The URL can be used to link to this page

1990 08 02CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 1, 1990 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad, and Jim Wildermuth. Tim Erhart arrived after the first item. MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli and Joan Ahrens STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner; Sharmin Al-Jarl, Planner One; and Charles Foich, Asst. City Engineer. PU8LIC HEARING: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A LIBRARY/ANNEX/RESEARCH CENTER, EXPANSION OF THE EDUCATION CENTER AND A RETIREMENT COMPLEX ON PROPERTY ZONED IO, OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT AND LOCATED NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET AND EAST OF GREAT PLAINS 80ULEVARD, ST. HUBERT CHURCH. Name Address Father Barry Cheryl Guscyensie Richard & Hillie Lundahl Judy Schmieg Ursula Dimler Chuck & Betty Naber 7707 Great Plains 7152 Ticonduoga 5509 Eden Prairie Road 220 West 77th Street 7203 Kiowa Circle 409 Del Rio Drive Sharmin Al-Jarl and Paul Krauss presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Richard Lundahl: Ladies and gentleman, my name is Richard Lundahl. I'm the architect for St. Hubert's and in attendance we also have Father Barry, the pastor and several other members of the church and we'll try to answer any questions you have. One thing I would like to say that there are not 20 classrooms. There are 6 per floor for a total of 12. The setbacks that you just disOussed apply only to the housing and right now the way we've laid it out, the housing coincides with the setbacks of the existing houses there. The school is set back another 12 feet from that. Let's see, what else? The materials of construction, we were going to try to continue the breakoff block materials that we had used on the existing church which was done in 1976 rather than the red brick on the school. We feel that the school at some time or other, whether it gets done during this project or another, deserves to be updated in the whole architecture of it. The side facing the south and the side facing the city and of course you won't see the side facing the other side if we do this development because it will be enveloped by the development and a court. The height of the buildings, none of them are as high as the existing church but in order to get 2 stories of course we do have to have a little height. The height was dictated probably by not just the fact that it's 2 stories but by the fact that we're parking underneath and we raised the first floor up 4 feet in Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 2 order to provide a ventilation space so that we wouldn't have to ventilate it mechanically and so therefore it's 4 feet higher than it would normally be in the housing area. And we've tried to coincide the roof lines of the school and the housing development. The atrium, actually we consider it as only having one atrium area and that's the area at the entrance to the church. You could possibly call it an atrium where you enter the school too but it really is just a large sky lit area which may have some greenhouse function in it and so we really don't call it an atrium but the new entrance to the church and that area is called an atrium. We think that it would blend well with what's there as far as the church goes and I think it will blend well with what's in Chanhassen now. So I'd be happy to answer any questions architecturally and Father Barry would be happy to answer any questions conceptually about how this kind of a project fits together for him. Conrad: The current parking lot is adequate? Richard Lundahl: It's adequate except on certain days. We would like to enlarge it too and it will be enlarged at a later date when properties become available to the north. All of those properties have been offered to the church and I think Father Barry can talk more to this than I can but we w,ould increase the parking then but right at this point those are not in this project. Father Barry: There's some reasons that parking... Richard Lundahl: Actually only one mass does the parking lot overflow, is that correct? Father Barry: Well it overflows on more than one mass on occasions but the Sunday morning popular mass at 9:30...and the ot~her time might be on a Saturday night if there's a wedding or something over at the old church by the Colonial Church of Edina when they utilize our parking lot not knowing...they should park elsewhere and then our's overflow. Or on Sunday mornings sometimes we have to address, when we have hospitality after one mass and hangovers from one mass into the next mass so then we have overflow problems there. So people staying to visit may create some overflow and if that is a problem, then we may have to stop hospitality which we surely don't want to. I have a few other things...that have come up in the presentation that need to be addressed. There are actually two garages that would be removed. We're hoping to sell these for removal rather than tear them down because they're in pretty good condition. The houses too. I did a study on the parking stalls that would be needed by the first applicant for the retirement dwelling and out of those, there would be only 18 parking stalls needed. The others don't have automobiles or are contending to have one which they're going to get rid of. We have one of the couples for example who don't like to drive now and specifically want to be that close so them don't have to drive. There are actually the possibility of 24 classrooms. You were right in your presentation, by saying double amount because on Wednesday nights we have smaller classes for our religious instruction. These are children that do not attend day school so we are partitioning each class with a divider that will allow each classroom to become two on Wednesday nights. That does not create a Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 3 parking problem because the parents drop off the children and then leave. I'm wondering about the parking taking up that island space because that destroys some more grass which I'm hoping and pleading that we can retain along with the trees. The trees, there is some error in identification of the trees and we will correct that when we stipulate for you how many trees and the size and so forth but there is some error in the identification of the trees. As you saw the presentation here, the maples all along the front of the retirement dwelling will be retained. Those mature maples. Z don't think the construction will take those out as I see. They will be there plus some of the other trees. Me are also a tree planting community. The stipulation to the architects when we first met with them was to design to save as many trees as possible because we hurt destroying trees. We're nature people but we are planting trees all along. We've planted 3 new maples in the cemetary. A spruce. I've put up 3 pines in the back yard. A cedar. A double birch. Some sumac if you want to call them trees but we are tree planting people and do plan to plant more trees. The housing is a question for people and that is a new development in Christian Community thought. That the elderly need in those years of their life to be in close contact with the church and I've worked with the elderly specifically and now visiting them of my community can find that they need to be close to church. Ne have any number who when it gets icy or stormy cannot make it to services and they live on that. That is a solice for their older years so we are not into providing blank elderly housing. We're not getting into the elderly housing business. We're getting into special type of provision for our elderly. Connected to the church on one end and to the children because national studies have shown that where elderly are around children it revitalizes their lives. Does something and it does something for children also, national studies. There are 5 parishes in our diocese that do have elderly housing units but they are not connected to the church. And just yesterday and today I was attending a Upper Midwest gathering of priests in various parishes and I'm being congratulated now for having the vision and the foresight to connect it to the church and those specifically who did not say we wish we had done that so I've become more well known now among Clergy even because of that specific project. It's a vision. It's a new vision and new things are kind of hard for some people to accept but it's a dream and it's going to be extremely popular. I know it. I know it. Both from experience in the previous city I was which was Nashville, Tennessee and from the gut feeling that I have about this. Some of our community think we are not going big enough with it. Ne had intended in the beginning going 3 floors but because of city ordinances and so forth we're going to start with 2 and hopefully, maybe expand in that other property if it becomes available but these are the visions that include our hopes for the future. The school is necessary. Not because we have that many more students but because the students that we have now are cramped. Incredibly cramped. Ne are having tutoring going on in corridors and nooks and crannies. In the chair room. Next to the boiler room and that has to be corrected so that is essential. And the old space of classrooms will provide meeting space and office space that we vitally need right now also. We're terribly cramped. We just don't have the room. I think that's all l need to add to the presentation. Conrad: Thank you. Other comments? Planning Commission Heeling August 1, 1990 - Page 4 Ursula Dimler: Hi. I'm Ursula Dimler. I reside at 7203 Kiowa Circle. am a member of St. Hubert's parish and have been so for 20 years. My husband's family has been there almost slnce it began. I thlnk his ancestors helped build the church. I just want to express one concern that I had and that was that, all my four children have gone to St. Hubert's school. The enrollment ls now up over 200 students and in this plan, we've always had trouble with enough playground space and in this plan I see none or even less and I would like to have that addressed. Conrad: Thanks Ursula Father Barry: There is playground space. Sorry it's not on the plan. I asked Mr. Lundahl...to make sure there's an area in the back. I'm not sure whether it would be...to what we have now. I think with that...there is a proposal to put portable posts and so forth in the parking lot for volleyball and so forth. The older children...if we get volleyball courts and also lines on the parking lot for volleyball, then the students can utilize their time playing volleyball .... and this is all playground. That's all playground area. It is now and it will be. Ursula Dimler: Could you show us where the relationship... Father Barry: Way away from it. Right there. Krauss: The apartments are over here so some of them will actually look out, well I guess they'd be looking out from here. The closest apartments are right about there. Ursula Dimler: Is there a buffer zone? I'm concerned that the noise might disturb the people in the apartments. Krauss: Well, they're around the corner and they are located right about 80 to 100 feet away. Father Barry: There is actually very little noise once school is out and during school, it's like an hour and a half. And in the evenings now, you know... There isn't very much playground activity... Very few people use this and those that do, it's not like a mob of kids out there. In Chicago the city built 2 elderly housing units...around a football field specifically so that the elderly could watch kids play football. They put one up one year and 3 years later put another one up and those balconies were full of the elderly watching the kids play football. I personally don't think the noise from the... Ursula Dimler: I've supervised playing out there and they can get rather rowdy. Father Barry: Yeah, I suppose if somebody wants to take a nap in the afternoon... It's going to be further away than it is now... Conrad: Okay, are there any other public comments? Anything? neighbors here? Any Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 5 Father Barry: We had a number of neighbors wanting to come tonight and l told them I didn't think they had to. They thought they should come and speak in favor of it. We were wondering were they needed and so forth. I said you know if you've got other things you want to do, don't bother. If it's essential for neighbors to come and speak in favor, they'll come at the next meeting. I don't know what the Planning Commission feels about that. Would you like that input from neighbors? Conrad: They usually show if they're irritated so it doesn't take a whole lot of prodding if they have a concern. If there's controversy, it's good to have both sides represented and therefore it would be good to have your supporting neighbors in attendance but I don't hear any antagonistic comments tonight. I think Ursula brought up a good point. The playground and proximity to the residential community in my mind is an issue, as is parking an issue and maybe I'll get into that a little bit but apparently the neighbors and the notice was sent out and we sent the notice to those within 500 feet. Okay. Any other comments? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Now we'll get into a round where we get some Planning Commission comments or questions. 3im, start at your end. Wildermuth: I like the idea of carrying through the theme on the church material through on the new construction. One thing I guess I would like to see is more underground parking. I think when the new construction that is now being contemplated, you have the opportunity to put in additional underground parking. Once that's completed, that opportunity will be lost. From a city standpoint, is there going to be parking allowed on Frontier Trail? Krauss: At this time we're working with the City Engineer investigating the possibility of reconstructing the curb. Bumping it out like the parkway system in Minneapolis. Wildermuth: Or a denting into the boulevard so that. Krauss: Right. So we could provide additional parking area. Of course we don't want to lose any trees in doing that so we'll have to work on that but we are looking into that. Wildermuth: The height of the new construction, how does that compare with the houses across the street on Frontier Trail? I guess I'd direct that question to the architect. Richard Lundahl: I'm sure it'd be higher. I'm not sure if there's going to be 2 story houses across the street. I don't recall so I can't answer you but I'm sure it's higher. Nildermuth: By 5 feet? 10 feet? Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 6 ~p Richard Lundahl: Are there 2 story? There are 2 story. Wildermuth: So it'd be roughly comparable? Richard Lundahl: plus there will be some mature trees...that are a lot higher than that. Wildermuth: Yes. I really like the idea of incorporating the elderly housing into the school and church setting. I think that probably along would qualify the project as a PUD. Other than that, I don't really see that the project would qualify as a PUD but i think that in itself is certainly sufficient to do that. At this point, what is the percent impervious surface coverage? Al-Jarl: 72~. Wildermuth: 72~. What would our ordinance normally limit? Krauss: As of which district? The 0I? Wildermuth: In the 0I, right. Conrad: Probably 70. Wildermuth: I thought it was 50. Krauss: 65~. Wildermuth: Well that's not too far out of the way I guess. From a concept standpoint, it looks like a good project. Conrad: Annette. Ellson: In general I think it's wonderful. I had a question on something. We're talking about a 15 foot wide landscape buffers proposed to the north to separate an existing house. Where is that? Could you help me? Al-Jarl: This is the...The church does not own this parcel yet. Father Barry: Could I address that please? Ellson: Sure. Father Barry: We are in very close contact with that family and I don't think that they would like a buffer of any height or anything. We're open space people. Ellson: I was wondering if that neighbor was here, which it doesn't sound like any of the neighbors are here but if it's something that the church plans on purchasing anyway and we normally like to protect the neighbors from development. I was wondering if this was even necessary. I didn't know if you were 1 year away from taking it over and if this was necessary. Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page ? Father Barry: Well in all frankness, had we pressured them they would have looked for other housing. They own the property and I have...that when they sell, if they sell, we will have a first rights, almost total rights that we would purchase it. So they have no aversion, in fact they thought in this building we would move right up to their patio and we assured them that we would not. In fact I have fussed at the architect about getting too close because I'm a grass person too. I don't want all kinds of blacktop back there. That's my backyard also. We sort of flow into one another. So if there is some buffer required, I think I would prefer to talk to them and have them say what they would like because our yards are shared. Conrad: The buffer is grass? Father Barry: Oh yeah. There's a good buffer there. Richard Lundahl: There's 15 feet and we were planning on planting additional landscaping there but in the staff report they recommended that we cut it down so we would add another parking space to that. Krauss: If I could explain that. The parking there does not meet our requirements for manuevering room. You've got a couple of different flows coming in over there. You've got the 3 stalls at the end over here. Right here you've got 2 stalls, one of which backs right out into the right-of- way which we don't allow plus you've got the cars entering the underground parking through here. We frankly just felt it was too tight to work comfortably and that the only place there is to fix it really is to shorten up on that buffer yard. We would still anticipate it being a buffer yard because the church doesn't own it yet but I think we can work something out. Now in doing that we thought we could get another space in there. We want to eliminate that space that goes right onto Frontier but this is a detail I think we can work out. Ellson: Okay. That was a detail I was totally confused about. You're not adding anything onto the church itself? Richard Lundahl: Not to the sanctuary, no. The atrium...that is a church entrance which will be also a narthex. We've never had a narthex so it will allow for overflow from the sanctuary which is...and the narthex which involves the removal of a library that's there, will flow into the atrium but that's generally just a looping around...area already existing. But it is new coverage. Ellson: Yeah. I know that it can be real crowded...so I was thinking, what? You're not going to add any more places for people to stand and it's growing. My first thought was is this enough? I think we need to do all the kinds of more things but I know that you do things in steps of course. Krauss: Well you know we were working with a plan that Father Barry brought to us but you people have touched on the parking issue. One of the things we were concerned about in the parking issue, we acknowledge there's a problem there now on occasion. Cars park in the lot across the street which I believe the City has an ownership position in anyway and some of PLanning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 8 the other lots in the area which have. We certainly wanted to make sure that whatever was done here didn't make the problem any worse and that it accommodated it's own need' and I think this concept plan has accomplished that. Longer range, we'd certainly like to work with the church to expand their parking if we could but we did set the guideline that we certainly didn't want to exasperbate the problem. Ellson: I love the idea of the whole interconnecting and I think we couldn't ask for anything better there. I think it's a wonderful way to keep the church, which has always been a cornerstone in the downtown and we're doing a good service to limit the number of seniors. Granted I'd like to think that the whole thing could be doubled or whatever but I think that it looks good and I'm usually the one up here saying now save the oak trees. I could tell from the plan that it was really looked at and taken seriously which is something that I really commend you on because it's one of my pet peeves and I always say, now have you really tried everything to save them and it looks like you are saving quite a few mature trees. So I like it. I think it's a good idea and again, I'd like to have seen it bigger and more but with the limited space I can see you've done a really good job. Emmings: The living accommodations are for the elderly and I'm wondering how that's being defined here. What are we talking about? Father Barry: Age 55 and we will have a panel that will determine when they have to leave. It's definitely not a nursing home. Anyone needing nursing care, there would be a single person would be advised to have... That again would be a community problem for a lot of people. Emmings: Sure. So basically the way you're looking at it, it's for people who are capable of living independently but who are over 55? Father Barry: Right. Emmings: Has somebody looked at the plan in terms of it's being accessible to wheelchairs and other people with special needs? Krauss: Certainly Commissioners Emmings, we've worked closely with our Fire Marshall and our building official. Now the plans, the detailed plans haven't been developed yet but there's been a dialogue started between the architect and our people to accomplish all those things. Wildermuth: The detailed plan will incorporate an elevator I would guess? Richard Lundahl: Yes. Emmings: Well, this is a general concept plan at this point. I just want to make sure that somebody's thinking about it and if that's going on, I'm sure we'll look at it in more detail later. Al-Jaff: There is an elevator proposed from the lower ground parking up through it. Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 9 Emmings: I think this qualifies as a PUD to me. It feels right in that it combines uses that we don't normally see combined in a kind of a creative and interesting and very positive way. I think that it provides a nice transition between what exists and the neighboring area. I think the idea of, do you do any daycare? Father Barry: No. At this stage we didn't want to get into it. We have, the closest we come is nursery on Sunday. Emmings: Okay, but I suppose because you're so crowded with the school, maybe there isn't room for daycare. Father Barry: If we had, moved out to some acreage, we would consider daycare because of the need...and it's something that society needs and we surely would provide it but at the present time, I think we need to wait for further land and for the development and it's difficult to establish a good daycare. Emmings: My son attended a daycare that was in a facility that housed the elderly and there was a lot of interaction between the two groups on site. It was obvious to me that both groups benefitted enormously from the, or benefitted mutually. It was just a wonderful situation. He was happy. The kids were happy because they get a lot of attention. A lot of real positive attention and the folks that were living there enjoyed the interaction with kids. It clearly brighten their day and their time so I think this is a wonderful plan. I like it very much. I'm not particularly concerned about the parking because it seems to me that it's primarily a problem for a very small duration of time. It seems to me that everybody's being sensitive about it and doing the best they can under the circumstances that are here. And while it may not be ideal, I think it's alright. When you were talking about that other house that's still on the property. I think it's essential that you eventually acquire that property if not other adjoining property the way you seem to be growing there. If those people are dedicated to the idea of selling that property to the church, it would certainly be a small step to enter into an agreement with them so you have a right of first refusal on that property in writing because people can change their minds and a lot of funny things can happen. It would be good to get that in writing. Other than that, I don't have any comments. Conrad: Is the play area smaller than it is today? Krauss: Yeah, it's relocated slightly and it is smaller. Father Barry: Consider that the whole front parking lot which has. a basketball backboard and so forth, is also play area. This is a special play area for play construction. I don't know if you've been down there so you know what we're talking about. That structure there. The new site I've asked Mr. Lundahl, will not accommodate the whole bit but it will accommodate quite a bit of it. And a lot of it, as it is there now, is not used. Some of that play structure is hardly ever used and some of it l would like to see not be used. For example girls crawling up on a chain and I'm thinking of them slipping and... Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 10 Conrad: It just seems to me it's a small, out of the whole site and I do like a lot of what I see here. I think there's a lot of neat things incorporated but in general the impervious surface or the percent of lot coverage, even though your light green is higher than we'd normally like. We'd like more green. We'd like to preserve it. It really stands out to me that the play area is, and I hadn't thought about that. How parking lot constitutes play area. That doesn't seem like a mix to me. Cars, kids can be and I know it's used that way but for some reason that just seems inconsistent. But it seems like a glaring deficiency but again, I guess nobody's bringing that up. Nobody is concerned. Well Ursula, you're concerned. It just, as I compare the recreation sites of other schools, this just seems like a real, it just seems like we're really, we're doing a lot of neat things in there but still, for the kids, there is not space. There's not safe space for them or a lot of space. I'm not an expert in that area but staff, Paul you don't seem to, that doesn't bother you from a staff standpoint? Krauss: Well, I raised the issue in our discussions. I asked if State licensing set a minimum requirement for green area and apparently they do not. They are maintaining a green area for those kinds of activities. In going past the site I frequently see the kids out playing in the parking lot during the day and the fact of the matter is, unless there's services going on, there's nobody in that parking lot. Conrad: But how does that mesh? Wildermuth: I think it's a good mixed use for a parking lot. The grade school that Z went to, I grew up was completely paved. Conrad: Very definitely. I'm not worried about the paved. I'm just worrying about the fact that a car can go into that paved area. That doesn't mean it's a recreation area there. Wildermuth: Maybe some provision has to be made there to close off part of that lot during the week or something. Krauss: Right now actually the situation is somewhat more hazardous than it's going to be in the future. Now you could take a more aggressive stance and put some sort of a barricade there so when the kids are there, the cars can't come but right now the school buses have to line up in there and the parents have to drop off in there because they don't have the advantage of having another drop off on TH iO1. So the new configuration removes some of that conflict but if it is a concern, we could be somewhat more aggressive in controlling access to the parking lot. Father Barry: With that play area green, once they start playing on that it won't be very long before all the grass and the green we have will be gone and then when it rains it all ends up in the parking lot anyhow. Conrad: Yeah, I'm not suggesting that we need more grass for kids to kill. I just want to make sure there's enough area for kids period. If we sanction this as a PUD, it's a chance to look at the entire site to make sure that it all works and make sure that works for senior citizens even Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 11 though I'm not sure that the play area is perfect right next to the senior citizens area but it may be okay. But I just have a real negative feeling in terms of the play area and how we've designed it. I guess I'd like a more aggressive approach in terms of how we utilize. I think it's a good use of a parking lot to use it for kids. The church's not in session weekdays. Good time to use the parking lot for kids. Yet on the other hand, I want to have a sense that there's, it's not a parking lot on those days and I don't know what that means. I don't know how we do that. The other question Paul. Have we had any complaints from the neighbors? Parking wise on Sunday? Anything? Have you looked at any of the logs that may register complaints? Krauss: No I haven't. I'm not aware of any complaints but I didn't try to delve into it that far either. We circulate these things in house and typically if there's a problem., Public Safety will tell us. Conrad: So Sunday is just not an issue day with the neighbors? It just nothing. Krauss: I don't want to dismiss it as a problem because clearly they're parking all over the place but it seems to be one that the community's become alert to since it's been going on for so long. Conrad: How do you know that the parking is acceptable for the senior citizen, for the new underground ramp? What ratio? What rules did you use to say, hey it's okay? Krauss: Nell I've worked on a number of senior citizen projects and they're widely varied and on this one we've been talking to Father Barry and he knows who he's got moving in there but you look at some things. The guidelines are you have to be over 55. Now obviously 55 is not elderly all the time and many people might have 2 cars. When you look at the mix of the apartments. The apartments are relatively small for the most part. A lot of them are single bedroom units. Those are not the kind of things that somebody who just wants to be free from the worries of mowing their lawn moves into. They move into a larger townhouse or condominium type situation so the design of the building helps to enforce the parking limitation. You typically, when you move up from active elderly to somewhat less active you tpically go for a 1 to 1 ratio. Many of the buildings I know have been designed like that. If you look at some of the buildings in Richfield or Edina where you can walk to a lot of things, they have 1 to 1 ratios and parking lots are not too often full because they can take buses. That doesn't necessarily apply here except that this is in the downtown Chanhassen. People can walk and the church itself by means of this unique plan is going to provide for a lot of the day to day activities for these people that they might otherwise drive to. So it's really a subjective call is what it boils down to. The 1 to 1 ratio is one that I've worked with. It works. Conrad: You say it's best judgment at this time that you think is acceptable. What do we do, what's the City policy in terms of church visitors parking in city property across the street? Do we need to look at that? Is that, you know that seems like an easy solution for parking, Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 12 especially on Sunday if we have overflow problems but what is our policy? Krauss: Well it's public parking to the extent that it's under public ownership and can be used. I could be wrong, it predates my time with the city but that all used to be a private parking lot and was used during services anyway. We became involved with the north side improvements and rebuilt the whole thing and took a more aggressive posture. We put in a parking lot south of the old church off of TH 101 in there~ Those lots were available to whomever needs to use it whenever they need to use it. Conrad: So the City is comfortable that the church can use it? Wildermuth: Probably a few spots are reserved for Kenny's. Krauss: Well, you want to be careful. You don't want to have 4 or 5 operations determining that they're going to use that space at the same time. But since church services are generally off peak. Kenny's would be an example of one where there might be a conflict but of course that's over on the west side and then you have access to the parking that's all behind there. All you have to do is park behind Medical Arts so the situation, while not ideal is certainly getting better, tremendously better I think over the last 12 months. Wildermuth: I still would like to see the underground parking expanded. I mean now's the time to do it. Now when the opportunity is. Ellson: How much expanded? Wildermuth: Well as much as possible under the new construction. Ellson: To give you what? 5, 10 more? Wildermuth: According to the plan it looks as though the underground parking could almost be doubled. You've got the school right? Richard Lundahl: Underneath the housing, unless you went underneath the