of the parking lot I would hope we would avoid, in the future and .....
maybe more appropriate plant material for both safety...could be dealt with if we had some
recommendations, or at l~st some guidel/nes.
Mancino: And I think you even volunteered to maybe help with that
Kevin Norby: I did.
Scott: Now it's public record.
Kevin Norby: That's all I have to say.
Conrad: Good. I appreciate all your help Kevin.
Scott: And on video.
49
Planning Commission Meeting- September 1, 1993
Conrad: Yeah, it's on video. You can watch it Saturday morning or sometime. Any other
comments? Is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Scott moved, Mancino seconded to clo~ ~e public hearing. Ail voted in favor md ~te
motion carrie& The public hemin~ was dosed.
Conrad: Folks, we're at 11:30.
Scott: 10:30. 11:30 Eastern time.
Conrad: 10:30. And we're screaming towards 11:00. I really want to get us out here at
11:00. We've got another issue but on the other hand, this is an interesting ordinance. Jeff,
start at your end in terms of what you want to do. Comments.
Farmakes: I have to admit that once I started looking at the pieces that make up the whole
sometimes it's difficult to envision what the whole is. Particularly when you deal with an
ordinance that has to be applied to different applications...work with any and all things or
what is the least you're willing to accept. After Brad's comments, I wasn't a part of the
Market Square development. It predated me. It's really the only large scale parking lot that
we've worked since then I think is Target You may improve my memory on that but usually
other than that, we weren't talking several hundred parking spots. I have looked at other
developments and how they've handled parking, in particular I guess the Opus parking lot,
shopping center development...and they had the large berm with huge trees. Now they're...
and I like that. I mean I like the larger spaces that you were talking about earlier thafs ...... ~..
maybe more strategically placed than maybe winding up with all these burned out trees.
They could wind up with row upon row upon row and once these trees mature...early 60's, it
doesn't give...Southdale a 360 degree sight line once the trees get large but it does
aesthetically buffer the building to break up from the street anyway. Break up and to enhance
the property and it gives the effect of scr _e~ning the parking lot. It gives the effect of
enhancing the appearance of the building. I think really that's what these ordinances are
trying to do. Trying to enhance and integrate bituminous material row upon row of cars
entering into an attractive area. In particular, Chanhassen's really committed to an older
development where the cars go on the front between the people and the buildings that they-
access. The die is cast there and until most of the downtown is redeveloped in the future
when we're all old and senior citizens, the area that we're planning, that isn't going to change.
so I hope that this ordinance works out for that. I've read through it and I have to say that I
understand as much as I can about it. As it would work in any individual play, that is yet to
be determined. I have no specific comments. I ~ini~ that the corrections that you made are
viable. I don~t have any...
5O
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
Conrad: Okay, thanks Jeff. Nancy.
Mancino: Well I sit on the Tree Board committee and so I do support it...has given me a few
new perspectives tonight for public safety and I will take that very seriously when I do look
at landscaping plans. Plans that come in from developers and thank you for that because I
appreciate it. I would like to add, as Kevin suggested, and I had my notes and I too would
add, a list of the shrubs and the ground cover that would work in a parking lot island because
I think that will help us to have more green space than gray pebble space, so I'd like to add
that to it. And if we could do that timely, in a timely manner, that would be most helpful to
get it to the City Council.
Scott: Yeah, I appreciated the insight on the public safety. Thank you very much. rll defer
to Commissioner Mancino as to the appropriateness of this document so I'll support it for that
reason. Our tree individual. No more commentS.
Conrad: Matt.
Ledvina: No commentS.
Conrad: I don't know if I should call on you or not Diane.
Harberts: I'll be abstaining. I don~t have any additional commentS but I think our purpose in
asking our landscape architect to be here that, you know transit is relatively new to
development to Chanhassen and one of the-things that we are woricing on and we'll be
bringing it back before each of our three cities, Eden Prairie, Chaska and Chanhassen is to...
that corridor plan to hopefully become part of the city's comprehensive guide plan. Hopefully
we'll get away from some of the traditional views about the roadways, parking, the buildings
in different corridors because hopefully transit will make sense. I think if' you, maybe I'm
being a little philosophical here but if you look at whafs happening in just overall in the
nation, transit is becoming more of an element in all communities and I th~nk in the next few
years, with tho direction that Mot Council is giving with the requirement to see as part of the
comprehensive guide plan, with federal funding. Federal funding projects are tied to transit.
