PC Minutes 9-4-07
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 4, 2007
Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Kurt Papke, Kevin Dillon, Debbie Larson, Mark
Undestad and Dan Keefe
MEMBERS ABSENT: Kathleen Thomas
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Angie Auseth, Planner I; and Joe Shamla,
Proj ect Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
PAISLEY PARK PARKING LOT: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROY AL FOR AN
AUXILLARY PARKING LOT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF COULTER BOULEY ARD AND AUDUBON ROAD. APPLICANT.
PAISLEY PARK ENTERPRISES. PLANNING CASE 07-18.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Fred Farr
Alan Kretman
Rick Pecoquin
James Lundstrom
5888 45th Street S.E.
7200 Hudson Boulevard, Oakdale 55119
2069 Manitou Avenue, St. Paul
5334 Highland Road, Minnetonka 55345
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Okay. Mark, you want to start? Dan?
Keefe: Yeah. One in particular that, and it may go back a little bit to the previous approval on
this parcel but in regards to lighting we had a discussion around operational hours in terms of the
lighting and because this is just an auxiliary parking lot, I presume it's only going to be used on
just a periodic basis to support activities at Paisley Park. You know what do we do in terms of
lighting when it's, is this thing going to be lit every night when it's not being used?
Generous: That would be up to the applicant. I thought about that when I was writing the staff
report, whether we should limit it to the nights of operation and putting a time limit on but
unfortunately limiting the operations would be good but time limit may not be because of the
way Prince and Paisley Park Studios work. Sometimes they have late evening activities so you'd
want them to have that security lighting. But yeah, we could provide a condition of approval that
it could be, it's limit to only times that they are actually, have an event that is using this facility.
Planning Commission Meeting - September 4,2007
Keefe: And there is going to be a gated parking lot, or.
Generous: Originally, the plan show that it's going to be fenced and gated. However the
applicant has advised me that that's not their intention to do that so it will be an open facility.
Keefe: Yeah. And I mean, do you have to have permits to use it or can anybody that's going
park there or is it you know?
Generous: Well it's like any private property.
Keefe: Right. So it's limited to the use of patrons or whoever Paisley Park wants to use it.
Generous: Unless they did a lease agreement with someone that wanted it.
Keefe So restricting the hours or requiring the hours might make some sense since it's really
only intended to be used for periods of time associated with Paisley Park facility. Okay. That's
my question.
McDonald: Kevin.
Dillon: 193 spots seems like a lot of parking spots. How does that number, how did you get to
that number or did, or maybe is that a question best left for the applicant?
Generous: I think it's better for the applicant. They were looking at I think the area that they
intended to use and that's the result. I don't know if it's specifically related to what their
anticipated needs were.
Dillon: Okay. I have a couple other questions that are probably best left for the applicant.
McDonald: Okay. No questions?
Papke: Yeah I've got a couple. On the landscaping plan, this one's a little unusual. Normally
you're pretty rigorous about insisting on meeting the requirements. In this particular case you
state that the intent of the ordinance has been met yet we're allowing some to be over. Some to
be under, etc.. Could you provide a little color behind it? For instance they're substantially
under the under story requirement for trees. So what was your rationale behind you know saying
that, you know obviously in some categories they grossly exceed. I mean there's a bazillion
shrubs going in here. But they are under some of the other requirements so could you explain a
little bit the rationale.
Generous: Yeah and I think it's, going from under story to over story, that's always a trade off
that the city's willing to make. You get a larger volume of trees eventually and more shading for
the parking lot and that's what the whole idea is for a parking lot landscaping. So I believe Jill
just felt that that was an adequate amount to put in there rather than going with the strict...
numbers.
2
Planning Commission Meeting - September 4,2007
Papke: Okay. The other question I had was on the last condition. Where would the handicap
ramps be? It wasn't clear to me what requirement would be there.