school. Conrad: Yeah, I think that's it. Emmings: And Ladd you know maybe one way to address the fear that the residents parking is going to be a problem would be to say that all residents must park beneath the, in the underground garage. Put a condition on it like that and then that way, if some people have 2 cars and some people have no cars, it would still work out but leave it to them to handle it internally with the condition that all resident parking be underground. Krauss: I think that would be very appropriate since there really is very little latitude in visitor parking. They need to have access to all the outdoor stalls that are available. Planning Commission Meeting ¢,ugust 1, 1990 - Page 13 Nildermut. h: The footprint of the underground parking lot real}y represents what? Is that all the new construction is going to be? Krauss: No. What it represents is the outside limits of the apartment which sits over it. The new construction goes beyond that. Wildermuth: If the new construction goes beyond that, then there would be enough area to expand the underground parking right? Krauss: What you've got over here is, Frontier runs out here and TH 101 is over there. The new construction comes up to something like that. This portion here being school. This is the outside limit of the apartment so you've got this space over here where theoretically. Wildermuth: It seems like it would make some sense. Krauss: I'd really leave that up to the architect. From a layout standpoint, it seems to be a continuance of the same corridor. Floor elevations might be a problem. Richard Lundahl: You'd have to raise the floor of the school. Father Barry: Assessing the people that are looking to utilize it, I think you'll get a lot of stalls empty. There aren't any of them that have 2 cars now that I know of. ~4ildermuth: I'm not so much thinking of the elderly housing. What I'm thinking about really is maybe your school staff. People like that could park down there during the week rather than using. Father Barry: We have that huge parking lot and they use just that one end and we don't have that large of a staff for the school. We have probably a dozen cars in there at the most. That's why the parking lot can be used as a playground because there's no other cars during the day. Conrad: Okay so Paul, City staff is real comfortable that the, I'm not even talking necessarily about the apartment parking. I think I'm satisfied with Paul's feeling in terms of the use that will have adequate parking for those that move in. I think with Steve's suggestion that will control that. As we look at this as a PUD, I'm trying to get my arms around the whole site and that's where I go back to the parking lot but basically I'm hearing a couple things. One, we're not getting any complaints from neighbors. Two, that if we do have overflow parking problems on Sunday at 9:30, that is handled by city lots. We don't have a problem to deal with. That's what I'm hearing. Krauss: Basically that's true but I don't want to overstate the case. There is a parking shortfall but the situation seems to be one that's being dealt with. conrad: But the City is comfortable we can make up for that shortfall with other sites in the neighborhood? Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 14 Krauss: Yeah, we're certainly improving that situation, yes. You know I can't tell you that there is no parking problem. That every car is parked where it should be because I don't know that to be the case but it's getting better than it was a~d this proposal is certainly not making it any worse. Conrad: Okay, you've relieved my anxiety Paul. Then I'm stuck with the last issue and that goes back to playground and I think I'd like to have, when the applicant, when the church comes in to the City Council, I'd really like them to present something more than what I've seen tonight in terms of helping them understand the playground needs and the r'ecreation needs for the children that are going to school. Maybe that's, in my mind it may be some creative way of using that parking lot and landscaping the parking lot with, maybe taking a few stalls away but cording off a portion with, I hate to say it, a berm or something but at least on the weekdays there's a way to keep cars out of the playground area in the parking lot. On weekends there's a way to shoot those cars through so that they accommodate the church goers but anyway, I guess my recommendation is we take another look at how we handle the recreation needs of the kids and any creative use we can. If you can do that, you'd certainly have my support on this as a PUD and this as a sketch plan or whatever we're calling the plan to present to City Council. Any other comments? Is there a motion? Emmings: Sure. I'll move that the expansion of St. Hubert's church, we recommend approval for it to be given PUD concept plan approval subject to the conditions set forth in the staff report. Ellson: I'll second it. Conrad: Discussion. Emmings moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to approve the PUD Concept Plan for the expansion of St. Hubert's Church subject to the following conditions: Revise parking and access plans as requested. 2. Provide final landscaping and tree preservation plans responding to issues that have been raised. 3. Provide final engineering plans including utility, grading and storm drainage data: a. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with calculations verifying storm drainage and water and sanitary sewer service design. b. The applicant shall provide a grading plan showing proposed contours over the stie including all pavement areas. The grading plan shall also include erosion control. c. The applicant shall modify the parking arrangement adjacent to the bus loading area. Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 15 d. The applicant shall provide the necessary easement area for the existing sanitary sewer crossing the northwest corner of the site. e. The applicant shall acquire and abide by all necessary agency permits, including a MnDot driveway access permit. 4. Submit a concurrent subdivision application to combine underlying lots into a single tax parcel. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-263 OF THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR PORTABLE CHEMICAL TOILETS ON RECREATIONAL BEACHLOTS, MINNEWASHTA CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. (*ITEM DELETED*) Conrad: I should have done this before as an adminstrative matter. The second item on the agenda tonight, which is a zoning ordinance amendment to amend the Recreational Beachtot for portable chemical toilets, that has been deleted from the agenda as has a site plan review for the retail mall. in downtown Chanhassen. Those two, if anybody's here for those two public hearings or those discussions, those have been deleted from the agenda. Emmings: Ladd, could I ask why that second item was deleted. Just out of curiousity. Krauss: It's being deleted because we concluded that it should be processed as a variance. In the ordinance right now it says no chemical toilets as a standard for recreational beachlots so as a standard in the ordinance it can be varied or the request can be made that it be varied so the Board of Adjustments will hear that. Emmings: See, I don't like that. I really am opposed to that. Krauss: Well, we in fact are opposed to it as well but that adminstratively is the way we believe it should be handled. Emmings: Yeah, but I'm opposed to it for a whole different reason. I think, originally they came in and asked for a variance. Then it was switched to a zoning ordinance amendment and I liked that because it seems to me that by a zoning ordinance amendment, if there's any sentiment to allow these things at all, we've got a chance to put some conditions on them. I don't want to see them as variances and I don't know, who decides whether it should be processed as a variance or as a zoning ordinance amendment? Wildermuth: How are you going to deny it or on what basis are you going to accept it as a variance? Olsen: It's a tough one. I started talking to those people last year and explained that if they went through the variance process it would most likely be denied. Then they were going to pursue it and what I had Sharmin Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 16 relay to them that if you're going to go for the variance and if it was going to be approved, we would be recommending a ordinance amendment so that's where they got back. Okay, if you're going to pursue this, we propose to amend the ordinance and that's where Sharmin was doing some research on it and we couldn't even justify amending the ordinance. Krauss: I think clearly though, I mean when the ordinance provides a standard setback, where you want to deviate from that standard you get a variance. You don't rewrite the ordinance and now we may recommend that if the City Council desires to change how you deal with these things, if they do change the ordinance as 3o Ann suggested but right now, the way this thing procedurally should be handled, is they're asking for a deviation from an existing standard in the ordinance and that's a variance. Emmings: But can't a citizen or the Planning Commission or the City Council say we want to amend this ordinance and change that? Krauss: Oh sure. Conrad: Yes. Emmings: Then I don't see why, well I think we should look at it as a zoning ordinance and I'll tell you why. Number one, there are two of these things, two of these chemical toilets in recreational beachlots on my lake this summer. Yeah. And I think that, I've talked to all my neighbors and they find them very, no problem. But they'd like to make sure it's not, they worry about things like setback and screening and they don't want it up against the. Wildermuth: And that's the very thing that you want to have some control over · Emmings: You've got a situation here where people are coming from way off the lake with a lot of little kids and stuff. They're coming down to use the lakeshore and they need to have bathroom facilities. They do. It's just kind of barbaric in a way not to allow these things I think. So l think we ought to look at a zoning ordinance amendment and make sure that we've got a lot of conditions. Maybe we want to limit the time during the year. You know, these beachtots are used heavily for about a month and a half. It isn't a big deal and we could set the time the thing can be there. Maybe require, I was thinking even, I don't know. Have them on an annual basis, have them permitted on an annual basis and they'd have to show that they've got someone, they've contracted with someone to manage the thing. To pump it or whatever gets done with it but I think there are a lot of controls you could put on to make them very unobtrusive and I'd like to be working on it from that end. Conrad: Today they're not allowed right? Emmings: Right. Conrad: And there were some good reasons. I'm not, you stated the pros and cons real clearly and the cons are, if you put that 10 feet from a Planning Commission Heeting (~ugust 1, 1990 - Page 17 bordering residential property, that's offensive. Also, if that beachlot is 100 feet wide, which I think is permittable. Emmings: On my lake there are some 25 feet. Conrad: And so therefore there are a whole lot of circumstances where they're just not acceptable at all and to try to figure those acceptable situations out in an ordinance I think is real tough. ~4e probably tried 100 years ago to try and figure that out so it's not to discount ~4hat you're saying because I think there's a need. Yet on the other hand, the protection of the neighbors was the primary thing and I don't believe that people could figure out enough of those restrictions to protect in all cases. Therefore in this case, I'm not unopposed to the variance situation because it gives you a chance to look at the particulars of that particular setting. Emmings: Under a variance how would you ever get this because it's obviously self imposed. Conrad: Well yeah. Emmings: There are a lot of little kids suffering out there because of you Ladd. Conrad: Yeah, they probably are. There are so many other people that don't like what I'm doing. Wildermuth: Let's make it a conditional use. Conrad: But anyway, that's the other side. Paul, did you have something too? Krauss: Well no. I don't want to digress into something that's not on the agenda but one of the concerns we had was environmental. I've been in situations where these things have been vandalized and kicked over and have polluted swimming beaches for the remaining of the season. It's happened. It would continue to happen and I guess we're concerned about that potential impact as well. Conrad: Do you feel Steve that, basically your posture is that it should be allowed in this particular site and you'd like to make it allowable on other sites because you see the need? Emmings: I think it should be allowable on any site where it's not going to have, I think there are clearly some beachlots I've seen in the City where I don't think there should be one. I can think of one on my' lake where I don't think there can be one because I can-'t think of anyway they can do it and if that's the case, that's just too bad. But I think there are several of them where they already have them. The two that already have them, it is not a problem. They don't have them rightfully but there's some experience to go by that it probably can be done in a way that's all right. Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 18 Wilderrnuth: Did they get variances? Emmings: No. They're operating illegally. But anyway, if anything's going to happen on it, it ought to be done as a zoning ordinance amendment to me and I'm certainly interested in enough in it so I wouldn't mind working on it. KraLtss: Well we can make that sentiment clear at the Board. That there is some desire to consider it as an ordinance and we'll make them aware of that. Conrad: Make sure the word is some desire. Ernmings: Because if they make it a variance they can put it anyplace they want to. Where are the controls then? I don't like this. Conrad: The controls would be imposed based on the stipulations of that variance. Ellson: It would be done case by case. Conrad: It would be done case by case. See I'm of the position that I really have a tough time with it period. I'm not sure that I find it acceptable but I haven't looked at all the unique circumstances. A whole lot of beachlots have survived for a whole long time with a whole lot of kids and haven't created any controversy and it hasn't brought any issues up in the neighborhood. Wildermuth: What has it done to the lake? Emmings: Yeah. Conrad: I just don't see that as a problem. Ellson: It's something that could be looked into I guess. Conrad: Can look into it and I think we should put it on the work agenda for us as obviously Paul a low priority. No, I don't mean that. Emmings: Even though it's deleted, sorry. (Tim Erhart arrived for the meeting at this point.) PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A WALKWAY PATH THROUGH A CLASS A WETLAND TO ACCESS A DOCK LOCATED AT 7016 SANDY HOOK CIRCLE, CHRIS ENGEL FOR LOTUS LAKE BETTERMENT ASSOCIATION. Name Address Pat Lynch 1200 Wamer Road, DNR Representative Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 19 Mr./Mrs. Robert Pfankuch Debbie Engel 100 Sandy Hook Road 7016 Sandy Hook Circle Conrad: Is this a public hearing or not? Olsen: You closed the public hearing last time. Conrad: Okay, so now tonight was really a time to discuss it with. Olsen: Right. It was tabled because there were a lot of different opinions brought up. $o what I did was to have some of the other governing bodies submit letters on their opinions and one was just verbally over the phone and then al. so Pat Lynch is here from the DNR to kind of get his side of the story. We're still recommending that the boardwalk be what is pursued as our policy and even go as far as amending the ordinance to make that. clear and that we are still recommending that the boardwalk be what is permitted on this recreational beachlot versus the fill. But Pat Lynch is here to have him speak. Conrad: We sure would. Pat Lynch: My name is Pat Lynch. I'm the Area Hydrologist with the DNR for Dakota and Scott Counties. I was helping out in Carver County for a while. A year and a half ago I guess it is already. I guess this whole matter came before me in January of 1989 when I received 3 applications for wetland alteration from the City and I responded to those with some written comments that it appeared to me some of the fill proposed was below what Ne call