So I think that, and think this is just part, the be~nning of the education process so it will be
fun to bring that information back to the 2 or 3 cities and you know, it's not going to be an
attitude or plans or process that changes overnight but I thinlt this is, like I said, an education
process. It's happening for everyone. It's not just at the city level. It's at the State and it's at
the National level. So it's really exciting to be part of it That's it
Conrad: Well I think that was a good perspective on security. And Pve looked at this and I
don't know how I would change this right now.
51
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
Harberts: And I don't know if the answer is to change it right now. Like I said, ifs new and
Think the experience is starting from the...
Conrad: I think there are two things that should, one thing for sure that should bo done and I
think the City Council should somehow hear the same things tha~ we did and it may be, I
think thafs real appropriate. Because at least youYe assured that for the duration of folks here
and there, they're going to be more sensitive. But the ordinance lives on. And to toll you the
truth, that's what you want to make sure you're comfortable with. As I read it, and I made
the statement, I still feel I had the flexibility with the ordinance to take care of those
problems. I didn't feel positioned, like Tom said. I think tho way he read the ordinance, we
weren't positioned in the berming, everything so you couldn% and I read it and I didn't feel
that I was positioned into that. Now maybe I,m wrong but that's how I wanted to read it right
now at 10:35 or 10:40. But from that standpoint, I would certainly and with the things that
Paul's mentioned about multi-use or whatever, It Cel'minly seems like we have to be kind of
flexible in how we approach some of these. I still have a need to screen parking lots.
Bottom line, it's one of those things I really dislike and I don~t like places where you stop
cars and just sort of leave them and they tend to look real ugly. So that's a real.
Harberts: I think that's a real traditional view.
Conrad: I don't know if it's a traditional view. I thinl~ we're finally figuring out that, as we
look at Target, that Target can make their parking lots attractive. They don~t have to be an
eyesore and I think-that's what this is trying to do. It's turning a negative into a positive .
which I think.
Harberts: And tonight, and hopefully to creste that comfort level is that for our product, our
service to be effective, we put a lot of emphasize, time and money into landscaping and if
you're down in the Chaska area, please go down and look. I mean thafs our commitment.
You'll see a very high quality commitment that we bring.
Farrnakes: How many parking spaces does Chaska?
Harberts: It's only 16. They gave us right-of-way and we used it.
Mancino: So it's not a sea of parking lot.
Farmakes: Why is our's so big?
I-Iarberts: Well, just the demand. Utilization and demand.
52
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
Farmakes: For Chanhassen?
Harberts: We have 13 large buses that carry anywhere from 44 to 65 passengers on each bus.
13 of them that come through this way every morning and the way the configuration is with
the population density of tho three cities, where your markets are.
Farmakes: For 3 cities?
Harberts: Chaska, Chanhassen, Eden Prairie is our service corridor. The way the roadway
system is set up, Chanhassen probably has the best level, one of the best levels of transit
service. You know and I'll also just note with the reverse commute, things like that so there
is a stake here but like I said, we certainly have a commitment to bring/n that quality
because we have a product or service to market as well.
Conrad: Well I think that's neat and I think we want to help you market that too. I think
we~,e always been sensitive trying to figure out how to get people pooling or using mass
transit. I want to do that.
Harberts: I would just like to add that Southwest Metro, if Harold if you're available when
this moves onto the City Council, that we'd be more than happy to have the ~milar
presentation made before the Council if you folks desire.
Conrad: I think that's good. Okay. Otherwise I like all the changes. I actually understand ..
this ordinance far better than the last time it came flux)ugh here and-as Jeff said, I don't know -. ~..
really what it did. You know you see the little parts but you donk know what the whole is.