Generous: They showed on the plan, there has to be some ramps in this area and it just allows
for handicap accessibility. It can't be a curb that someone in a wheelchair would have to
overcome.
Papke: So that goes down, would go down to Audubon or.
Generous: No. It would just go from the parking lot to that sidewalk system and then on the
sidewalk they don't have anything that would impede their progress. It's just from the parking lot
to the sidewalk.
Papke: Okay. I got you. That's all.
McDonald: Well I've got a couple questions to follow up on the lighting. Now across the street
is, well is it Pillsbury or General Mills now?
Generous: General Mills.
McDonald: And that's lit 24/7 with the big arc lights and everything, right?
Generous: Right.
McDonald: The lights that would go here, would those be more the type where we would
require the spotlights? I mean it isn't the glare that's similar to the lights that are in that parking
lot. It would be more focused down so that we wouldn't have the over brightness of the area.
This wouldn't add to that.
Generous: No, that's correct. They would have to follow our standards which limit the height of
the structure and require that it be the shoebox fixtures.
McDonald: Right, okay. So we would be able to contain some of the light pollution that way.
Generous: And also through design you can do that by entering, or directing it towards the
interior.
McDonald: Okay.
Generous: You help with the spillover.
McDonald: Okay. That's really all the questions I had right now for staff and is the applicant
present?
Ryan Lundstrom: Yes.
3
Planning Commission Meeting - September 4,2007
McDonald: Okay. If you would come forward and if you have anything to add to any of this.
We have some questions for you also.
Ryan Lundstrom: Okay, thanks for hearing us. Appreciate that. Would you like me to.
McDonald: Yeah, please state your name and who you represent and all of those things.
Ryan Lundstrom: Ryan Lundstrom. I'm with Paisley Park Enterprises that Prince Roger Nelson
owns.
Rick Pecoquin: And I'm Rick Pecoquin. Also a Paisley Park employee.
McDonald: Okay, thank you.
Ryan Lundstrom: Okay, I made some notes about some of your questions. Yes, as far as we're
concerned about partial use lighting. Whether it makes sense with us because like was explained
by one of them, this would not be continually used like every weekend. It'd be on a limited use
basis and I'll just remove some of the mystery what we're accomplishing here. The parking lot is
for different shows, not unlike what you've granted us temporary permits on over the last several
years, and again that's only been well once every year type of thing. If that. Well this would be
more frequently than that but not on an every weekend basis. Nothing of that nature. Other
entertainers would come into town, playing at the Target Center or Xce1 Energy Center. Prince
might invite them to do an additional show out here. Of course much smaller venue. And too,
we're looking at offering some tours during the day, and again this would be on a limited basis is
what we're working on, so that's the nature of the parking lot. And so going back to the lighting
issue, from our standpoint, no. We wouldn't have to have it lit every night of the week. Just
when we have events going on. We'd be more than happy. It'd save us money too as far as that
goes. Let's see. Oh parking spaces. How we came up with that number. Well as you know at
Paisley Park we currently have quite a few spaces as it is already. The city's been very nice in
recommending different, other businesses to allow us to use their parking lots on a temporary
basis. Well this would hopefully eliminate even most of that. Even in the future they're more
than happy to do business with us. We have a nice relationship with them. So that's, as far as
the number goes. Based on what the fire marshal and the sheriffs department put upon the
amount of attendance we can have. I think what is it, 999 in the sound stage and then 201 in the
auxiliary stage area. So it comes, it's about 1,200. We're happy to do too, to accommodate all
this is to put in additional fire doors. The fire marshal met with us here in July and walked
through and mentioned about the double doors. In addition to that we're even to put up an
additional entrance in the back, double doors going to the outside so it will be well within the
compliance of the city and be safe. In addition to what we're looking at doing, again to
accommodate the city's request, we're adding quite a few additional bathrooms, both women's
room and men's room along with adequate handicap and that will be all within the interior of the
building. It will not impact the exterior whatsoever. We're trying to show to you we're trying to
comply with all that you desire us to do. So that's a brief introduction. Be glad to entertain your
questions. Anything you'd like to add Rick at this point?
4
Planning Commission Meeting - September 4,2007
Rick Pecoquin: Just the additional parking lot on the site right next to the building also does
have handicaps right next to the building itself so. So that's handicap accessible.
Ryan Lundstrom: So any questions you might have, we'd be happy to address.
McDonald: Why don't we start down to my right. Any? No questions?
Larson: No.
McDonald: Kevin.
Dillon: You answered my questions I was going to pose to you.
Ryan Lundstrom: Okay.
Keefe: Just a quick question. I mean when you have these events and you're going to have this
parking lot full you know and you have traffic to deal with. I mean how do you typically operate
that? I mean you bring in people to help people cross or do you depend on the light to do that
or?
Ryan Lundstrom: No.
Keefe: What are you intentions?
Ryan Lundstrom: We've hired the sheriffs department. They've been very helpful. I think even
2, even 3 of them possibly.
Rick Pecoquin: For the most part. Fire Marshal. Two fire marshals and the highway patrol.
Ryan Lundstrom: Yeah.
Keefe: See that they do assistance to help people cross?
Ryan Lundstrom: Yeah, and let you know too, just from part of this mystery. If you're familiar
with the location, if you come from Highway 5 coming from Minneapolis and you take a left on
Audubon, then you take an immediate left into Paisley. Well the people, if we allowed that,
you'd have a major parking jam going past Powers and Market Boulevard and so what we did,
we have signs to have people go, it's down by the city, what's that road you have property on?
Park Place? So they'd come up from the south up to Paisley and that way we eliminate any
congestion up at the stop light because it's such a major intersection. So we've done that in the
past most successfully, and that now with this additional parking lot, that's the whole thing too.
They'd come from Park Place, over to the parking lot and then eliminate any congestion we
might have up there.
Keefe: Okay.
5
Planning Commission Meeting - September 4,2007
Dillon: So the events that are planned, I'm sorry.
McDonald: Go ahead with your question.
Dillon: So the events that you have there like you know just private events and not open to the
public? You might do some tours but besides that.
Ryan Lundstrom: Yeah, this is open to the public but of course it's, it's not like the Target Center
which has 19,000 people. This is limited to 1,200 at this point. What we'd probably get up to is
probably more like 1,500 with the additional fire doors and so on.
Rick Pecoquin: Whatever the fire marshal will allow.
Ryan Lundstrom: Yeah.
Dillon: How is awareness created about these events?
Ryan Lundstrom: Awareness?
Dillon: Yeah. I mean is it just.
Rick Pecoquin: Usually it's a last minute deal where the artist Prince would perform and then
they would make an announcement over the P A and tell the people would drive up afterwards.
Ryan Lundstrom: Obviously we'd have everything arranged with you people ahead of time.
Weeks in advance. So we're not springing a new one on you at the last minute. You know
what's happening. That's usually the way he, that's the way he's performed down in Las Vegas
and well even in London where he's at right now doing, what is it 21 performances? I think
we've added a few extra.
Rick Pecoquin: 7 more.
Ryan Lundstrom: 7 more? There's like 480,000 tickets sold. It's enormous and he does like an
after show type thing. You know he did that in Vegas and for those who like to stop at his
restaurant next door, this is in Las Vegas now, you could go in and I think, I was there, that seats
like a few hundred people. So he likes to do those type of things. But again at a very reasonable
cost too.
McDonald: Mark, you have any questions?
Undestad: I just had a question on the location. Why you picked that side of the site, and you
may have answered that by routing traffic up Park Road.
Ryan Lundstrom: Correct. Yes.
6
Planning Commission Meeting - September 4,2007
McDonald: Okay. Well the questions I have were brought up as far as lighting in this area. I
understand it's advantageous for you as far as being able to control the lighting and it would help.
It only needs to be on whenever you've got something but you've taken out of the plans the
fencing to keep it private. The concern I have is that all of a sudden now we have a parking lot
there that's open to anyone. How do we restrict anyone from coming in there and if they do
come in there and park and the lights aren't on, what happens as far as if something happens
within the parking lot?
Ryan Lundstrom: Yeah, good question. Well the, well the existing businesses that are there
really don't have any need for, I know McGlynn's Bakery, or.
McDonald: Yeah, I don't believe that they'll need any of the parking.
Ryan Lundstrom: Right, and even the daycare center. Actually the only viable business, and
they don't really have events that would require the use of a parking lot. In fact that street, that
dead end street, what's that called? Is that McGlynn? Yeah, McGlynn Drive. Yeah, there's
more than adequate parking right along the streets to accommodate the daycare center so we
don't see any reason, we would be the only people who would have an interest in actually using
this parking lot.
McDonald: Okay. Now I'm just you know kind of a posing the question that yeah, you've got a
parking lot. People will want to park there and if something were to happen in it and because
there was no lighting or something on the off day, and you're not going to have it on that much
because you're right, these things are rather few and far between so it's not as though it's going to
be an every week occurrence or anything. That's the only question I'm posing about this is, how
do you control all of that? And I guess you can't answer it and that's fine. I just wanted to raise
the issue. Other than that, I have no further questions unless anyone else does. I thank you very
much for presenting this to us.
Ryan Lundstrom: Okay, thank you.
McDonald: Thank you. At this point I will open up the meeting to the public. Anyone wishing
to come forward and make comment, please come up to the podium. State your name and
address and then address your comments to the commissioners. Seeing no one come forward, I
will close the public meeting and I will bring it back before the commissioners for deliberation
and we will take a vote. Mark, you want to start with anything?
Undestad: No.
Keefe: I'm fine too.
Dillon: No comments.
Larson: The only comment I would make is kind of expanding on what your question is and it
appears to me that it's not a real obvious entrance into this parking lot and then if there's going to
7
Planning Commission Meeting - September 4,2007
be trees and shrubs all the way around it, it's not like it's going to be completely visible that
anybody would encroach on Audubon or Coulter. I don't know, in my mind it's an issue I guess.
McDonald: Okay.
Papke: I guess I'd be in favor of a 22nd condition here which would be to allow the applicant to
conditionally light it on the basis of gating the entrance. As long as, I think they control the
entrance to the parking lot, I think that would, with all the shrubbery and so on, I think that
would be sufficient to allow them to light it at their option. I guess that's what I'd put out for
them.
McDonald: Okay.
Keefe: And just in regards to the lighting, I mean we've got McGlynn across the street. We've
got the daycare which I think already casts off some light at night anyway, so and if somebody
wanted to go in there right now, maybe they could presumably drive their car into the field right
now if they wanted but you know, police do go by. They'd kick them off there. The same thing
I think would be if you know.
Papke: I'd just be concerned with you know during the winter, kids doing donuts there or
something. If there's no lighting at all. And there was no controlled access.
McDonald: Yeah, and an empty parking lot's an invitation for that kind of stuff. You know, and
the big reason I raise the issue is what's the liability to the City. If there is none, then it's all
upon Paisley. It's not our problem.
Keefe: So they would need to decide whether they wanted.
McDonald: Right. I only raise it from an issue of liability in case some kids go in there and
decide to do donuts or whatever, but empty parking lots with no lights are an invitation for
people to go and gather. You know, well never mind. We all were young once. So yeah I mean
that was the only reason I raised the issue. Right, it's their liability. Okay, then in that case I'm
willing to accept a motion from the commission.
Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends Site Plan
approval of Planning Case #07-18 for a parking lot, plans prepared by Proterra Design
Associates, Inc. dated 08/07/07, subject to conditions 1 through 21 as stated in staff report with
an additional condition number 22 that the applicant be granted the ability to conditionally light
the parking lot as long as they gate the entrance to the parking lot. They control the entrance.
McDonald: Okay, do I have a second?
Larson: I'll second it.
McDonald: Any discussion? I hear a little bit of a moaning over here.
8
Planning Commission Meeting - September 4,2007
Keefe: Well my problem is just, you know I don't know why we need to regulate a gate. They
can decide, it's their liability as to whether they need it gated or not.
Papke: In terms of city regulations with lighting a parking lot, any, what's the bottom line?
Does the city require lighting?
Generous: We require that parking lots have lighting.
Papke: So all I'm, all we're really saying here is we're relaxing the restrictions slightly by
controlling access.
Dillon: How so?
Papke: With a gate.
Undestad: They have to leave lights on all the time or they can. . .
Papke: Or they've got to close the gate.
Dillon: So is that the ruling? I mean is that.
Keefe: That's what he suggested.
Papke: That's what I'm suggesting.
Keefe: My counter point is, is let them have lights to save energy and lighting the city and it's
their liability if someone gets hurt there. You know they have, they can gate it but it's their's. It's
their responsibility.
Undestad: So does the city require parking lot lighting?
Generous: When, well I should.
Keefe: Public lighting.
Generous: Yeah, you have to light it if people are using it. That's the end result.
Undestad: So if Jerry's in there doing donuts at night...
Generous: He's also trespassing I believe.
Dillon: But the city doesn't require a gate.
Generous: No. It's like any other parking lot in downtown. We only require it if a facility's
open and people are invited, or using that facility.
9
Planning Commission Meeting - September 4,2007
Keefe: So let me ask you this. I mean if it's, if we require lighting, does it necessarily have to be
on per ordinance? Or does it just have to have the lights there?
Generous: Well they have to have the lights and it has to be on if there's an operation going.
Keefe: So in a sense I mean it's... if there isn't anything going on then they don't have to light it.
Generous: They're not technically required to have.
McDonald: Okay, I guess what we have, we have a motion with an additional recommendation.
You can also put forward a motion that would go with just this recommendation and the 21 and
we'll vote on both. Would that be acceptable Bob?
Generous: Yeah.
McDonald: I thought it would be. We have a second on the first motion.
Keefe: Then we need to vote on that.
Generous: You can vote on the motion, the amendment and then.
McDonald: Okay, all in favor of the recommendation that we adopt the recommendation for the
site plan with the addition of a 22nd recommendation granting conditional use, granting
intermittent use of the light based upon controlling access to the parking lot say aye.
Papke moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend an amendment
to the motion adding the following condition:
22. The applicant be granted the ability to conditionally light the parking lot as long as
they gate the entrance to the parking lot.
Papke voted in favor, the remainder of the commission voted in opposition. The motion
failed with a vote of 1 to 5.
McDonald: Okay, the motion fails. Do I have a second motion?
Larson: The motion to approve it without the 22nd?
McDonald: No, with the 22nd in.
Larson: Are we going to do another one without it?
Keefe: Yeah, I'll make a motion.
McDonald: Yeah, we would do another one without it.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - September 4,2007
Keefe: And I guess point of clarification. Just revisit this one thing. They have to put in lights.
They don't necessarily have to be on except when they're using it.
Generous: Right.
Keefe: That's the ordinance.
Generous: Interpretation of the ordinance. It's only necessary.
Keefe: Alright. I'll make a recommendation Planning Commission recommends Site Plan
approval of Planning Case #07-18 for parking lot plans prepared by Proterra Design Associates
dated August ih subject to conditions 1 through 21.
McDonald: Okay, do I have a second?
Dillon: Second.
Keefe moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission recommends Site Plan
approval of Planning Case #07-18 for a parking lot, plans prepared by Proterra Design
Associates, Inc., dated 08/07/07, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan for City review and approval prior to beginning
site improvements.
3. The perimeter landscaping on the south and east sides of the parking lot shall be located such
that it is between site fencing, if installed, and the roadway.
4. Replace red oak plantings in islands with elm cultivars, Autumn Blaze maple, or ginkgo.
5. All city boulevard trees shall be protected during construction. Any trees lost due to
construction shall be replaced by the applicant.
6. The applicant shall add one tree to the landscaping along the west property line for a total of
10 trees.
7. Increase the minimum inside width of all islands to 10 feet.
8. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the city for approval prior to beginning site
improvements.
9. Site landscaping shall be irrigated.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - September 4,2007
10. Field verify existing conditions prior to construction. Submit existing conditions plan with
next submittal.
11. Submit revised stormwater management plan. Current calculations show that catch basin #7
does not have enough inlet capacity, the velocity between catch basin #8 and catch basin # 1
is over 10 fps, and the existing storm in Coulter Boulevard does not have sufficient capacity.
There is a 15" storm stub in McGlynn Road to help resolve these issues.
12. Additional spot elevations shall be added at the intersection of McGlynn Road and the
proposed drive to ensure that drainage is conveyed through the intersection and the curb line
maintains a .5% minimum slope. Also, add spot elevations to the high points in the parking
lot.
13. Paved surface grades shall not be less than 1 %. Curb line grades shall not be less than. 5%.
Emergency overflow locations and elevations must be shown on the plan.
14. An easement is required from the appropriate property owner for any off-site grading. If
importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be
required to supply the City with detailed haul routes.
15. Add top and bottom elevations to the retaining walls. Building permits are required for all
retaining walls four feet tall or higher and must be designed by a Structural Engineer
registered in the State of Minnesota.
16. The watermain must be revised to meet city specifications. The hydrant must be installed
according to Detail 1004 with a valve and a plastic wrapped CL 52 DIP lead. Watermain
fittings shall be wrapped ductile iron.
17. All watermain and storm sewer within this site shall be privately owned and maintained. An
irrigation meter will need to be installed.
18. Utility plans shall show both plan view and profiles of all utilities (water and storm sewer
lines). Storm drainage arrows need to be corrected on the plans.
19. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The city specifications shall
replace the technical portion of the specification. The applicant is also required to provide a
cash escrow to guarantee restoration of the boulevards. Permits from the appropriate
regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA, Dept. of Health, Carver County
and the Watershed District.
20. Show the cross-section of the parking lot on the plans. Provide a turnaround near the
entrance to the parking lot if a gate is installed. Upon completion of the project, the applicant
shall submit a set of "as-built" plans signed by a professional civil engineer.
21. Handicap ramps must be installed according to City Detail Plate 5215.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - September 4,2007
All voted in favor, except Papke who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1.
PAPEDIS VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO HARD SURFACE
COVERAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2101 PINEHURST DRIVE. APPLICANT.
SOUTHVIEW DESIGN. PLANNING CASE 07-19.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Tim Johnson, Southview Design
Scott Boeddeker
1875 E. 50th Street, Inver Grove Heights
6710 Manchester Drive
Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: We'll start to my left this time. Kurt.
Papke: What are the lower, there's a table on page 5 that shows the differences from what, the
issues with the building permit and there's two items on there I couldn't quite make out from the
plan. They're the lower wall and upper wall. Are these the retaining walls? The boulder
retaining walls in place.
Auseth: Yes, those are the retaining walls.
Papke: That's all.
Larson: Okay. I have a question.
McDonald: Go right ahead.
Larson: If they had used a different material rather than brick pavers. Something that was, what
do you call it?
McDonald: Permeable?
Larson: That will accept water, would this have been an issue?
Auseth: Yes. Currently we don't give any credit to any other types of material. Things that are
pervious, and we appreciate the fact that people are putting those in but at this time we don't give
any credit for those.
Larson: What if it had been grass as opposed to brick pavers or you know something that was
maybe harder surface however you know something, an example would be like a putting green
type of grass surface where it would accept water.
13