our ordinary high water elevation out at Lotus Lake. What I had heard back then from the City was that in fact these applications where after the fact or the work had already been done. From there I met on the site that spring with 3 contiguous property owners there. Mr. Frost, Mr. Pfankuch and Chris Engel from the Colonial Stove Association. I also had been out there with the representative from the Army Corps of Engineers. An enforcement individual and after a lot of discussion and time we determined where the DNR's area of jurisdiction was out there on all 3 of those properties and I staked that line on the properties and there was commitment by the property owners to comply with the removal of the material that was filled waterward of that ordinary high water mark that I established and staked. All three property owners again had expressed willingness to restore to those dimensions. I guess I made it clear that in addition to the DNR's approval, there were other approvals that may have to be met namely the Corps of Engineers, Watershed District and any local approval. In this case the City of Chanhassen. I know the Corps didn't have a problem with what the DNR had proposed for restoration and they pretty much stayed out of it. From there I guess if I can just jump ahead several months, from what we had originally proposed for restoration, there were some changes. Some slight modification on the two properties. I don't know if that's west of the Colonial Stove properties but on the Frost and Pfankuch properties we adjusted the stakes so that there wasn't an obtrusive pipe sticking out into the lake waterward of the fill to be removed. We thought that that was a reasonable approach so that that would blend a little more naturally. Have a little curve around that pipe. I think that was reasonable and a good idea. Also in that timeframe I had Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 20 some discussion with a Dr. Charles Hirt and Chris Engel regarding leaving a small access strip to the docking facility so that they could access their dock. I had written a letter saying that the DNR didn't have a problem with that and that I would allow that to remain provided the rest of the material was removed from the site and I stressed again that that was contingent upon any other local, state and federal or local approvals. That's about where we're at now. I just as soon open it up to questions from you folks. I guess the impetus behind allowing them to leave a path was that our permit rules would actually allow that lot to have a 12 foot wide concrete ramp poured down there without a permit from us if that's what they would choose to pursue. My contention was that yeah, they filled in violation. Yeah, they had cooperated without any problems and were willing to remove the stuff and that I thought it was reasonable and practical to leave a strip in to access the dock given the fact that it's a multiple use area. The activities are consolidated on one small area. In my professional judgment, the impacts to the wetland area will be nominal once it's restored by leaving that strip in. 80~ of that lot will still go back to a natural state over time with the re-establishment of the vegetation in there. Like I say, the impacts to that particular area I didn't feel were that severe given the fact that there's a rather intense infestation of purple loosestrife there. Like I say, as far as the DNR rules are concerned and I'm not saying that they're the best but they could have had a 12 foot wide ramp and 12 feet of sand across there without a permit from us anyway so I think what they're doing is again, in the DNR's perspective is reasonable and practical. Ernrnings: Can I ask you a question? Pat Lynch: Certainly. Emmings: When you say they could have had a 12 foot wide ramp, concrete ramp or whatever, and it wouldn't have gone against any of the DNR's regulations, are we talking about that ramp being in a place that's landward of the ordinary high water mark? Pat Lynch: Waterward of. Emmings: ~aterward of? Pat Lynch: 10 or 12 feet waterward. I don't have that. 10 feet waterward of the ordinary high water elevation. It could be concrete, crushed gravel, an earthen ramp, planks. Emmings: Now just so I get my thinking straight on this, the path that we're talking about whether or not they're going to leave it or remove it, is that all landward of the ordinary high water mark? Pat Lynch: No. Emmings: It's all waterward from the ordinary high water mark? Olsen: No. There's a portion that goes just above the ordinary high water mark. Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 21 Emmings: Okay. How much of it is above and how much of it is below the ordinary high water mark? Pat Lynch: We guessed roughly 40 feet below as a guess. Olsen: Well that included the waterward part so I think it was about 10 feet that you had them remove so it's about 30. Rough estimate. Emmings: Alright, now what's 30? Olsen: About 30 feet landward. Emmings: Okay. So there's 30, approximately and I think 25 is the number I remember us talking about last time but we're saying there's 25 or 30 feet of this walkway that's above the ordinary high water mark going down to the ordinary high water mark, correct? Olsen: Yeah, approximately that. Emmings: And then part of it is beyond and you told them that, at least with regard to what's below the ordinary high water mark, that was okay with the DNR in this case? Pat Lynch: Well the only, the DNR jurisdiction begins at the ordinary high water elevation and is waterward. Emmings: Exactly, but as far as what was there under your jurisdiction it was okay with you? Is that what I understood? Pat Lynch: Not what's there today. What they proposed to leave the 5 foot wide path. Emmings: So as long as 'they removed everything except that 5 foot wide path, you were satisfied? Pat Lynch: Correct. That would mean removing about 80~ of the material below the ordinary high water elevation. Emmings: Apart from the fact that we're also looking at the part that's above the ordinary high water mark and aside from the fact that I recognize that that's not an area where you have jurisdiction, do you feel that there's any impact to that area? If we assume it's a wetland, do you think there's any impact, adverse impact to that from this walkway that would be alleviated by removing it and requiring a boardwalk? Can you shed any light on that for us? pat Lynch: I'm sorry, I'm not sure I follow the question. I'm sorry. Emrnings: Right now there's a rock path that leads from 25 or 30 feet above the ordinary high water mark down to the ordinary high water mark and a little bit beyond. In that situation in the past we have always required elevated boardwalks through a wetland to get to the ordinary high water mark so people could have access to the lake. In this case, there's an Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 22 existing rock trail and the question was, the question that came up was, is that just, is that as good? Is that alright in terms of it's impact on that wetland? That's what we're struggling with and we don't have any expertise up here to know and that's the question I'm asking. Pat Lynch: I won't argue that. If you compare the two, a boardwalk will have Less impact. I don't think anybody could argue with that as far as the impacts. I mean if you're not placing any foreign material, and I've read through the Minutes that 3o Ann had faxed to me. Someone, I think Mr. Engel said that he hadn't placed fill but he had placed rock. Well, that is fill. Fill, whether it's sand, rock, what have you is fill. Sod. So yeah, a boardwalk has less impact. I wouldn't argue that but the significance on a site like that, I don't know if it's what I would consider a measureable impact. Emmings: Okay, so in this particular case you think it's probably pretty negligible? Pat Lynch: I would say so, yeah. I mean there are ways to lessen the impact of Leaving the strip down there by, if I remember right I think it's gravel or unvegetated clay path down to the existing dock. If that were revegetated to grass and it just had a grass hill walking down to the lake, that would offset some of the impacts of having a gravel strip out there and what that would tend to do would be to filter any kind of runoff that comes from the upper reaches by the tennis courts, etc. so there are ways to somewhat offset the shortfalls that a gravel path has over a boardwalk. And again I stress, that although our rules would allow it and deem it a reasonable access option, they've got to get your approval too and if you don't like it. Emmings: No, we understand. I think we finally understand that. Pat Lynch: Okay. There's nothing wrong with being more restrictive. I'm not knocking that. Conrad: Did we get two conflicting opinions 3o Ann from the DNR? Was that one of our concerns or not? Olsen: No, I think what was happening was that the applicants were stating, possibly misquoting Pat in saying that fill would even be preferred over a boardwalk and that the City didn't have the right to go that far and then it just got out of hand. So no, we really didn't get conflicting quotes from the DNR. Pat Lynch: There are some benefits to be had by gravel and again I 'm not trying to sell the idea of a gravel path. I'm just stating that when that gravel, I've seen the water level today and it's up quite a bit from the last few times I've been out but when the water's up over that gravel, there are some benefits to it as far as runoff coming down that hill. Gravel would tend to filter some of the more course grain material and granted, if you had vegetation in there it would be a better job but there's also a lot of benthic organisms and what not that inhabit the nooks and crannies of a gravel area and you'll find wading birds pecking through Planning Commission Heeting August 1, 1990 - Page 23 gravel. So it's not as bad as it may appear is all. Emmings: Where is the water today in relation to the line you staked as the ordinary high water mark? Pat Lynch: Oh geez. Boy, I'm sorry. I didn't walk to the corner of the property where the stake was. I was over on Mr. Frost's property. Emmings: Okay. Have you got a feel at all for whether it's about there? Pat Lynch: It's got to be close because it was soggy down on the fill area on the adjacent property. I suspect it's real close. Erhart: Pat, isn't your rules that you apply essentially intended to be used as a statewide rules and applied generally to lakes throughout the state whether they be in an urban area or whether they be in a rural area and that the reason why there's local jurisdiction is that you don't intend to micromanage the environmental controls on the lake. You tend to have a broad, statewide point of view. Would you say that's accurate? Pat Lynch: Yeah, I'd agree with that. Our standards are statewide standards. Erhart: Yeah, and that it really works in a case where someone owns 25 acres. It works best when someone owns 25 acres and several hundred feet of lakeshore and he wants to put his own boat launch in. Isn't that what that concrete pad allowance is? Pat Lynch: No, no. Not at all. If you go out, there's plenty of lakes in the cities where an individual lot owner, several on the lake will have an access pad in his backyard. Erhart: Not in Chanhassen. Pat Lynch: L4ell I don't work in Chanhassen. I'm in Scott and Dakota County. If you go out on Prior Lake, you'll see them. Erhart: You'll see them in Prior Lake? When were those put in? Pat Lynch: I don't know. That predates me. Erhart: You find actually every lot's got? Pat Lynch: No, not every lot, no. I'm saying that, I wouldn't say that that's more so for the out greater Minnesota than it is in the cities. I guess I wouldn't agree with that statement. Erhart: You wouldn't agree with that? Pat Lynch: Not in terms of the access ramp, no. As a matter of fact, I'd almost go the other way and say that on new construction on lake lots in the cities, you'd probably see an increase in that. Planning Commission Meeting August ~L, 1990 - Page 24 Erhart.: You're seeing new construction on lakes where people individually put boat landings in their yard. Pat Lynch: Boating pressure is getting such that you can't even, at some places the parking lots are so full, they don't ~ant to mess with it and it's easier. Erhart: Give us an example of a lake in the metropolitan area where individual property owner can put their o~n boat launching pad in the lake. Pat Lynch: Any lake in Minnesota. If they can conform to the standards~ Erhart: No, no, no. Correct me if I'm wrong Paul. You can't do that here i n Chanhassen. Pat Lynch: I'm saying as far as the statewide standards go you can. Emmings: If he's saying they can do it. Erhart: But our ordinance doesn't allow it. Emmings: Oh, we can't control it. It's in their jurisdiction. Wildermuth: But you can't do it on the beachlot right? Pat Lynch: Your ordinance may address it, I don't kno~. Krauss: If they're not putting it through a wetland and you're not on a beachlot, it really falls back to DNR. Erhart: So we're saying our ordinance, really someone can do that even though I haven't seen anybody since I've been on here. As long as it doesn't go above the ordinary high water mark. Olsen: Our Shoreland Ordinance is the DNR Shoreland Ordinance. Emmings: Right. Well, are we pre-empted? From the ordinary high water mark lakeward, are we pre-empted? Olsen: No, because remember· Emmings: We can have stricter standards than the DNR? Pat Lynch: You bet. Olsen: That's clear we can. Pat Lynch: I think that's where there's a lot of hang-up right now. Ellson: Is that those people don't like that. If I recall the situation, that's what it was about. Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 25 Pat Lynch: So again, I've gotten commitments from the property owners to restore it to what the DNR would find satisfactory and if you ask for more, that's not for me to say. Ellson: I think we were more concerned about the precedence that it was setting and we had never allowed it previous and whereas yes, this one is probably negligible, it just opens up everybody we said no to prior and everybody we'd like to say no to further. It wasn't us picking on one group necessarily. Me just have consistently never done it. Pat Lynch: ...Chanhassen because I'm not familiar with the lakes in your community but again, going back to the area that I do work, a lot of the prime lakeshore properties are developed already and now what you're seeing is the marginal stuff that you've got to go through wetland or you've got to excavate or dredge a channel. That's what's being developed now because that's all that's left. You may be having to address the issue again. Ellson: ~ell, I think the biggest thing is what Paul said. Is it true ...and we felt that it wasn't and we got a little uneasy that maybe it is necessarily but I think you've cleared that up for us so I really appreciate that. Pat Lynch: Z think there's two issues. I think there's access to their dock and then there's the issue of putting small boats in and out. I think through something like this they could probably accommodate both in my opinion. Conrad: Any more questions of Pat? Emmings: No. I appreciate your coming. It helps. Erhart: Don't leave yet. Just kidding. We may have some more questions. Pat Lynch: I just want to see the thing resolved as quickly as everyone else does. Conrad: It's not a public hearing but I'm curious if there's any comments from those in the audience tonight based on what they heard. Debbie Engel: I just want to make one comment. I'm Debbie Engel and I'm here on behalf of Chris basically just to listen... I'm not sure that Mr. Lynch did touch on that but there is a gravel road down within I would say within 100 feet of this put in by the City because there's a pumping station there and I think that's what he was eluding to the fact that there's not grassland coming down the hill and it is all downhill from the tennis courts to filter so it's not natural vegetation to filter that and think that's why the continuity of the rock path and that's why it was chosen. So it's not, there's no grassy area. It's that wide to handle a city truck... I'm not good on judging distance but I would say within feet of the present water level. Conrad: Okay, thanks Debbie. Any other questions? Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 26 Emmings: I'd like to ask Paul. If a landowner, we've heard Hr. Lynch say that if a landowner, on any individual lot in Chanhassen wanted to construct a concrete and let's take a worse case, a concrete ramp to put boats in and out on his property. Zf he started that ab the ordinary high water mark and just went waterward with it would he, he'd obviously be building a structure. Would he have to come to the City for a permit for that? Krauss: Not unless he's crossing a wetland to do it. Emmings: Nell I think he should have to. I think we should find out if our ordinance covers it. It would seem tO me that the building of any structure in the water ought to require a city permit if we can have stricter standards than the DNR has. If our ordinance doesn't provide that now, it ought to. Krauss: That would put you in the position of having to review every dock. Emmings: No, it does not. We have an ordinance that tells what you can have for a dock and so does the DNR so docks are not an issue. Conrad: You're talking about a permanent structure? Emmings: Permanent structure, yeah. Conrad: I think we could regulate a permanent structure. I thought we already did. Olsen: Again, we use the DNR. We've adopted word for word the DNR regulations. Emmings: I don't care if we adopt their regulations but all we've got to do is say if you're going to build a structure in the water, in any water in Chanhassen, you've got to come to the City for a permit. I don't think frankly that it's that many. I don't know of any on my lake. On Minnewashta. There might be some but I don't know. I think that's a hole that ought to be plugged. Conrad: We've got to get back into this thing. Is there confusions and maybe some wording problems with the ordinance and I think we spend 2 hours every other Wednesday night talking about this. We better revisit it quickly. Actually we don't need to revisit it in time for this year but I think in time for next year we really should have, we should really monitor and see what we're doing with our wetland protection ordinances because there seem to be exceptions and confusions. Emmings: Well, maybe you throw lakeshore in there too as well as wetland. Conrad: It becomes a big process. It's not easy to get your hands around because you obviously affect people. There's a lot of different circumstances that have to be incorporated into the ordinance and tough to do. Tin], any other comments on tonight's, Pat Lynch's conversation? Planning Commission Heeling August 1, 1990 - Page 27 Erhart: No, not on that specific although I agree with Steve. You know, and I don't know if we should be regulating land but when you weigh it against everything else that we regulate in this city regarding wetlands and lakes and what not, it does seem like a loophole in the context of how everything else we're so rigid on so I agree that we ought to be throwing in that too because it kind of pretty much lies in the face of what we're talking about here tonight. Somebody could do that and yet we're worrying about a 4 foot wide strip of gravel so it doesn't make a lot of sense. Are you looking for some direction on this thing at this point? Conrad: Just comments. You know I think we brought this back because one, the applicants, the Engel's were concerned that we may not have the right standard and from what I'm hearing, it may not be the right standard but it's a standard that's more acceptable based on what we heard than maybe what has been done with the applicant's wetland permit. Erhart: Let me throw something out that's been haunting me I guess in the last year since I heard a speech by someone over at the Fresh Water Institute at a meeting I attended and then I was intrigued by it and discussed it with him later and I can't remember the name of the gentleman but he felt strongly that a community should essentially decide what a lake's purpose is. I'm really opening this up so stop me if you think I'm getting dangerous. Emmings: It's to hold water isn't it? Erhart: Well you know we get into this environmental thing and wetland preservation and trying to filter water and tike that but then you say when you go onto Lake Minnetonka and they're constantly dredging and doing everything that we wouldn't allow in this city. That's how the discussion got going and his basic feeling was you've got to decide what the lake's for. If it's a recreational lake, then maybe you have different rules on a recreational lake than you do on a lake that you might designate a wild lake or wilderness lake or something like that. Because on one hand I'm probably the most pro environmental and wetland preservation and creation guy here but on the other hand, I can see where if I owned a lot on the lake and I had some, what we term as wetland and what is that? Is it 2 foot wide? How do you know that a guy, what's the difference between the guy that's got a 2 foot strip of wetland and can't build a dock through it or the next guy who's got 40 foot. Where do we draw the line? Well, we don't really draw the line here. You know you look at the types of growth you've got there but there's I'll bet you half the tots in this city, if you really were to look, really cut it fine, that there's a wetland between his lot and the water. I don't know if you want to start, I mean some people have sandy beaches but other people have weeds growing out on the lake and so if you're going to open, for a future meeting discuss whether we have outhouses and Satellites and docks and landings and things, maybe that's something to think about. Whether we ought to have two different types of lakes and two different standards depending on what we designate a lake. Conrad: There are different classifications of lakes. In fact, I think your point is well taken Tim but there are designations. Different Planning Commission Meeting August 1, J. 990 - Page 28 designations of lakes based on DNR standards I believe which the City has classified certain things in. A lot of the things that you find, and I'm playing with really old memory here is the DNR has a whole bunch of control that I don't know that we can get into. Yet those, I'm not sure that we have the power in some cases to do some of the regulating that we may want to and that's frustrated a lot of people who were on the committees that we formed, I don't know 7 years ago or whenever. How many years ago it was. A lot of different circumstances and you listed a couple. A 2 foot strip versus a 40 foot strip and it's really arbitrary. There's so many arbitrary things that, that's why we bring the DNR in and some of the experts in to take a look at certain lots on a site specific basis. think what Pat's telling us in the particular case that brought him in here is probably that wetland over there and probably the issue is not a big one as compared to some other major ones that we're probably letting it go or haven't addressed in terms of water quality. Yet on the other hand we just, you know you've just got to have a standard and kind of live up to that standard as arbitrary as that is. So I guess I'm not answering it very specifically but if we want to get back into this Tim, it's almost a separate committee where do we want to bring back the lake study committee or the environmental protection committee and have them take a look at 5 years later. What's happened? What was the intent? What were the problems? Take a look at the variances. Not the variances but wetland alteration permits that were processed. Take a good look at it and see if there are interested people in the city and therefore try to update the ordinance and incorporate some. Erhart: Are you suggesting we should? Conrad: It may not be a bad idea. It's like anything. You put any laws in or you put any regulations or you have any kind of plan, it's always kind of fun to go back, especially because there's nothing magic about what that ordinance. That ordinance was amish mash. It was a politically derived, I'm not going to say it was amish mash. The people on the committee were not happy with it because it was watered down significantly. It was watered down to, it was simply not as strong as what they wished and I think it would be interesting to go back and see if we've accomplished anything with it other than making more paperwork. Erhart: Your response to my discussion was that yeah, we have different categories of lakes. What I was trying to point out, even though there's different categories of lakes, we treat them all the same in terms of our standards and that's what I'm saying is that maybe life isn't that simple. I'm not suggesting that we open up this thing to review again. That's a lot of work. Conrad: You know I really buy what you're saying. As you know I live on Lotus and Lotus is long and narrow and the DNR has certain restrictions in terms of safety. Safety is 11 boats can be out on that lake at one time and I'll guarantee you that on a tong narrow lake, that's not an effective' restriction or guideline. I think in a round lake that's big, 40 acres per boat and whatever, may be an acceptable standard but I think there are just exceptions all over the board and I agree with you Iim. I just think it's just something that we probably as a smaller city can't get our hands P~anning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 29 around. I think it's bigger than we are. But you know, I think in terms of reviewing what we've got, I think City staff has some concerns with the ordinance. I think they can improve it. I think we can make it easier for citizens to understand it. I think there's a lot of things we can do with the ordinance and wouldn't mind figuring out how to bring it back and look at it. Erhart: What is the staff looking for here tonight? Anything? Olsen: You have to take action on the wetland alteration permit. They're requesting permission for the stone path. Action needs to be taken on that. Erhart: Are you opening that discussion? Conrad: Well, any other questions of Pat while he's here or on the ordinance in general? If not, then we should talk specifically about that permit that we tabled and did not take action on. Jim, start at your end in terms of the request. Wildermuth: Well, the issue is how are we going to interpret our ordinance. Are we going to confine it to boardwalks or are we going to a boardwalk and a gravel pad or a bark pad? Or are we going to require adjacent lots to combine a path, whether it's a board or a gravel path? I guess that's the decision we have to ~ake. In terms of what is already existing on this beachlot, I think I probably would have to abstain because I belong to that association. That might be a hard decision that we have to make for this situation. Ellson: I'm more worried about the precedence. We don't have gravel anywhere and I've seen it before and we've already, you know have been getting more and more of these issues lately. Thank Sod the Council's going to make the final decision and not me but I would go with the boardwalk because of consistency and the way we've treated everybody equally. I don't want to make it case by case because we'll turn the whole thing into a mess. Everybody will come by, will say well my case is special. Remember the one you did here. You allowed woodchips and I think I'm like that one or I think I'm like the gravel one and I want. People will be designing theirs because we're handling them case by case so I'd prefer to be consistent and again I'm glad it will be the Council's final decision but I'm for the boardwalk. Emmings: My feeling is this. We tabled this because we had some information given to us that a rock walkway was as good as an elevated boardwalk. We wondered whether or not that was in fact accurate. Fish and bJildlife has written a letter that says that's not so. That a boardwalk is preferred. The Corps of Engineers has said they would encourage boardwalks and Pat Lynch told us tonight that in this particular situation, this particular lot, that the difference was negligible but that a boardwalk is better. And so for all those reasons, I think we should stick with what we've done in the past and stick with the elevated boardwalk. Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 30 Erhart: I would favor denial of the request to leave rock in there. Just again to repeat everybody's statement. I think I need to be consistent in how we apply the ordinance and just because this has been put in here illegally, I don't think this is the least of reasons why we should allow it. Secondly, I guess in a practical sense, by the time you get the equipment in to remove the stuff you're Going to remove, if you're looking at saving dollars, it's a very small amount. I'd like to be sensitive but I just don't think there's that much difference between a 4 x 10 foot strip by the time you start moving that stuff back out of there. Conrad: Okay, thanks Tim. I have nothing new to add. I think that those comments summarize my opinion. I think the only thing I would add, now that I think about it is that we discuss the future of the wetland. Of our permit process. I think we have to make that an agenda item and start cleaning, maybe it's not cleaning it up. Maybe it's improving it. Maybe it's making it more understandable. Is there a motion? Erhart: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend denial of Wetland Alteration Permit Request to allow a 4' wide by 42' long crushed rock path through the Class A wetland adjacent to Lotus Lake. Conrad: Is there a second? Emmings: Second. Conrad: Any discussion? Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of Wetland Alteration Permit Request to allow a 4 foot side by 42 foot long crushed rock path through the Class A wetland adjacent to Lotus Lake. All voted in favor except Wildermuth who abstained and the motion carried. Wildermuth: I would like to make one comment. I think if this is the way we're going to interpret the ordinance, we ought to have some kind of length provision involved there because maintaining a log boardwalk is an expensive proposition. A boardwalk is Going to be relatively short lived compared to a pathway. A specified pathway or a pathway built to specifications and it's going to require a lot of maintenance over time compared with a path. I think there ought to be some kind of length provision factored into the interpretation of the existing ordinance. Or if the ordinance changes, then that could also be incorporated into that. Erhart: Right now Jim we have no reference to a boardwalk in the ordinance at all. This is something that we've just kind of conjured up as we've gone along here. We have precedence but it's not really in the ordinance is it? Olsen: Right. Emmings: Right now they just can't alter the wetland. They can't put anything. Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 31 Erhart: Yeah, but we've allowed boardwalks. Conrad: I think they've gone over 100 feet haven't they? Erhart: What we ought to do, if that's where we're going, then we ought to reference boardwalks perhaps in our ordinance and suggest that that's what... Wildermuth: Haven't we allowed a...pathway at times? Conrad: Not to my knowledge. When it was grandfathered in, we allowed it. But to my knowledge Jim, we've never created one since the ordinance has been in there. And you know, it's one of those I'm more concerned on the precedent than anything else because I really don't think, in this particular case we're talking about as we've been saying. I don't think that's a major impact on this. It's just that I don't know what the precedent means. I think it would really open us up for a lot of legal hassles on any future wetland alteration permit process. And therefore we wouldn't have an ordinance anymore and that's my biggest concern. That's one of those things where you say geez, I wish we could interpret some of these things in different ways and unfortunately the ordinance is the ordinance in this one. This will go to City Council August 27th. Thank you for coming in. Thank you for attending. SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR EXPANSION OF THE PARKING AREA WEST OF LOTUS GARDEN CENTER ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP AND LOCATED AT 18930 WEST 78TH STREET, REDMOND PRODUCTS. 