But it sure looked better this time through so this last 2 weeks Kate, you know it's one of
those good decisions I think to table it and send it back
Mancino: ...Tree Board.
Conrad: Hip hip for the Tree Board. I like that.
Farmakes: ...availability of financing and the parking that we do have. I have never heard
that we had 100 feet based on how much money a bank was going to be...that's awfully close.
Conrad: Okay, is there a motion?
Scott: Sure, I move that the Planning Commission approve the amendments to the ordinance
as shown in Attachment #1, and we're talking about the parking lot, landscape ordinance
dated August 26th, 1993.
53
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
Conrad: Is there a second7
Farmakes: Second.
Conrad: Discussion.
Mancino: I would just like to add the addition of an approved list of shrubs and ground
covers that is an addendum to the tree list.
Conrad: Would you add that to your motion Joe?
Scott: I would accept that.
Conrad: Good. And the only other t~ing, and I didn't pick it up earlier. There was one line
that said, all new plantings must have irrigation systems available. The word available. What
does that mean? Nancy. Why is that.
Mancino: So that they can turn them off.
Conrad: You're comfortable with the word available?
Mancino: Yes. Is there a reason why you put available for irrigation systems when we said
that?
Conrad: It says on page 3, all new plantings must have an irrigation system available.
Krauss: I think that there was discussion about if yotc..you didn't necessarily have to turn it
on and da da da
Mancino: During the wet season you can turn it off.
Krauss: Right, but they're all pretty sophisticated systems.
Conrad: OKay. Any more discussion?
Scott moved, Farmakes seconded ~lt ~lm Plmning Commi~ion rr. commead ~0 approve ~le
amendmems to the lmridng lot landscape ordimmce as shown in A~maent #1 wi~h lhe
midigon of an approved list of shrub and ground covers as m Mdendmn to the tree lisC All
vo~ed in favor, except Harber~ who abstained, and ibe motion canied.
54
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
PVBH¢ HEA~G;
ZONING ORDINAN(~ AMENDMENT TQ ~~0N 20-S7S - 20-59S Rg/~-_ARDIN(~ LOT
SIZI~,
Kate Aanenson and Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chair Conrad
called the public hearing to order. Vice Chair Conrad noted that no one was present for the
public hearing.
Fannakes moved, Mancino seconded to close ~he public hearing. All vo~.A in favor and ~he
motion carried. The public heari~ was closed.
Conrad: I'll open it up in general. If there are comments to this particular amendmenL I
won't go around but if there are comments, please bring them up.
Mancino: I support it.
Harberts: I think Paul's comments though in terms of the subdivisions within the MUSA line
has merit though in terms of requiring sewer and water I guess. I don't know all the angles
here but I think that has a lot of merit. I would support that kind of language then to be
added.
Aanenson: That'd be a separate ordinance that would come back.
Mancino: I don't want to have to hook up'to sewer just because the people behind me are
subdividing and they're within 150 feet of me...
Krauss: Well a lot of times you know that is the standard issue in the assessment projects.
Who gets nicked and the typical policy is th~
Mancino: I°m not benefitting.
Krauss: Well, the typical policy has been if you're within the service area, the Council gets
you for one unit of assessment. And in the future when you subdivide property, you pay the
other...so they would defray the cost but the dollars are being paid All of it's...matter of it
being paid now or pay it later.
Conrad: Is there a motion?
· Mancino: I move that we approve the minimum lot size in the rural service area, ZOA 92-1
as given to us by staff.
55
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
Conrad: Is there a second?
Scott: Second.
Mancino moved, Scott seconded _dh _nt_ fine Plmming Commission mcomnmnd approval of
Zoning O~linance Amendment ~o Section 20-S7S - 20-S9S r~garding rural lot sizes ns
recommended by staff. All vo~! in favor and ~he motion carrie(L
NEW BUSINESS;
Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, I had one thing that I'd like to say. Tonight we talked about
variance to the ordinance as it relates to setback and I realize that this is for the hotel
expansion.
Aanenson: Not the setback. For a lot width requirement.
Ledvina: Okay, the frontage. At any rate, in the past we~,e had variances that we've looked
at and I guess in my opinion I would like to see a little more vigorous analysis of how we're
looking at variances because there are various tests that are, these variance requests should go
through to see if they're valid.
Farmakes: There is a set of criteria. I think 12.
Ledvina: I'm not saying go through the whole list but I would like to-see a little more -
rationale and a little more analysis as it relates to variances when we're given staff
recommendations to go ahead and grant those variances. Just a comment.
Conrad: I think that's valid. It helps us not set a precedent or it helps us set some standards
or some rationale. Why do we have a width requirement and what's the purpose or if we're
really not hurting the purpose.
Ledvina: Yeah, why are we...
Aanenson: Well there again, there's the fact that they wanted to have two separate owners.
Two owners and originally they came in and there wasn't a variance requirement at all but the
lot was split in such a way that, you know we could deny the subdivision and that would take
out the sign problem.
Farmakes: I think that that's pretty smokey and that's why I was.
56
Planning Commission Mooting - September 1, 1993
I-Iarberts: I thought it was creative.
Ledvina: Well whatever, but just a general comment.
APPRQVAL OF MINUTIa; Vice Chair Conrad noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated August 18, 1993 as presented.
REPORT FROM PLANNING D~R.
Krauss: We did hire a replacement planner. I stuck his resume in there. Seems like a really
pretty interesting guy with a lot on the ball. We did something rather unique. We've never
met him.
Conrad: Well then that's perfect, yeah.
Krauss: We had 75 people apply for that job and Todd C:eerhardt and I got it down to, well
actually...we got it down to 9 candidates we wanted to talk to. This was the only out of state
person. He was born here, his wife is from here and was educated here. But he was down in
Florida and we didn't have the budget to fly people up and anyway, Todd and I did a
telephone interview with Bob and we liked him. And going on the telephone interview, we
had him in our final 3. Well again, I mean he was willing to fly up here but on short notice
it's an expensive flight so Todd gave him the idea of why don~t you send us a video. And he
did a very cute job. He had a friend of his in the planning office down there ask him
questions that he prepared and then he-gave' answers. And people would walk by the office .~-~.
and say night Bob. It came across that he had a sense of humor and then we had a face that
we could associate with. Then we got the staff together and we called him on a party line
call, but you knew who you were talking to because you had just seen his video. So
physically we've never the guy.
Scott: Did you send a videotape of you to make sure he wanted to work with you?
Conrad: Yeah if he was really sharp, he would have.
I, IPDATE QN HIGHWAY 101 ALIQ-'NMENT STUDY, lZRl~ gl01~INGTON.
Fred Hoisington: This is a very difficult commission to make a report to. The whole idea of
this meeting and we've been trying to get to you a number of times in the past, has been
simply to let you know where we are with respect to Highway 101. It is an important
consideration and at some point in time you're going to be asked to approve something so we
wanted to be sure you were prepped and knew a little bit about what was happening. Paul, I
57
Planning Commission Meeting- September 1, 1993
don't know if you've put any materials in their packets this time or not. How much do they
know? Probably not these materials.
Krauss: Oh no, not the new stuff.
Fred Hoisington: I'll try to be as brief as I can and not go too far back and give some
impressions of where we've been. Four years ago we looked at the alignment of Highway
101 in a broad sense. We looked at alternatives that ranged ail the way over almost to the
lake, in the wetlands and so forth to the east and back to the west of the existing alignment of
Highway 101. The alignment in 1989 that we settled on and the city ultirna~y approved was
Alternative 1 which was the one that seemed the most agreeable. It seemed to have at that
point the least impact and so forth. However, the world has changed in 4 years. Whafs
changed is that up until a few months ago we thought the funding was more readily available
than perhaps it is today. The ISTEA is available and may apply to Highway 101 at some
time in the future. There are a couple of other things though that are more important today
than they were 4 years ago. Really not more important but certainly given a lot more
consideration, and thafs wetlands, the degree to wh/ch you can damage wetlands. We know
you've had an ordinance for a very long period of time but with the wetlands conservation act
of 1990, everybody got more in the act and so even the things that you%e done in the past are
questioned...to meet all these requirements.- Another th/ng is that there's a lot more attention
given today to archeological or cultural resources so we have been in the process of
studying, counting trees. Doing a cultural resources study and a wetlands analysis that I'm
sure that whatever we accomplish in the way of solution, the test fits the environment as we.
knOW .it today. So with those changes we have looked at Alternatives. 1 and 4 again and- .:..-:~
we've looked at alternatives between I and 4. In other words we have not looked again at
alternatives 2 and 3. This is what we call them. The alternatives are the existing TH 101
alignment. The approved alignment in 1989, which was a little bit further to the east, a slight
westerly shift of that back towards existing TH 101 and then the use of the existing temporary
connection...The red line is existing TH 101. The blue is alternative you approved in 1989.
This is the modified version of 2 which pulls the alignment back closer to TH 101 and takes
the two houses, provided the houses are there. The yellow house and the one next to it. It
would actually eliminate those. Pull the alignment a lot fighter and create a lot less gap
between existing TH 101 and new TH 101. And as a result of all that analysis, we also
looked at one that we never expected would be given great consideration but actually stac~
up fairly well. Which uses the existing temporary connection for about this length and then
departs existing TH 101. Still creating sort of the same area between the two alignments.
Takes the two houses but what it does is, this would be an ali~rnent as would one that
would require little filling at the creek, which means that there would be much less impact on
the wetland with those two altemat/ves. Whereas the 2 and 3 alternatives would go right
through the wetland and we'd have to do quite a few things...destmy it and mitigate the loss
58
Planning Commission Mooting - September 1, 1993
or you'd have to build it on a causeway, which would be a very expensive proposition.
Which means we're talking a rather substantial cost, not only in construction but, of a
causeway but also for a bridge construction in that case. Now, what we've been doing is
establishing with the neighborhood. We met with tho neighbors in thia a. roe. What some of
the criteria ought to be in evaluating these alternatives. And what we said is that we have a
range of scoring of these criteria of 5 having the least impact. I having the most impact and
what we're saying is that this is the existing TH 101 ali_anrnent and as it regards to cultural
resources impact, there would be none. There were some found out there in the course of the
study and the reason that we felt necessary to study was because Mnl')ot suggested that if
there's to be many federal dollars spent on this roadway, that we best get that study out of the
way as soon as possible. And there is sort of what I would term an indian junkyard there that
is not very sizeable. As we know, we don't think terribly valuable resources in iL In fact
some of them are quite modern resources. Some of them chtte to more like the 30's and 40's
and perhaps 50's, so there's been a history of dumping things down over the hill right in the
area, right in this part of the site where the slope is the gr~ coming down to tho creek.
And that's where anyone who knows archeology would expect a find to occur. In that area
and it's there. Now for most of you who know something about cultural resources and so
forth and what you have to do with them, they are not impediments to roadway construction
but you must do, if they're si..c, nificant, is extract them and be sure that they're preserved. In
this case it hasn't even been determined yet if significant amounts to warrant saving but we
know there are some things that are like fish bones and some chips and so forth that we know
to exist but whether or not there would be anything more si~trnificant than thag we don~t know.
Anyway in alternative 1, that would not be an impact. All the three other alternatives, there
would have to be mitigation or extraction-or- whatever.so .weYe throwing up kind of a. red :flag~.
in that case and not exploring this highly. We%e gone down through ali of this and what
we've determined, at least in our first go 'through, and Paul and I still have to talk about this a
little bit more. Is that this alternative scores the highest. This is the one that began, pulls the
alignment a little closer than the approved ali~c, nment toward existing Highway 101 and it has
a rather substantial tree loss, a rather substantial wetland loss and it does pass through the
area where the cultural resources have been found. Now, we're open to suggestions as to how
this thing might ultimately be scored and decidecL..rationale. In alternatives 2, 3 and 4, nil of
them which traverse the area where cultural resources exist. And thnfs why we gave those a
little lower score. In regards to wetlands, alternatives 2 and 3 would go through the middle...
on tho other hand pulls it a little bit closer and you lose some wonderful oaks. But at least
the numbers are less than would otherwise with the other two alternatives here. As far as
neighborhood compatibility, Alternatives 1 and 4 are the least compatible because they're
closest to the neighborhood. As far as alternative 2 is concerned, what it does is it creates a
rather sizeable gap within which we had originally assumed housing to go but we needed to
cut the gap down fighter because of the re. configuration of the interchange which simply
means that we're probably going to have a lot of wasted land here. Or we're going to end up
59
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
with some single family homes back into, on the one hand, fronting on existing TH 101, back
into new TH 101. Which we think is probably not the most compatible or desirable of
relationship and...now you tell me. Is that something that should warrant this it to be scored
a little lower.
Harberts: Are you saying though that those homes, they have all direct access?
Fred Hoisington: All direct access to existing TH101.
Krauss: But they'd be double fronted so their front yard is old TH 101 and their back yard is
new TH 101.
Scott: So old TH 101 is still going to be there and ifs still going to be like a local service
road or something like that.
Krauss: Anyway, as Fred's going through this, I thini~ it's clear that these have not been
weighted.
Scott: Yeah, that's my next question.
Krauss: For example, when you have the alternative 1 and using the existing TH 101, as
Fred points out that, that has si~ificant impact to the homes. Sure it's significant because 30
feet from their front door is a 4 lane road. But ifs given in this, so far it's been given the
same value as the cultural resources. And by the-way, two of those .things they .found-.were..~
silver spoon and a historic piece of plastic, which we have yet to figure out exactly what that
is.
Scott: So you had somebody from the Minnesota Historical. You had somebody do some
excavations or something like that?
Fred Hoisington: Actually did a shovel tests.
Krauss: But the weighting between a 4 lane highway 30 feet from your front stoop and a
silver spoon...that*s not done and it's very difficult, it's hard for us to do that. It's pretty
subjective.
Harberts: But what's considered significant with the cultural resources? Is it something like
100 years old or 50 years old? Or is it the item itself?
60
Planning Commission Meeting- September 1, 1993
Fred Hoisington: Well things of course that they found here are indian artifacts. The things
Paul's talking about, there were two generations of things here. I don~t think the more recent
ones is anything anyone has any concern about. They simply had to report it because they
found it but the ones they're much moro concerned about date back a lot longer than that.
And there have been other finds here in Chan.
Harberts: Are they burial grounds?
Krauss: The stuff we found in itself I don't think is significant but it may be a precursor to
finding something.
Scott: So this is just basically a, ifs been a garbage dump of sorts for centuries but it's not as
Nancy was saying, a burial area or anything like that?
Krauss: It could be but they don~t know tha~
Fred Hoisington: Probably not. You have some mounds fairly close by but that, there are no
mounds, burial mounds here.
Scott: And what happens when this thing~s going through and then they find something that
is archaeologically significant?
Krauss: You just stop a project long enough to excavate it and then go on with the project
Fred Hoisington: Sometimes it can stop a project for a long time. It's a very uncomfortable
kind of thing. Just briefly, as far as costs are concerned, which does seem to-be an important
factor to consider, alternatives 2 and 3, because we would fill through the wetland area, and
to try to create also an underpass for trails. Try to separate trails, we have excessive cutting
and filling. Filling down there perhaps a causeway construction down there so these two
alternatives would be extraordinarily costly compared to the others which only kind of
infringe on the wetland but do some filling in any case. As far as traffic conflicts are
concerned, if you uso alternative I or the existing alignment. If you drive down there you
know what the problem is already. There are lots of driveway conflicts and those are not .
going to go away as traffic volumes increase to 15,000 vehicles per day or there abouts, the
problem*s going to be worst. You dontt want houses on both sides of TH 101. Trat~c
traveling 50 mph and so forth. As far as impacts on trails, one could suggest that this
shouldn't, wouldn*t, as Paul indicated, be one of the factors that would be weighted very
heavily if you were to go through a weighting process. But what we*re saying is you can't
really separate with alternatives 1 and 4 but you can easily with alternatives 2 and 3 so that's
why they raised 1 and 4 lower in that respect. And then as far as the neighborhood
61
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
acceptance, Paul and I mot with the neighborhood and there's no question that the neighbors
were comfortable with alternative 3, the formerly approved alignment but there were a
surprising number of people that also spoke in favor of alternative 2. Now the concern I had
with alternative 2, those who wore not necessarily over powering in favor of it wa$ that it
would take two homes and there was a great deal of concern, or sympathy for those two
folks. However, you should know one of them wants to be taken and they would like to be
taken as soon as they can be taken. Ifs Willy Klein and his wife and they have health
problems and they're elderly so they'd like to be bought. The other one is the old
Klingelhutz, tom Klingelhutz house which the folks who own it now bought for a song. And
they don't want to leave and they're very young and so' forth so there are some differences of
opinion there but for the most part we concluded that we could say that at least these two
alternatives would be acceptable alternatives to the neighbors and then as far as landowner
preference, all preferred alternative 3. We have heard nothing else. So what we have is a list
of 9 criteria. All given equal weight and when we give it equal weight, we end up doing this
scoring of alternatives and I guess the Planning Commission could give us some direction on
whether we should be considering weighting the criteria to based on it's relative importance.
Scott: Well I think we need to go through and think about what we spend our time protecting
but that pales in comparison with extraordinary development costs. I mean we can spend tons
of time on doing all sorts of weighting but if the dollars-.and cents aren't there, it's a waste of
time. So we could go through this exercise and it would be useless.
Harberts: Unless the money somehow fell from the sky here.
Scott: Yeah, but isn~ that kind of a crystal ball? At least we know that it's not as available
as it once was.
Krauss: It isn't. In fact we're trying to work on, we had a meeting last week with MnDot on
Hennepin County corridor committee... TH 101 is a problem...We think it's a situation that
n~ds to be addressed. It needs to be addressed by a multi government approach because it
affects all of us. MnDot wants to get rid of it. The positions of the counties and the
communities are probably that we're willing to accept it but somebody's got to fix it. There
may be some sources of dollars, turn back funds...as a possibility. MnDot would love to get
rid of it and again, another source of funds, if they do get rid of it to throw into the pot. Don
Ashworth was in the meeting and of course whenever Don Ashworth is in a meeting~ and
conversation comes to spending money, Don focuses on some adjustment to a TIF district to
solve the problem which is one of the other ways of getting it. A lot of things are on tho
table. I think what we agreed to do is work together and put basically a cooperative project
together to figure out the approach to resolving this. Ifs not in the near term type of thing.
I've got to believe it's going to be...12 to 18 months before we even have a recommendation
62
Planning Commission Meeting - geptember 1, 1993
of which way to go. The critical thing hero, well it's two fold. The die is being cast now
with the change design.
Scott: Mission Hills?
Krauss: Mission Hills, right. Which has some, Mission Hills can be designed to have
flexibility...a few of these things so it's not n~y the be all to end all effect. But the
cleaner issue for us here is that nobody's out there taking care of this state road. If we
weren*t in the position of being willing to have Fred, paying Fred to look at this, nobody
would be interested in this. And as far as MnDofs concerned, it ain't their problem. I mean
they understand that philosophically it is but financially, legslly, they're just not going to
address it. They're not in a position to unless there's some kind of a turn back. The worst
situation we can imagine is 5 years from now, hopefully, when 212 is under construction, and
MnDot*s going to dump all this traffic out onto old TH 101 and it's going to go whi~ng past
all these homes because there is no connection to get up to Highway 5. So we took the
initiative and there's always a little bit of difficult when you do that because then the residents
fight away think well the city's pushing this. We're not pu.qhing it. We're trying to move it in
tho right direction...
Fred Hoisington: It's important to know also, Paul has raised a very good point. MnDot will
build up to 86th Street as a part of the Highway 212 project. When is another matter but
when they do, their project boundary comes up to here so you really only have about a half
mile gap to fill and if we don~t fill it, if the city doesn't address it, Paul's exactly right
They'll dump it onto existing .TH 101. and that is not-the solufion,..This isa major madway~ ~ ~..
Scott: So another reason to realign 86th Street is to get MnDot. Did MnDot say they*Il build
it to 86th Street, no matter where that is? Well yeah, because I know the fight-of-way was
supposed to be vacated as part of the Mission Hills and I just, so is that the deal?
Fred Hoisington: In this case, we didn't deliberately do this. Actually MnDot has aligned
that. They created the alignment themselves because flzis angle.
Scott: It's got to be 90 degrees.
Fred Hoisington: Close to 90 degrees. And they required that...to get 90 degrees.
Scott: Okay. So now we know where that came from.
Fred Hoisington: What we can do is we can come back to you, we*ve still got some work to
do to get this thing completed and we will investigate the cost question's a big one. How are
63
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
we going to resolve that. What will they let us do and can we mitigate the loss of the
wetland or just what? In any event, there will be some...costs. We~l look at that a little bit
more and meet with the neighbors again and then we'll come back to you again but be
thinking I 8uess about this whole idea of whether what we do...criteria to come up with
different scoring of the alternatives.
Conrad: I can't figure out how to do that Fred. Pve been looking at it and I think your
scoring looked real accurate, as I know the area and as you assessed iL I could throw out one
requirement on. I'm hoping we can throw out one or two, well one of those requirements on
that scoreboard but it wasn't going to change the totals all that much and to weight one thing
differently, boy. I think that's terribly difficulk This is a case where I do think wh~ Joe
said, and I hate to talk, I hate on the Planning Commission to talk money. I never talk
money. That screws up really our...
Scott: No it doesn't. No it doesn'L
Conrad: But in this case I think we should see the money and I think it's just sort of netting
each option out altogether. I don~t think, I think you~e taken it to a nice, you've done a good
job but I tell you, I think you%e got to come back and it's going to be a gut feel. Each one
of those had some problems. Big problems for. me.. I:hate to see some groat trees taken
down and I hate to see, but they're all happening, different things are happening to different,
to those alternatives and I'm real sensitive to what the neighbors want thoro too. As you beat
something to the punch, as you're anticipating, I do think that it would be nice to incorporate
neighborhood input. It's one of those nice times when you can do that.: But I'm not sure .I: ...... ~
like what they want either.
Farrnakes: Are you asking for the tunnel option?
Conrad: Yeah, I think we should put a Lowry Hill.
Krauss: ...and probably ask you to amend the comprehensive plan to put this completed study
in there so it has some standing. One thing too that we never completed...the alignments
never got officially mapped so it's not...
I-Iarberts: Oh the new alignment?
Kxauss: Yeah. I mean we had a center line kind of a[i~ment. We knew where we thought
it was supposed to go but official mapping, under State law allows you to protect the fight-of-
way. And that was never done.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993
Harberts: We have a park and ride lot mapped st 212 and 101, wherever that intersection is
going to occur...
Fred Hoisington: Good to be back. Thank you.
Conrad: Thanks for the update. We've absolutely given you no guidance Fred. We love it.
Okay, anything else before we adjourn?
Harberts: I'll just add that last Friday Southwest Metro received almost official confirmation.
Conrad: Almost official. For what?
I-Iarberts: That we'll be recipients of $3.5 million in ISTEA funding for I guess our major
transit hub. It will be located in the vicinity of Highway 5 and Prairie Center Drive in Eden
Prairie but it certainly will help us then appeal to assess the park and ride in the Chanhassen/
Chaska area, We received the highest ranking of all major arterial projects.
Conrad: In the country?
Harberts: No, in the state.
Conrad: Is ISTEA a federal or a state?
Harberts: Federal.
Scott moved, Mancino seconded to adjourn ~ meeting. Ail voted in favor md ihe motion
carrie& The meeting was adjourned at 11'35 lxnL
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
65