3o Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Conrad: Okay, thanks 3o Ann. The applicant is here and would like to make some comments, we would entertain that. Bob Cordell: I'm Bob Cordell from Redmond Products. I just want to clear up one slight bit of confusion on it. I think both 3ay and for our purposes we would prefer the gravel. That's where we came from the beginning because it's a temporary situation. It is less expensive for us to put in in a temporary situation and it is the type of surface that 3ay would prefer. Going to a blacktop surface of course would cost quite a bit more to put in and then we have to incur the additional cost of removing the blacktop to restore it back to the situation that 3ay would prefer to have. He wants the property for plantings and not for parking so we felt that in our original plan, that if we had an adequate graveled surface, rolled gravel surface that it would suffice for our purposes. Our short term purposes and also provide a space when we left that is adequate for Jay's expansion. Conrad: 3o Ann, how does that? Olsen: Well we understand you know why they would prefer gravel but we have to look at it from the maintenance point and we have to look at the long term. What it does with the wetland nearby. I guess I'll have Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 32 Charles address the engineering conditions but as far as it being maintained, we're just not comfortable with gravel. Conrad: Do you want to address that if you can? Folch: Hell basically, any time you have a situation like this where you've 9ct a fairly sizeable surface area that is not stabilized from an erosion standpoint, you're going to get erosion. You're going to have a dust problem. I can foresee this particular facility during spring thaws, during various times during the summer where you're going to have frequent rains, it's going to be, it can be a mud problem. It's something that's definitely going to have to be, there's going to have to be a maintenance program to take care of these problems that you're going to have. Snow plowing during the wintertime is of course going to disperse the gravel. You'll have to deal with that somehow and I guess of~e of the more important issues is when you have a gravel surface like this, you're not able to stripe parking stalls in the parking lot and therefore you're not able to organize an efficient parking scheme for the people using it. From that standpoint I don't see the advantage. I can understand the situation of trying to keep the parking lot a temporary situation. Temporary facility and I know in discussing this with Bob and Bob's engineer with some of these issues, they have proposed even going as far as constructing a 2 inch clear crushed rock mat over the top of the gravel surface to try and dampen some of the potential problems with dust and erosion so the muddiness that they would have but I guess looking at the difference in what it would cost to put that clear crushed gravel surface over the top versus paving and some of the maintenance costs that are going to be involved over potentially the next 3 years, I see as a situation that we may be creating more problems by trying to solve a parking shortage problem. Conrad: Thanks. Yes sir. Randy Patzke: My name is Randy Patzke. I'm with the Engineering Alliance. ]'he engineering firm that's working with Redmond Products and I've got some statements that I'd like to make as reasons for you to consider approval of the gravel parking surface and I'd also like to take some exceptions to some of the remarks that are in the parcket and that were made tonight. The reasons for approving the gravel parking surface. One, the parking area is a temporary lot. The surface is compatible with Lotus, the landowner's projected use. Redmond is not in the downtown business district. They are out of your highway visible district which I have to admit is improving over what I've seen in the past a few years ago. The parking area's visibility will be blocked by the berm and the plantings on the berm. The alignment of TH 101 is going to cause a major amount of construction and disruption to that area anyway. Total cost per square foot is lower with the gravel. The owner is willing to accept the potential higher annual maintenaf~ce cost. The restoration costs are lower. Clean fill has no fines in it which will minimize the erosion to the wetlands and the gravel will have less runoff and the clean gravel will be stripeable because the fines aren't there. Reasons for approval of mass parking. The use is optional to Redmond employees. It's not the public parking. Mass parking is used in Minneapolis near the Metrodome. Mass parking should be used by the first shift employees. Again, the annual Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 33 cost per space are lower. The curb stops, one of the concerns was driving into and exiting but the curb stops will prevent that. Clarification from the memo. Runoff is actually lower with a gravel surface than a paved surface. Erosion with clean fill will be less because of no fines and the gravel can be striped. Something else in the recommendations, it refers to restoring to original. The original needs to be defined. Is that as currently or as compatible with the owner's planned use. That will need to be defined a little bit better than it is. And another consideration is would the Planning Commission consider a variance to the front of the Redmond site setback for permanent parking in the future. Conrad: Thank you. Any other comments? Okay. Tim, we'll start at your end. Erhart: Did you say you could stripe gravel? Randy Patzke: Yeah. Erhart: Can you explain that one to me. Randy Patzke: Get a can of spray paint and paint. Erhart: How long does that last? Randy Patzke: Depending on weather conditions, the surface wilI...so it"s going to be a compacted surface. Erhart: Let me understand what's being proposed here. Is this one of the new temporary conditional use permits? Olsen: The way we're processing it is actually a site plan amendment for Lotus Lawn and Garden for a parking area on the site which will be used by Redmond. No, we're not doing it as a temporary use. Erhart: This is no different than if my company came in and put a gravel parking lot for my employees. Olsen: If you wanted to expand your parking lot, yeah. No different. Erhart: I cannot imagine why we'd even consider this sort of thing. I see no difference between this and any other company that has parking for employees in this city. As far as 3ay, I hope he's there for 3 years from now but I don't think you can base something like an exception like this based on the assumption that 3ay, if Jay does well he'll move to a bigger spot and so forth and the idea of basing on that is not to me a valid argument because I don't think you know that that's going to be used for that purpose 3 years from now. I don't have a lot of questions. Yeah, I do have one more question. The 2 inch bituminous mats that you're proposing, what's our standards for parking lots? Folch: That is a 2 inch mat. Planning Commission Heeting August 1, 1990 - Page 34 Erhart.: It is a 2 inch mat. That's why they always break up. Okay, I thought that seemed less than our normal. Folch: I believe that's correct. Erhart: That seems odd because I just put in a driveway and they put in 4 1/2 compressed. It's 4 compressed to 3 1/2. I was told that that was average or that was typical for a private drive. Folch: A lot of it will also depend on how much crushed rock you put in as a base too. It can vary. Erhart: Well anyway, as long as I understand. That's the only question I had and as I pointed out, maybe some of the other questions can change my mind but I don't see it. Emmings: I'm wondering how we got into a situation where we have a business in town that doesn't have adequate parking for it's employees. Olsen: Their site plan met the zoning ordinance. I think the problem is that they're overlapping shifts. Emmings: But isn't that something that our parking ordinance takes into account? Krauss: The way the parking ordinance standard is worded, but that's the way they went in there. The wording is kind'of, it's a tough one to enforce. There's two way of figuring it. You figure it on gross square footage or you figure it on I think it's employees on a major shift. What we've got now because of their operational constraints and Bob Cordell can explain it better than I but they have equipment that they can't effectively turn off so they wind up having to overlap shifts which is like Christmas at Southdale. I mean you're doubling your requirement when you do that and no, it was never designed to accommodate that. Emmings: That's something we maybe better look at if we're going to continue to build industrial and commercial. Ellson: They overlap for what, a half hour period of time? I mean if you could have moved the cars and things like that it could get done so maybe it could be solved another way or something like that too. Emmings: Well how? Ellson: Parking attendant that takes your key and when the other person comes, takes your spot or who knows what. Emmings: Where do you put the car in the meantime? He drives around? Ellson: Like a parking attendant where the thing is all filled. Emmings: If we've got a hole in our ordinance, I think we ought to address it because this could be a real mess if it happens someplace where there's Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 35 no land to expand to. Krauss: It could. It's a very tough thlng to address though because we're not talking about physical changes to the building that trip a building permit. We're talking about operational changes that we have no control over or effective knowledge of unless something like this crops up. Emmings: Well what would we do for example if a business down in the industrial park with no land to expand to came in with an operation like this? What would be done? Krauss: In fact we had problems like this with United Mailing. Whereby they were parking on the street and were required to build additional parking and people were told they'd be cited if something wasn't resolved. So it has happened. It has been effectively dealt with. Erhart: Permanent parking lot? Krauss: It was a permanent parking lot, yeah. Olsen: And then we do allow off site parking lots in the industrial office par k too. Emmings: Then you think that our parking ordinance is adequate and that we're going to have these crop up from time to time and that's okay or we'll have to deal with it when it does? Krauss: We'll have to deal with them as they do. Emmings: Alright. We're talking about either what he's proposed, which I don't understand. Some kind of a rolled and compacted gravel surface on the one hand and 2 inches of bituminous mat on the other hand. Are those all the alternatives? Is it one or the other? Randy Patzke: There's one other alternative and that would be just a standard Class V which would be comparable to sand and small fines. Emmings: That would be horrible I guess. Randy Patzke: Right. That's why the 2 inch mat with the 2 inch clear fill was proposed after...with Charles. Emmings: So the only alternatives here are the two that have been set before us? Randy Patzke: Correct. Emmings: Well, if it comes down to that I guess from my point of view, it's an engineering issue. I don't know how to resolve it and I've got to go with the City Engineer. If they can't convince the engineer to go along with them, they can't convince me either. Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 36 Ellson: The first thing I thought of is, is there another way to solve this parking problem and I'm not sure if Redmond's looked at everything or if they were to come to us with not necessarily the variance idea. That wouldn't even actually probably come to us but I don't know. It seems like a 45 minute thing every day, maybe at the max that you have this back up and if it's just shifts overlapping or something, or are you saying that you really need this much parking all day long? I picture that the first shift goes in there. The second shift comes. They park in Lotus and then the first shift leaves and you've got half a parking lot empty until the third one comes and they, that's what I'm picturing. It seems weird that somehow these open spaces are going to be there. Maybe I'm wrong. Bob Cordell: Maybe I can help clarify some of the thinking we have done. We have grown considerably since we've been here and we have done some redesign of the parking in the back to accommodate additional cars. We looked at. this for 2 reasons. It was a very temporary solution to the problem. There's some things we can do in the front that we also proposed but not necessarily for this many because we thought it'd be a further step which would give us approximately 80 spaces in the front of the building but would require a variance inasmuch as we'd have to come in to that what we have in front of the plant. If we did that however, it creates a certain period of time when there's total disruption of that lot so we felt that going into the one on the Lotus property would provide a place for at least some of our cars to go. We currently have 9 spaces out there right now and even with the dense parking next door, we'd only get 76. But at least to have that overflow should we elect to go to that next step. It isn't true that it's just during this overlap, although that has become a major problem with this. Shutting those machines down and getting them started, and the time to come back up to speed is quite a bit more than 45 minutes and gets quite expensive to do that. We are studying as you probably all know how to handle our growth. We're trying to stay here as long as we possible can. There's some things that we can do within the plant that will increase our productivity and so forth but one of the major problems is where do we put our people. We've looked at renting space from Filly's Nightclub and trucking people back and forth. Of course in the winter that's a pretty difficult situation and this being very close to us, seemed to be the most logical especially in consideration of getting this facility and there were some...benefits to both parties. I can foresee the place where parking may become the limiting factor of our longevity at the plant. We currently have about 180 spaces. We have 245 employees. If we extend the production facility, although there's going to be a trade-off in efficiency versus the number of people, it's still exceeding the number of spaces we have. I would foresee having to move into that front area but requiring that that area on the side as a temporary area to help us in the short term and also to help us...remodeling of that front lawn. Certainly when we do front lots and so forth, we would do a class 3ob. What we always strive to do is first class company. Ellson: Okay, so I guess it is bigger than just a few minutes everyday. Thank you. The other thing that I was trying to picture is how much more is it? How much cheaper is the gravel per square foot than the bituminous? Everyone says it's cheaper. Is it like 5x you're going to be PLanning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 37 asked to pay or how much more cheaper is the one alternative versus the other? Randy Patzke: It appears that over this period of time it's approximately $20,000.00. Ellson: For which? Randy Patzke: For upgrading because we not only have to put the blacktop in. Ellson: You'd have to pay an additional $20,000.00 over the gravel? Randy Patzke: That's right. Ellson: I guess that does seem like an awful lot for something for 3 years. Oh boy, you're going to have a hard time getting your return on investment there. I'm not in trying to make hardships. Folch: If I might interrupt and comment on that. Looking at it, just running some rough estimates on that. I estimate from their plan submitted that the parking lot size is a little over 2,000 square yards which will, with a 2 inch bituminous mat approximate about 225 tons of blacktop material. Estimating blacktop in place, estimated at $25.00 a ton, it cam run as much as $30.00 a ton but $25.00 a ton would run at about $5,600.00 to put the 2 inch bituminous mat on that facility. Estimating this same facility, putting down the 2 inch clear crushed rock, I estimate that cost to be about $1,000.00. Randy Patzke: I'd sure like to get your estimates. Erhart: $5,600.00 to put the asphalt on that parking? Folch: $25.00 a ton is pretty common. $25.00 to $30.00 a ton installed is pretty common. Randy Patzke: The prices that we had from the asphalt...to $12,000.00. Bob Cordell: 50 cents a square foot. I don't know, I'm not a contractor. Conrad: Any more comments Annette? Ellson: There were some conflicting opinions on that concrete or gravel is better for runoff and when you were looking at it Charles you were looking at the type of gravel that they were doing? Folch: You bet. In a sense we're not, with either method I guess without putting in curb and gutter and storm sewer we aren't controlling runoff or trying to control the rate of runoff. What we're trying to avoid is an erosion situation. I do have close experience with a parking lot at a recreational facility that I've used quite a bit that has, what they did is installed clear crushed rock and I can tell you from, they're always in there constantly releveling it because without the fine material it doesn't Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 38 stabilize real well. It pushes apart when cars are driving on it and there is no way you can stripe that and have that striping stay in place because of the rock material because it is clear is real mobile. Ellson: Okay. Wildermuth: I feel a strong sense of obligation on the part of the Planning Commission and the City to work ~Jith industry that has come to Chanhassen but after reading through this and' listening to the discussion, I just feel that the staff report has to be supported. I think the fact that curb and gutter wasn't required, storm sewer wasn't required, demonstrates good faith on the City's part to work with them and I think bituminous surface is certainly required. Conrad: I also am comfortable with the staff report and I think slipping the curb and gutter requirements is something that we normally don't do and in a temporary situation I think it's appropriate. I think we have slipped some of the standards that we would normally impose and do believe that it's the requirement of the bituminous is appropriate. I have no other comments on this. I would hope, I guess long run I think we were asked would we look at a variance. Actually and that's a tough one because we like Redmond in town for as long as we can keep Redmond here and they have that facility. I guess here's a situation where I wish we could solve their parking problem permanently. Not temporarily. It looks like I wish enough parking was contiguous to the site that was owned under the Redmond name. Tim? Erhart: Yeah, I have a question for staff here. I like Redmond too. Don't get me wrong. I'm having a hard time understanding why you're recommending to not require curbs in this application when I thought the argument for not requiring curbs on the one on Quattro Drive up here where the guy stored automobiles, I thought the argument there held a lot more water than this one and I argued that I thought we ought to eliminate the curbs there. I mean there we had a precedent where the previous parking, existing parking lot in that industrial site was flush with the grass and we came in and basically as staff recommended, they had to go in and put the curb in the new section of the parking lot. Now how do you weigh this one against that one? Other than you buy this temporary thing. This isn't going to be temporary. Ellson: That's the biggest thing right there. Erhart: This isn't going to be temporary. This is going to go in here 3 years. If they move, somebody else, the next guy is going to use this parking lot. Olsen: There's a specific condition. Bob Cordell: It's in the contract... Our agreement is that Olsen: If at that time it becomes permanent, they put curb and gutter in at that time. The other one, it will be directed into storm sewer~ This one is not being directed into the storm se~er so that's one of the main Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 39 purposes for curb and gutter. Erhart: Well yeah, that's my next question. Olsen: Why not? Erhart: Why isn't it? I'm not saying it's not a good idea. I'm just saying how do we, I was trying to figure out why you. Olsen: Because we were trying to make it work. Krauss: We are accepting the premise that it's temporary. Olsen: And we've got a condition to guarantee that. Erhart: Somehow in my mind these things don't end up temporary. That's the problem. Krauss: But we did recommend conditions that would help to enforce that including the financial guarantees. Erhart: Okay, that's my only comment. Thanks. Conrad: It seems to me that if it was bituminous, the oil and gas would, talk to me about bituminous excepting oil and gas which it obviously doesn't would run off in a rain versus gravel would sink in. Is there any benefit one way or another? See I'm not sure. Oil sinking into the earth no matter what is not good. Folch: I think from the standpoint of you're looking at like oil that may be dripping from engines and it's a fairly small spots of oil that you would get on either surface, you probably aren't Going to get a whole lot of runoff from that. If you're talking a much larger puddle of oil of course, the blacktop is going to send it down off into the pond of course whereas the gravel may tend to hold it but eventually it probably would percolate and the water would carry it into the pond. But I don't think it's a problem that should raise any concern just from spots that maybe drop from cars and things like that. Conrad: Okay, any other? I don't know if, yeah they did ask at one point in time if we would consider a variance in terms of impervious surface on the current site. Are there any comments on that? Emmings: How can we comment on it without the staff looking at it? Krauss: We did initially explore some of those options with Mr. Cordell and had problems with it. You lose the, one of the things that's nice about that building is the quality of landscaping that's in front of it. Chew into that setback, you lose a lot of that. Yes, you cam make up some of the difference with more intensive plantings but you not only have setback variances, you had hard surface coverages and we expressed relunctance to proceed along that manner and expressed an interest in working with them in fact on this temporary parking lot as an alternative. Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 40 Conrad: Yeah, I like the staff recommended solution. I hope it works for Redmond. Obviously it doesn't totally work for them based on their comments but I would hope that it wasn't that much pricier solution but I do like staff comments. Anything else? Randy Patzke: Did you address the mass parking... Conrad: Yeah, we really haven't talked mass parking in terms of the stacking. Any opinions? Wildermuth: If you can make it work, fine. It's your parking lot. Your employees. Conrad: Why do we, as a city, why do we care Paul? Krauss: Well you care for several reasons. One of the issues that brought this about was there's problems with cars parking in fire lanes on the site. The mass parking scheme has only, we've never used it in town. The examples where it has been used are fully manned parking lots in Minneapolis or in St. Paul where people know exactly when they're going to leave and if not, the attendant can shuffle cars around. I don't know how many of you have visited the Metro Council but they have a parking lot where they will block you in. You might be 2 cars in but you tell the attendant which car you want and they shuffle the cars around and get you out. That's not the case here. Once your car is stuck in the middle with this proposal, it's there until the shift changes. Conrad: And why do we care? Krauss: Why do we care? We see people trying to jump medians to get out of there. If you had to leave in an emergency, you'd find a way to get out. We see problems with cars shuffling. I mean there's going to be manuevering is tough. I mean does everybody start their engines at the same time? How do you coordinate this? Is there going to be a flag man there saying, like at the State Fair saying it's your turn over here. Ellson: You could. Wildermuth: That becomes an employee satisfaction issue though. I mean that problem only has to come up 2 or 3 times and Redmond has got, the management and Human Resources people at Redmond have a problem on their hands and they've probably have to address it. Krauss: When landscaping is trashed. When cars are entering and leaving where they shouldn't. When cars are stacking up in public right-of-way because the internal circulation is jumbled up, yeah then it becomes our problem. If it was all internal. Z mean if they had 40 acres and we'd never see it, I don't think we'd care. Wildermuth: I don't know. If they can make it work, fine. If they can't, they're going to have to stripe the lot or put some concrete berms down there for aisle guides or something. Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 41 Emmings: How many spaces with, if it's striped and they have ordinary parking there, how many spaces do they get? 76? Olsen: I think it's 65. Randy Patzke: It's 65 with the regular and 78, it's about a... Emmings: But will this give you what you need if it's striped? If you don't use mass parking, will this give you enough spaces to solve the problem that you've got? Bob Cordell: Not quite. If we add the 65 to the 180 we have here, that doesn't quite add up to the 246 people we currently have. We're thinking in the long term we're going to have to do something in front of the building too. Emmings: Why don't you build a ramp. Bob Cordell: We're considering that in the rear of the building. It's not an easy solution. Emmings: No, I wouldn't think so. Bob Cordell: And then we do that behind our building periodically we sit...and we have a couple cars parked 2 or 3 deep. It's all within our own facility so if somebody should have to move a car, we only have one row that would be very, plus a couple up in front. Our people are right there and we could keep the keys for the other cars at the front desk so I don't think it would be an insurmountable problem. Krauss: I don't wish to be argumentative but I see it as a more serious problem than that. Look at the plan there, you've got 4 rows, well 3 rows that are buried. Emmings: What plan? Oh, that one. Conrad: Go back in and tell me how this affects the City? They're going to jump the curb so we don't have curbs. They're going to jump the berms but really the berms. Randy Patzke: You require a concrete car stop anyway so essentially you do have a curb. And you do have a 2 to 4 foot high berm on the other side... Ellson: Maybe we can have a trial period and evaluate it after x period of time. I'm kind of with Jim. It'd be more of their problem than ours. I'd like to see it tried and if it doesn't work. Olsen: It'd need a variance. I think I mentioned that before because the ordinance requires these specifications so you have to receive a variance. Conrad: To do what? Olsen: They have to receive a variance to our parking standards. Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 42 Krauss: We have requirements for parking stall width and aisle width that would be in violation here. Wildermuth: So regardless what they went for here, bituminous surface or gravel surface. Krauss: I can't tell you with certainity that this is not going to work and that it's going to cause a horrendous problem. The fact is, I don't know because I've never tried this and nobody I know has ever tried this. Chanhassen could be innovative and see. The problem is once it's there, it's the dickens to fix. Conrad: Well, is that true? In other words, if we gave them the opportunity to do this and it affected the City, is there a way to say no you can't do this anymore? In other words, I don't care if they stack them 20, I think it's a company problem. Z think it would not be something that I would institute at my company but if that's the way they want to solve their parking problem, that's their staffing issue. I wouldn't want to be on their human resources group but as long as it doesn't affect Chanhassen, then Z guess I'm kind of comfortable with it but Paul you're saying it might and that's what I'm trying to get a sense for. Of what would happen. Then the other thought would be, if we let them try it and it didn't work, is there a way to let them try it. Krauss: From an enforcement standpoint, there may be an issue. You could attach a condition to the site plan but the site plan is effective to the extent that they build the parking lot the way you approved it and then as long as they do that, they're consisten with it. This is not a conditional use permit. This is not something that you're adding conditions to that periodically you were allowed to re-evaluate. Then if something is not complied with, withdraw your original approval. Your site plan approval basically is permanent. Conrad: It's really a parking. It really specifies the parking structure. Krauss: We could p~obably work out something cooperatively with them. It could be difficult to enforce. Bob Cordell: See if this didn't work...on our part and we'd have to do something to accommodate it. If we wouldn't, continue to try to do something that we couldn't implement, we'd go back to a reasonable plan. We feel we can do it. Otherwise we wouldn't have suggested it but I agree with you that again, if we couldn't get it in here in this density and we had to put another row in, well we'd like to move it and we would do that. Emmings: You know it would seem to me that, let's just say we did allow the mass parking. I think Paul's right. I think it's going to create problems. That's just my sense of it but it's not going to create problems, if it creates problems to the east they're on Redmond property. If it creates problems to the, it's not going to create problems to the TH 5 side I don't think because there's trees and plantings in there so I'm comfortable with that. It's going to, the person it will cause problems for would probably be 3ay. Planning Commission Meeting August l, 1990 - Page 43 Nildermuth: The most immediate thing is going to be to hop into his parking lot. Emmings: And so I suppose if people are trying to bust out of that parking lot, they're going to go over his property. Maybe he can, if he's not worried about it or feels like Redmond. 3ay Kronick: I'll protect myself. Emmings: Have 3ay patrolling his lot line with a shotgun you know but, so maybe it's not a problem. Krauss: There's one last thing I'd ask you to consider though. If you do consider the mass parking, and we'll of course abide by your decision with that. It should be understood that if it fails, there's not an implied responsibility on the part of the city to grant variances elsewhere on the site to provide an equivalent number of stalls. If it fails, the experiment fails and you revert back to the original recommendation. And ultimately if it's impossible to park everybody on the site, well maybe the site's overdeveloped. Emmings: What if we approve this with the striping that's on the plan, the way the City has recommended doing it and then allow them to do an experiment with mass parking? Then if it doesn't work, what they're approved for is what's on here. They'd have to recoat it and restripe it and do it the way we told them they had to do in the first place. Krauss: Bob has always worked with us quite well. I mean I would accept a letter from him basically stating concurrence with some sort of agreement to that effect. Emmings: We agree not to enforce the, this particular condition pending their experiment to see whether it works and that if it has any impact on the City or a neighboring property owners. Conrad: That sounds real, I like that. Randy Patzke: Some of the businesses that you have here... You've got Rosemount out here and McGlynn Barkery, those are some big buildings that are already standing. They may get into the situation too where they want to look at it in the future. You've got a perfect opportunity with Redmond on a small lot who is willing to try it and allow a learning experience for the Planning Commission and City Council. Conrad: I'm not sure that that's the rationale I'd buy. I think just trying to be ameniable with Redmond as a good neighbor, I think that's what we're trying to do here. We're certainly not setting any, that's not what I want Chanhassen to be a forerunner in is creative parking. We do have a significant amount of space. If we were in downtown Minneapolis maybe but I liked what Steve said because it may give us the leverage to go back to a secure plan but also possibly give the company a chance to try this. I like that and I still, I'm just not persuaded that this is hurting Chanhassen. I think it's up to Redmond and that's their business. Not ours. Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 44 Erhart: Why do we have an ordinance then? Conrad: You're absolutely right. Yeah, your ordinances should be there to guide. Here we're saying that we've got a temporary, we've got a problem is what we've got here and the applicant... Erhart: Who's got a problem? Conrad: Redmond does. And the applicant doesn't want to buy anymore land so I think that's, we could be real hardball about this and just said put in curb and gutter, buy some more land-and take care of your needs. That's possible Tim. Erhart: I'll put my comments in after we take a vote. Emmings: I guess we know how he's voting. Erhart: I suggest you go ahead and vote on that. Krauss: I still remain unclear though on how we would handle the variance aspect of it. We changed the ordinance so you guys do the recommendations on variances such as this and City Council has to approve it. A variance is forever. Emmings: No variance. Ellson: We're not. We're approving the way you.guys have written it with an experimental period of time or whatever. Olsen: What they're doing, we would actually have to, they're not doing what was approved and they're not meeting the ordinance. Emmings: That's right. I don't know why we can't decide on an informal basis to approve it this way and decide on an informal basis we're going to allow them to conduct an experiment with. Ellson: And then after 3 months or 2 months when they come back and then you give them an official variance. Is that what you're saying 3o Ann? How do you let them do it year after year? Olsen: Or if it doesn't work, what do we do then? I call them up and say it's not working or do they come back and they can argue in front of the Planning Commission and Council? Conrad: Yeah. I think yes, if we get complaints that it's impacting the City and I think we should, the City Council has to decide what those would be. If one complaint is not a big deal, maybe 2 or 3 over a short period of time. If there are impacts, then I think then it's going to be real clear that they have to go back to the 65 stalls or whatever it is. Krauss: I think your intent is clear. What I'd like to do, if you want to approve it that way, go ahead and let us consult with the City, well whatever . Planning Commission Heeling August 1_, 1_990 - Page 45 Emmings: But see we're not going to say anything about it in the approval and I think what should happen here is we should, I think it should be approved the way the staff has recommended and then I think, and you can check with the City Attorney but I think there should simply be a letter of understanding between the City and that as long, that will allow them to conduct an experiment with mass parking on that lot if they want to. But if it impacts any neighboring property or if at the discretion of the City the City feels that it's got any negative impacts for the City, aesthetic or otherwise, we're going to jerk the rug out from under their feet and they're going to have to go, we're going to go back and enforce. Ellson: But do you say the experiment is for x period of time and then if it flies you then recommend something different? Conrad: I think the experiment could last for 3 years. Emmings: Sure. As far as I'm concerned it could. Krauss: Well that's where I'd like some, see that's. Conrad: Yeah, you've got to talk to the right folks. And the Redmond folks, they're taking a little bit of risk. I don't know if they're taking a risk. Anytime you deal with the City, I guess that's kind of a risky deal . Ellson: I think it should have an ending. The experiment should have a start and an end and then if it proves to be something, then we do look at the possibility of mass parking. Krauss: I think if you're really going to do that you really need to consider that variance. Olsen: Just to approve it. Put a condition if it doesn't. Emmings: Then I won't go for it. Krauss: Because I don't think I really can in good conscience know what the Code requires. Know what you approved and then say okay we'll look the other way. Emmings: Are you German? Krauss: Half, yeah. Emmings: That's the problem. So am I but I fight against it. Fight it Paul. You can do anything you want to do. There's always a way to do something. Always. If you want to. If you don't want to, you don't want to. Ellson: I pictured it that it was an experiment for x period of time. If it came through that it was good, then they'd come through and ask for a variance and we could have proven that it works and therefore granted. Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 46 Conrad: Okay. Is there a motion? Steve. Emmings: I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review Amendment ¢85-1 with the conditions as contained in the staff report. Ellson: And I'll second it. Conrad: Any discussion? Emmings moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review Amendment #85-1 with the following conditions: 1. A revised site plan shall be submitted showing that the parking lot shall be paved with a 2 inch bituminous mat. 2. The parking lot will be permitted for three years (36 months) until October 31, 1993, and at which time the area must be restored to its original condition. If the use of the parking lot is extended beyond three years curb and gutter must be provided around the parking lot perimeter and the site must connect to the storm sewer in West 78th Street. A revised grading and lanscaping plan shall be submitted providing the required berming and landscaping. 4. Type III reinforced erosion control shall be installed at all locations shown on the plans prior to construction and maintained for the life of the facility. A detail of Type III reinforced erosion control shall be shown on the plans. 5. A concrete driveway apron (city standard) shall be installed at the entrance to the parking lot. 6i The applicant shall provide the City with a letter of credit in an amount approved by the City Engineer to cover the cost to remove all of the proposed improvements and restore the site back to it's original conditions. All voted in favor except Erhart who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Conrad: And the reason for your opposition? Erhart: Number one, I think there must not have been enough on the agenda for the Planning Commission tonight. Even to talk about this %hing. I think we worked hard to make, to set down a document and standard that would make our industrial parks meet a certain standard. I think we've now come up with another way to twist it around 'by calling this a temporary parking lot and as a result, if this were to pass, quite frankly Z think you'd just make a shambles of the existing ordinance. There is no such thing as a temporary parking lot. They'll just come in 3 years and say well, this building's not going to leave in 3 years and there's going to Planning Commission Meeting August 1., 1_990 - Page 47 have to be shifts there even if Redmond moves to a different building. just don't think we ought to be doing this just because we think that something's going to change 3 years down the road. They're just going to say, well it's existing. We've got people parking on it. Let's just extend it another year and it will go on and on and I think it's a real injustice to the other industries, the other companies in our industrial park that have come in and paid the extra money to put the parking lot in. I think what you're talking about is saving Redmond either 5 grand. Maybe it's 20 grand and you're talking about imparting a problem on the City that could be, in terms of time spent and nuisance, much higher than this. We're talking about an insignificant investment. When you're talking about the kind of growth we're talking about, we're talking about employees. I'm just really kind of stunned that we're even considering it. I think we've got good ordinances and there better be good reasons that we don't follow them. Regarding the mass parking. Is this another subject that we're going to take up again or are you looking for comments on that too? Conrad: Well we voted. Erhart: Mass parking wasn't in this so is that going to be a discussion that you're looking for comments? Conrad: No. Erhart: Okay. I won't say anymore. Conrad: Steve, do you want to make a recommendation to the City Council in terms of the test? You passed, you made a motion which did pass. Emmings: I guess all I would say is that if, the one way I see or one possibility would be to not enforce the condition that requires them to stripe it to city standards on an experimental basis to see if mass parking would work in their own circumstances. I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other. I just see it as an alternative if the City Council is inclined to try to allow them to do what they want to do, that that would be a way to do it. Conrad: Okay, thanks. Ellson: If it wasn't something like this Paul, I was just wondering. Let's say one of our items was just to look into mass parking. I mean the City put a commission together or something like that. Wouldn't we try to like institute some sort of experiment to see if it would work? Outside of this individual situation. I mean if you guys are worried because it's an ordinance, could it be a trial basis based on us looking at future parking problems in the City of Chanhassen and doing it, running a test for that purpose. Krauss: If you could work that out legally, possibly yes but typically when you ask us to investigate things, we just go out and find examples that already exist and bring them back to review. I keep being reminded here about this concept of...liability. We're being told to do something that violates the Code but nobody's approved violating the Code. I guess Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 48 agree to a large extent with Commissioner Erhart that Codes are Codes and you don't want to be a bureaucrat but they're there for a reason and l don't have flexibility, nor do I want it, to violate codes unilaterally. Ellson: I'm thinking of it more like what you said. More like a test thing. If we were to set the whole thing up as a test. In other words, it's endorsed by the City and it's got to panel that's overseeing this test and we're looking at it as a task force of some sort. Krauss: There's nothing is State planning legislation that let's you enforce ordinances except when you have experiments. I mean maybe there's a way that the City Attorney can give us. Ellson: I would think that that would be a legitimate reason. Wildermuth: The other side of this coin is that we're duty bound to grant a variance then because when Redmond built the building, they met the ordinance in place at the time. Right? Emmings: No, I don't think so. Erhart: There's nothing that says that they are allowed to have 10,000 people working in that building 3in. There is a limit. Emmings: Right. That is self imposed. They've decided to run their shifts that way and they create a parking problem. Wildermuth: What's your limit? Parking? Krauss: Yes. Very much so. Parking is one of the major determinants. Wildermuth: Geez. A company is successful. They hire more employees. Conrad: Nell Paul, what we're asking you to do is to look into that option and advise the City Council in terms of whether that's an option. It looks like that it might be. This item I assume is going on the 27th to City Council. Anyway, thank you for coming in. (,Ladd Conrad left the meeting at this point and appointed Tim Erhart as Chairman of the meeting.) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved, Ellson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 18, 1990 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Erhart: Any questions from the commissioners on the City Council update that was presented by Paul? Emmings: Yeah. I liked your response. Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 49 Ellson: To Eric. Emmings: Yeah. I thought you did a nice job. Erhart: Any other questions? Ellson' I asked him before you guys came in if the Target is definitely out because I noticed that Market Square is going to get going this month and he basically said it seems like a dead issue. I mean everyone I work with is asking me about Target. ONGOING ITEMS: Erhart: Ongoing Items, any questions from Commissioners? I have one under other items. Reappraisal on wetland issues, ordinance and mapping in conjunction with storm water management. I understand there was, is this the same thing that we're talking about here and I think we had an informational meeting. Gary had it about assessing land owners for storm water. What is the status of that? I missed that meeting. Is that part of this? Krauss: Oh, storm water utility fund. Gary and I have been working with a consultant who has been also working with the City Council in laying out the program in terms of getting a work program and what kinds of things we might tackle in terms of understanding what kind of revenues it might generate and how it might be operated. We held a public information meeting on it in late 3une or early 3uly. It's scheduled to go before the City Council for public hearing, not the next meeting. The one following that. Erhart: What was the turn out at the first meeting? Krauss: It was very slight but we had mailed out notices and surveys to theoretically everybody in the city. Erhart: I don't recall getting it and I certainly would have. Krauss: I know we mailed out about 5,000. It not impossible we missed some but we've got the owner's list through Carver County. Erhart: Paul, what's going to happen if this thing goes to a public hearing at City Council and the attendance when you get to City Council meetings, things are pretty much already set. It's not a real environment for people to talk pro or con on the subject. I really question whether it's ready for that. I've talked with a couple of people that now have heard about it and they've got strong feelings about, I don't know if they were here at that or not. Krauss: The turn out really wasn't very good at that meeting unfortunately. Erhart: Do people know this is going to cost them some money? Planning Commission Meeting August 1, 1990 - Page 50 Krauss: We had an article on it in the paper and I think the material that Gary sent out with the survey described the program. Described what anticipated costs would be per unit per acre. Erhart: Maybe I'm getting off on a personal issue. I'll come talk to you about it. Anything else on this? OPEN DISCUSSION: SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION PRESENTATION OF INTERIM AND LONG RANGE FOR PARK AND RIDE LOTS FOR ITS EXPRESS ROUTE SERVICE TO DOWNTOWN MINNEAPOLIS. Fred Hoisington presented an overview of the Southwest Metro Transit Commission's plan for interim and long range plans for park and ride lots in Chanhassen for it's express route service to downtown Minneapolis. He stated he was not necessarily looking for comments from the Planning Commission at this meeting other than to ask questions so the Planning Commission can understand what it is that the Southwest Metro Transit Commission is planning for the southwest corridor. The main point the report wanted to get across was that the City was the one agency that interfaces during the development process with all aspects of the City, i.e. industry, private individuals, commercial, etc. to make sure that transit is brought into the picture. Southwest Metro Transit Commission really has no power but to operate the system once it's in place. The report first deals with park and ride lots. Secondly, it deals with travel demand management. What they're saying is that not every one of the three communities is going to deal with that in the same fashion but each community should give it serious thought. The third thing is design for transit which states that Chanhassen has to begin to establish transit corridors. Within those corridors you have to begin to think about other ways that development can occur. Need to begin shifting some thought from not only the automobile users but to transit users and begin thinking about how the City is going to accommodate for their needs. Fred Hoisington pointed out to the Planning Commission possible locations for park and ride lots that they should begin thinking about where they want these sites located. Hoisington: I would appreciate if you have a chance, Paul I don't know how you want to deal with this or whether you're going to make some recommendations or just what but somehow or another we would like some sort of response. If it's support or things that you think ought to change or whatever. Krauss: We can prepare a review and a response for your consideration and ask you back on that. Erhart: Yeah, I think we'd like to see it come from you with comments and filter this down a little bit how it relates to feedback that you're looking for. Overall I think the sense 'here of everybody is very supportive of your effort there and feel that not enough has been done in the past. Ellson: We don't want to turn into Los Angeles. Planning Commission Meeting August. 1, 1990 - Page 51 Erhart: Nell, Los Angeles is getting into mass transit so. Hoisington: Well we thank you for the opportunity to be here and we're looking forward to comments. Emmings moved, Ellson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m.. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim