The URL can be used to link to this page

1990 10 03CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTO8ER 3, 1990 Vice Chairman Erhart called the meeting to order at 7:30 MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Tim Erhart, Jim Wildermuth, and Joan Ahrens MEMBERS ASSENT: Ladd Conrad and Brian Satzli STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner; Sharmin A1-Jaff, Planner 1; and Charles Folch, Asst. City Engineer PU8LIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RESTAURANT AND 8AR ON PROPERTY ZONED BN, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED IN THE SEVEN-FORTY ONE CROSSING SHOPPING CENTER, PJ'S RESTAURANT, JEFF IRRTHUM. Public Present: .......................Name ............................................................................................................................................................................ Address ~.. Jeff Irrthum Tim Whitten Gary & Jan Reed Dale & Kelly Hance Don & Fayadel Dudycha Judy Hinklin 3667 Falconway, Eagan HRMA, Minneapolis 2461 West 64th Street 6480 Oriole Avenue 6451 Oriole Avenue 6345 Minnewashta Noods Drive Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chairman Erhart called the public hearing to order. Judy Hinklin: My name is Judy Hinklin. I live at 6345 Minnewashta Woods Drive which is west of TH 41 and south of TH 7. I'm just wondering if any of the people on the Planning Commission, if you live in that area? Emmings: I live up by there. Judy Hinklin: You do? Emmings: On Lake Minnewashta. Judy Hinklin: Okay. And do you have to get into your home by using TH 7? Emmings: Yes. Judy Hinklin: Okay. And how many people who are proposing to put the restaurant in that area live in that section? Tim Whitten: Are you asking about the restaurant? Judy Hinklin: Yes. Jeff Irrthum: I don't live in this area, no. Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 2 Judy Hinklin: Okay. The concern that I have is that there are so many homes going into that area and if the people here think that the major issue is parking, they've got the whole thing all wrong. To me I don't really care where the people park. I mean I'm happy that there's going to be development and it's done right. I think we need a restaurant in that area but I think that people should look at the fact that TH 7 today is a very widely used highway and the people that have to come off of TH 7 and get into that residential area at night, during rush hour traffic, it's very dangerous. TH 7 needs to be modified in some way. I mean you've got all this traffic. You've got cars going 50 mph and you're turning off into that area and it's a very dangerous area and now you're thinking about putting a restaurant there and if people move past TH 41 and miss the turn off going into the restaurant, that mean that they've got to drive turn around and come back and that's a real dangerous area. I know that the people that live in that area think it's called dead on 7. Just trying to get home at night and there's been a couple of times in the last couple of months where I've had people come head on to me trying to get into that area. So I think the Planning Commission has got to look at TH 7 and have like a long term view of what they're going to do with that area. When they put the shopping center in, they took Oriole Avenue out so that was one less road that we had to access TH 41. Okay, so you've got 2 roads that goes into that development. You've got a lot of homes in there. lot of children. A lot of traffic. You've got TH 7 which is very narrow and nothing has been done. It's still 50 mph and I really think that somebody who's in control should really take a look at TH 7 and start looking at all this traffic that's going to start going through there for the shopping center and now a restaurant. I mean it's a major concern and anybody that thinks that it isn't, they're not looking at it and I'm real concerned that somebody's going to end up dead someday and somebody's going to say hey. Somebody said something. We were on the Planning Commission and we didn't do anything about it. All we worried about was parking. Okay and so that's my main concern. You've got to take a look at TH 7 and TH 41 and if nothing is done soon, then I think the people, if they put a restaurant in there, they've got to have some huge signs way before you get to TH 41 saying turn off at TH 41 and get in through that small entranceway that goes through the gas station that's previously there because once you go past TH 41, coming back is going to be a real bear and it's going to be a real hazard. The only suggestions I can think of is that somebody petition to reduce the speed around that area so that people aren't going 50 mph around that intersection and that maybe some more center islands be put in west of TH 41 where you turn off into the development. There is a left hand turn lane but there isn't any cement or anything telling people that are coming east that they can't try and pass on the right hand side. Erhart: Excuse me a minute Judy. Can I ask Paul to respond who's got jurisdiction over TH 7 and if the City has contributed any input onto this long term problem. Krauss: Sure. Highway 7 is notoriously poorly designed and it's been, you know it's a State Highway. It's been designed to that kind of at grade arterial standard and MnDot's looked at it and there is no major improvement program for TH 7. However, Chanhassen 2 or 3 years ago participated with a number of other communities and with MnDot to complete the TH 7 corridor study which suggests a number of incremental improvements that are going to be undertaken by MnDot as funding is available over the Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 3 years to improve the safety of TH 7. There's a number of projects that were talked about in that report. It's my understand that they're starting to undertake some of those. Not in Chanhassen so far but in Shorewood. There is, I would hazard a statement that the restaurant itself as being proposed is not the problem. I mean the retail traffic is going to be there regardless of whether it's a restaurant or some other store. TH 7 is the problem and we're aware of it. We've tried to get the wheels turning to resolve that. It's not as fast a process as we could like but we don't have authority to make improvements ourselves on TH 7. The City's also recognized the problems on Minnewashta Blvd. which doesn't help you directly but Minnewashta Blvd. is programmed to be rebuilt hopefully next year and the intersection on TH 7 is one of the problem areas that would be dealt with at that time so to the extent that we can make improvements, we are trying to do that. Erhart: Okay. Is there a person that you can give to Judy to talk at the State directly? Krauss: Sure. Judy Hinklin: The thing is that I've, it's been my experience in working with people in the Chanhassen area. We have a park that's supposed to go in that area because there are so many children and the land was given to the people in that area 10 years ago. Not only that but the man who donated the property also gave funding for the park. That was 10 years ago and every year now I've gone to the meetings for the park committee. We even had a neighborhood committee formed. Nothing has been done and they promised us that this year the park would be built. And nothing gets done. We go to these meetings and everybody tells us we're volunteers and we're doing the best we can and it's worthless and I'm getting kind of dissatisfied with it. Now you're putting in a restaurant and I'm telling you that TH 7 is a very dangerous area and if you have any authority at all, I'm telling you you've got to talk to people because somebody's going to die someday. And a restaurant or anything else just isn't worth it. Erhart: I appreciate your comments. I think what we're saying is we really don't have any authority other than a passive one that TH 7 has tried to coerce the State of Minnesota to improve it and we've been working with surrounding cities to do that. Regarding the park issue, are you familiar with that? Krauss: No. That's something that we can inquire about tomorrow. Erhart: Okay. If you could call Paul, he could give you an answer on that. Judy Hinklin: I'm just saying that you know, people tell me to call and we call and nothing's being done and this to me, this is more important than the park issue. I just want people to know that. That if they're going to put a restaurant in there, they've got to do everything that they possibly can to divert the traffic to make sure they turn on TH 41 and not put any more traffic than necessary on TH 7, especially during the rush house traffic if nothing is going to be done to that highway. Okay? Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 4 Erhart: Okay, thank you. Is there any other public comment before we let the developer respond to the recommendations? Is the developer here? Tim Whitten: Yes. Erhart: Do you have a copy of the staff recommendations? Tim Whitten: Yes. Erhart: Okay. Would you like to comment on them or anything else? Tim Hhitten: Yeah, we've been working with the staff and agreed with their recommendations to date. We agree that there are conditions in the report. We did have the neighborhood meeting just this last Monday. 6 people and we talked about issues that were really more in line with the...issue and some of the past history. We explained that part of the ownership has changed because of the difficulty and things are being handled and will be taken care of as far as past history. I also have 3elf Irrthum who is the one planning the restaurant available too to answer any questions concerning the restaurant. Erhart: Okay, and your name was? Tim Whitten: My name is Tim Whitten,.. Erhart: Okay, Tim we might have some questions from the Planning Commission members here. Thank you. Any other public input on this? Gary Reed: I'd like to make a comment. Erhart: Your name? Gary Reed: My name is Gary Reed and I live directly south of the shopping center and we've been concerned of course about the landscaping and the issue of 64th Street which sounds like it's going to be resolved. I'm just wondering if they have a timeframe on that? We've been sitting and waiting for them to finish that for a year now. I guess I'd like to pinpoint somebody on it...talking about November 15th or something... But by that time it's too late to do the work you know... Erhart: What's the most important issue in your mind to get this landscaping issue fixed? Gary Reed: That's one of the more important issues and then I did request the other night at the neighborhood meeting some more screening go up on the south side because we're just faced with a long block wall which just reflects all the sound back into our yard and it's not the most pleasant thing to look at. The back has all the air conditioning units and those are supposed to...and they have screening...so I think, is it Judy? Yeah, I think her point is well taken that they need some signage on TH 7 for westbound traffic because they're going to go down and do a U turn at Oriole Avenue which is a very dangerous intersection anyway. And so I think the shopping center as a whole needs signage down there at Super America or whatever so people can make a turn at TH 41 rather than going past it and then trying to get back to it. Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 5 Erhart: Okay, thanks Jerry. Anybody else? 3an Reed: Hi. Z 'm Jan Reed. Gary's wlfe. Z just wanted to add one more comment. When he mentioned about the road and it's something that's a concern to me. Rlght now there's a yleld slgn comlng out Orchard, comlng out of West 64th Street_ circle and it's a yield coming off of that but the Orchard coming down the hill has the right-of-way going out to TH 7. When you're turning off of TH 7, these cars that have the right-of-way come down right in front of you and I would like to see a little more signage there that there's a joint yield or some more signage because that does get to be a little bottlenecked sometimes and if in fact people are going to be coming and making some U turns, that needs to be looked at. Also, coming down TH 41 Monday night after the meeting, we went back TH 41 and went to turn in there to eat at one of the restaurants and there is not very good signage up on TH 41 for the entrance there. It's very dark. There's nothing. There's no markers or anything right on TH 41 and I presume you're ~joing to do more with lighting there but right now it is real dark. Erhart: Excuse me a minute Jan. Would you point out where on the map that this intersection is? Krauss: I'm afraid it's off of this map Mr. Chairman. It's to the west of here. Erhart: Okay. It's a north/south street entrance? Krauss: Right. And those are both local streets and that's something we have authority to do what we think is necessary over. I can ask the engineering department to look into that. The Assistant City Engineer is here tonight and we can put it on his list of things to do. The question of lighting out on TH 41 is one that we've been attempting to rectify and there is supposed to be lighting installed as one of the conditions of approval. Emmings: To be done by the developer? Krauss: Yes. Gary Reed: It's really hard to find coming down at night coming from the south. Just reflectors or anything at this point temporarily until they do get their signage in or whatever would help people... Erhart: Jan, did you get completed there? I didn't mean to cut you off. Okay, thank you. Anybody else? If not I'd invite a motion to close the public hearing. Emmings moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart: Okay, Steve would you like to start? Emmings: Sure. I'm curious about the compliance problems. Do you feel that you've got whatever leverage you need to get them to comply with whatever conditions they haven't complied with as far as the site goes? Planning Commission Heeting October 3, 1990 - Page 6 Krauss: We do have an outstanding letter of credit so we do have their money which to us is the ultimate line of defense with this. We try to work these things out as reasonably and diplomatically as possible. Unfortunately we've been somewhat frustrated in this case but we have every expectation that it's going to be taken care of in short order and that's why we've established that deadline. Emmings: What's changed that makes you, I mean are they making promises to get this thing through? Krauss: Yes they are. Emmings: Is that the only reason they're doing it? Do we have any reason to believe them? Based on past performance. Krauss: Well, we are dealing with some different individuals which I think is significant in this case. Secondly, if all else fails, we've already committed to cashing the letter of credit on November 15th and doing it ourselves so one way or the other it's going to happen. Emmings: Should we condition this approval on all of those things being taken care of? Krauss: We would not oppose that. Emmings: Well I would suggest that we add a condition here to condition this approval on compliance with, I don't know, whatever hasn't been complied with to date because there's no excuse for that and I don't fee].. like doing any more for them until they do what they said they'd do in the past. Krauss: To set a specific deadline on that, would that before building permit's issued or before certificate of occupancy? Emmings: What gives you the most leverage to get the work done? Krauss: The building permit's more, I mean it will come up sooner. Emmings: I don't want to hang them up. I just want a way, something to hold over their heads so they can get their work done. If they need to start... Krauss: Attaching it to the CO would give them more flexibility to get everything done. Emmings: I'm not understanding. Krauss: Well we could either attach this condition to the issuance of a building permit in which case they cannot do any work until everything's completed or we could attach this to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy at which case they could work both on the restaurant and resolution of the problems. Emmings: Let's do that. So it will be compliance prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. Okay. Otherwise, I thought the staff report was Planning Commission Heeting October 3, 1990 - Page 7 very detailed and very thorough. What are the hours of this place? I didn't see it in here. Krau. ss: It said 11:00 to 12:30 p.m.. Emmings: 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.? Krauss: Yep. Tim Whitten: 12:30 a.m.. Emmings: 12:30 a.m., right. The TH 7 is an incredibly dangerous road. I endorse everything that was said back here. To put it very crudely, the pile of bodies has not gotten high enough for the Department of Transportation to respond and we're just going to have to achieve that stack of bodies to get their attention. Up in my neighborhood we've been trying to get them to do something for a long time. I have to go off of TH 7 and I see accidents there regularly. There's no one in our neighborhood who doesn't have a neighbor who's had an accident on TH 7. It's horrible but we can't get them to do anything. Anyway, that notwithstanding I'm for this proposal with the changes I talked about. Ellson: I don't have anything new to add. I think it all looks pretty cut and dry and welcome to Chanhassen. Wildermuth: I agree with Steve's comments. I think the staff did a good job on this. In the recommendations I don't see anything about installation of a light near TH 7. Krauss: That's something that we conditioned in the original approval and I believe we have a signed commitment from them already to go ahead with that. Wildermuth: Okay. $o there's no point in putting it in these requirements? Krauss: No. It's unfortunate that as far as highway development is concerned that infrastructure always follows residential and commercial development but I guess that seems to be the way. It's certainly been the way on TH 5. About the only recourse we have is to attack their legislators. Other than that I support the motion. Ahrens: I don't have anything further about the restaurant itself but I'm a little concerned about what's going into that shopping center in general. I saw in your report that there's administratively authorized the construction of an outdoor play area for a daycare on the south side of the building. Now isn't that right behind 3 eating establishments? Krauss: It's inbetween them. Ahrens: So there's going to be parking back there and trash? Krauss: Actually that's not on this plan. The rear parking lot has been modified to accommodate that. Basically a number of stalls were deleted in this rear aisle here with a barrier type of thing. The play area will Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 8 protrude out to here with a protective bollards and traffic would be routed around it. It worked from a traffic movement standpoint. Ahrens: It may work from a traffic movement standpoint but it certainly doesn't seem to work from Audience: The daycare isn't going in now. Krauss: Oh, it's not? Audience: They don't have enough money to make the deal so... Krauss: I guess we don't have to worry about it then. Ahrens: I think that should be looked at. I mean it seems to me that we didn't hear anything about the daycare but I wouldn't think that that would be a very good mix in this kind of a center. Behind a bar and restaurant where there's going to be garbage stored back there and cars and traffic. Krauss: I guess I viewed it from two contexts. It's a permitted use in that center and it met State Standards for what they look for in daycares and it wouldn't be the first daycare to be in that type of situation...a parent would be somewhat relunctant to use that. But that's a decision that each parent would have to make. I guess from what we hear tonight from one of the owners, that's a moot point at this juncture but daycare is a permitted use in that district. Ahrens: I realize that. I think it should just be looked at in the future though when approvals are given for that type of use. Whether that's the best spot and I realize the daycare chose that spot but, I have no further comments. Erhart: Okay, thanks 3can. Picking up on that for the purpose of the Minutes. Paul, did we understand that the daycare center is not going in? Krauss: That was my understanding, yeah. Audience: That particular daycare center is not going in. And if we would do another daycare center, it would probably be at the other end and the playground would in the front. Erhart: Okay, to that point I guess from my comments. I wonder whether it's appropriate to have the daycare dropoff point in essentially a public parking lot. Normal daycares that I think about, the parking usually is usually by itself. The dropoff point so it's something that we may want to think about. Krauss: They fit these in in quite a few places. In fact, again as a parent my son's using a daycare right now that's in a strip shopping mall on the end and they actually use part of the parking lot to be the play area in the front and it's all roped off and fenced off. Erhart: Okay. Let me go into this here. What is the current screening on that south boundary? Planning Commission Heeling October 3, 1990 - Page 9 Krauss: It's very meager. If there's anything there, it's probably deciduous and it really doesn't do an effective job at all. Erhart: What was our thinking when we approved it? Emmings: There were evergreens in there I remember. Krauss: And that's part of what's missing from their landscaping installation. But even if the material is installed consistent with the original approvals, in my view it doesn't do quite enough and what we wanted was something more substantial. Ahrens: Was that where you mentioned the 4 trees? Krauss: Where I asked you to delete the 4 and that really shouldn't be limited as to number. See what we were getting 4 trees with the daycare center right behind their play structure. That plus the trees that were supposed to be installed anyway plus additional trees for PJ's may have come close to doing the job but what I'd like you to do is modify that condition so we get a screen back there and whatever it takes to achieve that screen, whether it's 4 trees or 40 trees, that that be done. Erhart: Are you suggesting then that we rewrite the conditions to give us more leverage on the landscaping and screening? K~suss: Yes. Basically I would reword condition 1 to read a revised ].andscaping plan shall be submitted providing, cross out 4 and just add in additional coniferous trees. Erhart: How about to meet or exceed our current requirements? Krauss: Well you could say to provide a visual buffer for homes to the south so we know what we're trying to achieve. Erhart: Do you think our current requirements, we have a standard here for this kind of a development for screening. What is that? K~-auss: I don't think there's a specific standard. I mean there's a i per 40 and that really doesn't do it in a case like this. Erhart: Okay. You think that you can respond to this issue of signage. Is that in here? Krauss: No it's not and I guess that presents a problem. If what's required is a sign a quarter mile east of the site on TH 7, we're talking about putting an off premise advertising sign in a residential neighborhood and while it may be warranted to consider one for safety reasons in this case and we do have an out in the ordinance that allows us to consider something for safety reasons, it has some pretty serious implications for where these signs might pop up elsewhere in the community. We can certainly look at it but we're a little bit relunctant to throw the door open. Erhart: How does a sign improve safety? Explain that to me. Planning Commission Heating October 3, 1990 - Page 10 Krauss: Well if it gives people an early notice that they should turn south onto TH 41 to enter into the center, it does achieve a purpose. I think that by and large anybody who goes to the shopping center more than once is going to learn that but you do have that learning process to get t:. hr ou.cj h. Srhart: And the light situation is what? Krauss: That's in the process of being resolved. A light will be installed. Erhart: And that's another thing that wasn't done on time? Krauss: Right. Well it was an additional requirement though. That was something that we added on after the approval over the course of the summer. Erhart: How long is it going to take to construct this restaurant? If it's approved, when do you see this thing getting opened? Tim Whitten: Approximately 6 weeks. Erhart: Okay, if we make that condition with the, yeah because now is the time to put those trees in and we shouldn't be waiting. I guess what I don't want to see is wait until next spring. We get to the December 15th and then we'll say well now the ground is frozen we can't put these evergreens in. This is the time to put them in right now and I guess I'd like to see Steve in this condition that the landscaping, the screening gets put in prior to freeze-up because I know what's going to happen. They're going to get to December and then they're going to say, well now the ground is froze, can we get an extension? Emmings: They don't get a certificate of occupancy unless they've got it done. It's a condition. Erhart: Okay. I have a question here. You state that other opportunities include the restriping of the parking lot to use the 8 1/2 foot wide stalls currently allowed under the ordinance that was recently redrafted. Did I miss that tonight or what was that? Krauss: It was last fall and it grew out of I guess it was initiated by the City's review of the Cenvesco proposal and a concern that our parking standards just didn't cut it and there was a complete redraft of the entire ordinance pertaining to parking. One of the things it did was establish decreased dimensions for parking stalls in recognition that cars Here smaller than them were 20 years ago but it increased requirements for drive aisles and other things. Erhart: Okay, thanks. Other than those concerns, I think we ought to make absolutely sure that really there's no reason why this should go ahead without getting some of the issues resolved with the site to begin with. I'm hoping that the new, either if it's a new owner or new people to contact, they're committed to do that because I think we ought to take every measure to see that this is installed the way it was approved and l support the residents concern on that. With that I guess it's a reasonable Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 11 development to the area and the City Council will be acting directly on the liquor permit and if there's some concerns with that, you'll have to attend that meeting directly. So with that I'll look for a motion. Emmings: I'd like to move the Planning Commission recommend approval of conditional Use Permit ~90-4 for PJ's Restaurant with the following conditions. Condition number i will read as follows and be modified to read, that a revised landscaping plan shall be submitted providing additional coniferous trees and other vegetation south of PJ's Restaurant site and a letter of credit covering the cost and installation of trees will be required and held for one year after the planting. It is understood that the object here is to provide a visual buffer to the south. Krauss: Commissioner Emmings, as you read that I guess I'd ask for a further modification. That the coniferous trees not just be south of PJ's Restaurant but that it be south of the shopping center so change the wording. Emmings: Okay. Erhart: Since you've interrupted, what about the west? Krauss: The west is pretty well taken care of. Emmings: There's a big hill there. I'll modify number 1 in accordance with Paul's comments. 2 will stay as it is. 3 will stay as it is and 4, a new condition be added that states that prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, there shall be compliance with all conditions previously attached to other approvals on this site. Erha. rt: Is there a second? Wildermuth: Second. Erhart: Any discussion? Judy Hinklin: Did I understand you Paul to say that this signage would prevent some type of a problem and that this was going to be just a learning process for people to find out how to get into this restaurant? If that's what you said, I resent that comment because you don't live in that area. You don't realize how many people are in there and how many children are in there and I'm telling you it's a bad area. If you have to lose a life and you think that's a great learning experience, I think you're wrong. If you're just worried about putting up 4 pine trees, I mean I sympathize with the people who have homes that are adjacent to that property but I think you people have really got to push for signs that tell people how to get into that place before they reach TH 41 and you've also got to do something about the speed at that corner. It can't be 50 mph. Erhart.: Okay, but we don't have any jurisdiction over the speed. Judy Hinklin: Yes but his comment saying that this is going to present a problem ~ith the signage, I don't care what kind of a problem it presents for you to look into it or to demand something. We live in this area. It's a bad problem and I think somebody's really got to look at it. Someday Planning Commission Heeting October 3, 1990 - Page 12 somebody's going to lose their life and then it will be too late. ~rhart: Thank you. Is there any other discussion? Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit ~90-4 for P3's Restaurant with the following conditions: A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted providing additional coniferous trees and other vegetation south of the shopping center and a letter of credit covering the cost and installation of trees will be required and held for one year after the planting. It is understood that the object here is to provide a visual buffer to the south. 2. The proof of parking plan is accepted with the following conditions: a. Calculations shall be provided verifying internal parking lot landscaping meets the parking ordinance requirements. b. A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted providing description of internal parking lot landscaping. c. The 9 stalls on the east side of the building shall be constructed prior to the opening of PJ's Restaurant. No additional restaurants will be permitted in the Seven Forty-One Crossing Shopping Center. e. The additional parking shown on the proof of parking plan will be constructed within 6 months of being required by Planning Staff. All trash shall be stored internally. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, there shall be compliance with all conditions previously attached to other approvals on this site. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW TO SUBDIVIDE 78.37 ACRES INTO 76 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF TIGUA LANE, LAKE RILEY HILLS, JOHN KLINGELHUTZ. Public Present: Raymond Lewis Al. Iverson Richard Helstrom Sue Krienke Hu.g h Jaeger John ~lingelhutz 9701 Lake Riley Blvd. 1500 Park Drive 1500 Park Drive 1500 Park Drive 320 West 76th Street, ~201 350 East Hwy. 42, Chaska P]~anning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 13 8il]. Engelhardt Mill Rudnicki Don Sitter 3oe Hautman Dave Nickolay Norm Grant. Da 1 e Dennis Baker 1107 Hazeltine Blvd., Suite 400 I107 Hazeltine Blvd., Suite 400 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. 8551 Tigua Circle 8500 Tigua Circle 9201 Lake Riley Blvd. 9005 Lake Riley Blvd. 9219 Lake Riley Blvd. 3o Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chairman Erhart called the public hearing to order. ~rhart: Is the applicant here? Bill Engelhardt: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'm Bill Engelhardt. I'm representing John Klingelhutz tonight on a project he's proposed. ~rhart: Bill, can you hang on just one minute. Steve, what's your question? Ernmings: I guess I've got a problem looking at a new plan tonight. Unless you te].l me that everything else in the staff report stays exactly the same except for 1 or 2 items. Olsen: T think what they're just showing you is that they've adjusted the 1. ot lines to meet those requirements. Emmings: When we do a motion here, are we going to do it based on this plan? So we'll do it on the old plan? Olsen: Correct. ~mmings: And then you'll show the City Council that he's figured out a way to do it? Olsen: Right. Emmings: Fine. It's with the same conditions of approval. Bill Engelhardt: I think it should be pointed out right up front, the conditions, the 15 conditions that the planning staff's put together and the engineering staff, we have absolutely no problem with those. What ~e're tal. kin~ about is not adjusting lots hudreds of feet or anything like that. The problem came up in this particular area. When we laid this out mhd you calculate it out, it comes out to 89.58 feet. It didn't meet the 90 feet so we had 3 lots that were 89.58 feet wide and we had to adjust the lots down so when we're talking about lot adjustments, we're talking about tenths of a foot in some cases. We have the same number of lots. They all meet. the requirements. They all meet the 15,000 square feet. It's just a matter of getting those adjusted to the 90 feet. The other thing that came ~.~p is an issue that came up after the fact after we had submitted all the plans and the staff ~as going to reviewing them, was the Carver County or ~outhwest Corridor road study. In that road study they're recommending the right-of-way widths for Lyman Blvd. being 120 feet. 60 feet on each side P].anning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 14 of the right-of-way. We have 33 feet on our property which meant we had to dedicate another 27 feet which caused a problem for these lots so we've taken care of that. We're going to dedicate the 27 feet along Lyman Blvd.. It. also called out wider right-of-way on Lake Riley Road. We're dedicating the 27 feet on east side of Lake Riley Road and that was after the fact. After everything had been submitted which meant that we use Lot 5 and that. will be an outlot and then that will be an unbuildable lot. It doesn't meet the square footage requirements and doesn't meet the width... Down on Lyrnan Blvd. where we had to make the adjustment here, we're still able to maintain two lots which... The lot areas again are way over the 15:000. In fact in meeting with the staff it was discussed that maybe Lot I could be bigger and Lot 2...instead of having an outlot. Whatever the Planning Commission and the staff would like is fine with us. The Park Commission met_ and their discussion centered around taking Lots 21 thru 26. It's a straight .line park. We have now done that which meant that we had to adjust again the lot lines on 20 and 19 in order to conform with the park...so we met the park need requirements and again we still met the minimum lot sizes. We're over lot sizes on 20 and 19. One of the requirements was to show easements and typically those easements are shown on the final plat. There's a graphic I wanted to use in talking about, all of these easements will be granted on the final plat. The green ones are for sanitary sewer. The yellow ones, excuse me are for sanitary sewer. Green is for storm sewer. The orange ones you see are for access into the podding area so the City has access to them if they have to do any maintenance. And the blue area shows where the podding areas or the sedimentation areas are going to be and those easements have been platted through the wetlands so that you'll have conservation all the way up to the wetlands in those particular properties. We're not touching the wetlands. ~¢e're not going into the wetlands. We're not going into the fringe vegetation or whatever. We're staying right on the outside. Wi.ldermuth: On the previous map, what land is dedicated for park? The green? Bill Engelhardt: It's Lots 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26. What they wanted, what the Park Commission wanted was a straight line across here or a square ~n there and so what we did is we cut 21 in half and then we divied the lsnd up, balanced the land between 19 and 20 so again, that was the $.djust. ment we're talking about. This is an exhibit of the tree cover on the property. What you see in yellow to the areas that are going to be removed due to the grading. We've gone out and catalogued all the trees. There are some areas that are not going to be disturbed. This area in particular is not going to be disturbed. The major area of disruption fo~~ the trees is down around this cul-de-sac area. What we've done to catalogue those, we have 20 elm trees in this grove, 126 box elder, 42 ash and 4! oak. Then down in this area we have 22 elm, 126 box elder and 40 ash. We will be losing a 29 inch oak tree up in this area but the other oaks will be preserved, 4 of them. We're going to be losing box elder ap.d m. 4 inch oak in this area, 4 inch cedar and 2 box elders up in the roadway areo.. This little run of trees in here will be disturbed...6 inch apple tree, box elder, ash, 12 inch elm, box elder, box elder and a 16 inch ash. So k~ha.t we're proposing to do, we have a total of 126 what we'll call significant trees and not meaning the box elder are no more significant but of the oak and the ash and the cedar and the apple, 126 trees that are going to be removed and Mr. Klingelhutz has agreed that he ~4ill plant 3 Plannin,u Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 15 trees on every lot to balance that off. So we're talking about 3 times 73 or 210. Ernmings: And those won't be box elders? 8ill Engelhardt: Actually the project needs some trees. This area has no tree cover and it benet:its the developer to have the trees planted. He has hie o~,.~n tree spade and that type of stuff and he can do that so... Another concern that came up was the TH 212 right-of-way. This is not an easy pi. ece of property to develop. As Jo Ann pointed out, we have TH 212 corridor cutting across the north half. Ne have a large wetland area that needs to be preserved and we have to work around and in order to get the grades, there's a lot of grading on this but actually to minimize the grading on it: the best layout we could come up with is what you see on the street configuration. The concern on the north side was how does the TH 212 corridor tie into the back of these lots. You have to understand that this center line is 400 feet across here so from the center line to the edge is over 200 feet and then you have another oh 100 feet of lot depth so you're probably talking about a good 300 feet to the highway right-of-way. But what happens is in order to show this to you, as you come through from the east and go west, the highway grade is a little above the subdivision. Then there's a very deep cut right through the middle and in fact this 15 feet, there's 15 feet difference of elevation from the center line of the highway to the lot pads straight through the middle of the property and then you come out of that cut towards the west edge. SO b~hat I've done is drawn 3 cross sections, AA, BB, and CC understanding that A is on the eastern edge, B is through the middle and C is through the ,~4est. Those cross sections look like this. The question comes up on berming and noise abatement for the residential properties. On the Section AA which is on the east property line we have an elevation, proposed elevation of TH 212 of 904.3 at the right-of-way line this 897 so you can see that the highway is actually going to be higher than the property is in that particular area but then as you move west, you get to about the middle of the property, we have an elevation of the highway at 901.5 and the elevation at the right-of-way is 915.2 so there's almost 15 feet difference in elevation. The house is going to be sitting here and the highway's c~oing to be way down here. As we go to the west, we come into a situation ,shore you have an 898 at the center line of the highway and 902 which means that this property is a little bit higher but not as much as through the middle of the cut. ~4hat we propose to do on that is as it affects Lots 12, 13~ and 14 on the east end and we can very simply berm that. ~4e have 13ienty of material in this particular project. Ne'll berm that so we get a sound barrier for those 3 lots. Then we get into that deep cut again and we don't need the sound barrier. Then when we get into Lots 1, 2, and 3 o~. t.h.~s end %ge're putting a berm in and we can utilize the tree planting, the c. pera. tion that we have for some tree plantings and plant trees on top of that t. oo. I'd anticipate that that berm in those areas will probably be about 8 feet high but we don't want to get it such that it's not going to be a straight up and down berm. It's going to have to be something that gives you rolling slopes that these property owners will be able to work Nit. h and have a nice back yard too. So the screening of the highway I think can be accomplished. That was a concern that Paul and 3o Ann had but until they actually saw what those cross sections were like through this particular piece of property, berming is not as significant as what they had I think first imagined. Again, we have no problems with the i5 Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 16 conc{itions. The conditions that are in your staff report, they're not significant and I hope you understand that we're not bringing forward a. p]..a.t that's completely reconfigured. It's a matter of adjusting some of t~ese preliminary lot lines in order to meet the letter of the law in this case so we don't, have to come and ask you for a variance and that's not our intent with this particular plat. We're not asking for any variances on iI.~.. '~de agree to all the conditions that the staff has recommended and we're more than willing to work with them and hopefully we'll have a good dmvelopment for the City of Chanhassen. ~:q',--hart.: Thanks Bill. Would you just remain up here. Maybe if you'd sit in the front, and save some time. Okay, we'll open this up to public input st this time. If you'd come on up. Ray? Lewis: My name is Ray Lewis. I live at 9071 Lake Riley Blvd. and I r£rhart..' Excuse me. The location of that is on Lake Riley. Can you point it oLft there? Ray Lewis: Right here. This shows the area around the development. First of all I'd like to say that in general I'm in favor of the subdivision. ]; do have some concerns about some of the effects on the surrounding area tha. t... I live approximately one block south of Lyman Blvd. on Lake Riley' B1v¢I.. The concerns I have, first of all the first one is traffic. The traffic from the additional 76 or I guess 75 units is going to add sJ. gnificantly to the traffic that's already carried by Lyman Blvd. and Lake Riley 81vd. and what I mean by this. Currently Lake Riley Hills is right here. The Lake View Hills, excuse me. Those of us that live on the south part of Lake Riley Blvd. south of Lyman Blvd., the deadend down here for the Sunnyslope people, are forced to go up and use ode of two choices for ,.9. gress in this area. Either we can use Lwman Blvd. and go to the west or ',.-4e car, go around Lake Riley and then 9o the perimeter. Right here is the a~proximate location of the entrance to Lake Riley Hills, this half section and t__ym8n Blvd. in this area up here, is actually an undeveloped road that ha..s, it's narrow. It has a lot of undulations, patches, bumps. It's not ~. very ~4e]l developed road and also Lake Riley Blvd. as it goes around the north part of the lake is also undeveloped. So I have a very big conce~-n ,?, b c: t.~,. 'L the additional traffic flow that this is going to be putting on these undeveloped roads. The second thing is, and it's somewhat related, is the .~ntersection of TH 101 and Lyman Blvd.. If any of you are familiar with that intersection or aware of it, it's a very dangerous intersection. It's a very sharp turn here. There's very often crops that hide the view and ~,~.m're just...use that intersection are waiting for a serious accident to h3pr_~en there. ~4hat the subdivision is going to do is place an additional traffic load on that already dangerous intersection. The third thing is thru .?...torn water runoff. Now I read through the staff report and I noticed thst a provision is made for holding ponds but the thing that concerns rne ~.% that there isn't., as the subdivision is very close to the wetlands area s;n~¢ I want to make sure that the ponds are properly designed so that no ~,4mter runoff is allowed to go into either the wetlands area or into L. ake Riley itself. And I guess the last thing I'd like to bring up is r'ecreational load on Lake Riley. Currently there's already some suUdivisions that have outlot lake access. Lake Riley is kind of unique in the area because it is each year receiving considerably additional Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 --Page 17 ',--ecreational load from the...and from further development around the area. ..It's not a very big lake as far as recreational lakes go. It's only 290 ,-:-~:.cres; and I'm very concerned that additional, significant additional recreational load is going to decrease the quality of use for those who £~ccess it. both from the lakeshore owners and from the landing. So the following recommendations. Lyman Blvd. upgrade plan and schedule should be completed and approved with all assessments bein~ fully disclosed prior to ti)e development of this property. And I think since the main reason for ,....,p..q~radin.q Lyman Blvd. will be the development. I think the development itself should bear a substantial part of the cost. Whatever cost is bein.g assessed. The second thing, I think there should be a plan that's schedu]~ed for the improvement of the TH lOl/Lyman Blvd. intersection. think that's essential regardless of whether the development goes in. It's g.o.tn..q.' to become even more critical if the Lake Riley Hills goes in. The third item is that I think the concept of holding ponds is a viable concept but. I feel that the details that need to be carefully worked out along with c.~_vil engineering calculations and should be submitted prior to approval. That includes calculations on flow, pond capacity and runoff. Then lastly I think that .~t's important that there should be no special lake access priviledges, that is priviledges beyond those that are afforded to normal. non l~¢t<eshore residents of the city on an outlot basis to the subdivision. I know that in talking with 3o Ann I know that that comes on under a s~parste permit but I feel that it should be coveted if] this approval of the subdivision that there be no special... Erhart: Is that it Ray? Ray' Lewis: Yeah. ~.rhart Okay. Would you leave that first one up on the screen then? The issues and I'd ask, Paul could you maybe address those quickly? Well actually, Ray could you put your suggestions and we can deal little bit better that way. Appreciate your bringing that in in that format Ray. Kraus¢' As to the question of Lyman 81vd. upgrading, clearly there's a prob].em on Lyrnan Blvd.. We recognize it. The County recognizes it. and it's being dealt with in the eastern Carver County Transportation Study w,hich as a result we're taking substantial right-of-way from this project~ This project is not the problem or the sole problem or the majority of the problem on Lyman Blvd.. The problem on Lyman Blvd. is that traffic is passing east/west through Eden Prairie and Chanhassen and those volumes are e:xpected to grow particular when the Dell Road interchange opens up on TH 2].2. This project is giving up a substantial value in terms of lots that t. hey will not be able to utilize in giving or in the City's taking of the right-of-way. At some point in the future there may well be an area wide g~ssessment to accommodate improvements to this road. We're not certain how t,.ot, pro.ject s going to be done We re in the process of developing a capital improvements plan to try to program improvements to [_yman but you. have to coordinate with two counties and two cities to do that. We wal]t to expedite that as much as possible and clearly this project is part of the p'f-ob].em but it is certainly not the sole problem. P~anning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 18 Erhmrt: Wait a minute here. Dell Road's going to intersect with Riley L_' a"'=,,...~¢ Blvd. at some point or why is Dell Road an issue? K'rauss" Well if you continue east through Eden Prairie ultimately, T believe you'll be able to approach Dell Road which will have a new, Deli. Road ~,Ji]l have an interchange on TH 212. Okay, but I mean without going down to Pioneer Trail? Right. The plan is scheduled for TH 101. Again, that's a fairly ! · rem.~veo from this project. It is a significant problem Ray Lewis: Excuse me. Could I just answer number one? In talking with 3o ¢~nn, I did understand that there was what I would call an indefined :~:chedu].e plan to do that. My point here is that what we're going to be c!oing with the development is we're going to be adding 76 or 75 units worth .:)f people turning right and left onto Lake Riley Blvd. in a very short period of time without a definite schedule of when the road's going to be upgraded and I feel that the two should be tied together. ~rhart: Say Ray, what I'd like to do here is give Paul the floor and let h~m, if you would just take a seat for a second and let him respond to the issues at once and then if we need to go, if you need to speak some move, ~4e'll go after that then. F:~-aus:s: As far as the TH lO1/Lyman Blvd. intersection goes, that entire ~ntersection's going to be rebuilt with TH 212. Plans call for that construction to begin in 1993 so that's a program improving that entire ~ntersection will be coming out. TH 101 will be realigned and it should romove the problems in that area· Details of the storm water collection ~ystem. We do have calculations. Their engineers prepared it. Our en¢£neer will be reviewing it. The storm water system there calls for storm ~at. er to be discharged into sedimentation basins which would then overflow into the wetlands which will then overflow into Lake Riley so t. her8's kind of a 3 level system to protect Lake Riley water quality if] th~re mhd that's all in the project as proposed and as reviewed in the ?]ar, ming report. As to lake access, there is no lake access being proposed from this development. I'd be concerned that these residents be afforded t. hm same rights to pursue lake access as anybody else would as allowed ~y thm ordinance but they are not proposing any outlots as lake access. R~>-' Lewis: At this time? '" ....... : Right ~..~,'a,~;rt' What do envision where these would get favored treatment over any resident Ray? R,~,y t..ewis: Well for example in the case of Sunny Slope there was a out. lot p,..~rch.ased on the shore and the residents...were promised lake access and l-}-.,e~-e's been a long term running dispute as to what that lake access should be. In other words, they have priviledges that other city residef~ts do ]~ot ',-*,~,,/e in terms of lake access through that lot. %rhart' Yeah, we're real familiar with that. Commission Meeting 3, 1990 - Page 19 ~rr:rr, ings' Do they have lakeshore here on this property? 0 ]. s e n ' R i g h t. F.{rr:min.gs' Ho;~ much do they have? That outlot? Tine width on that? .:.~?rnmi,-o~',,~.~ How much of it is lakeshore? l(rauss: That's something that we need to have clarified. I was talking to the engineer about that tonight. It appears as though the lot located to the east of this site intervenes along the lakeshore but it's a meander line so it's kind of tough to say. To actually find out what we need for that southeast corner of that lot to be staked. If it's in from the lake, then it has no frontage. ~rnmings: And it's not clear from looking at the survey. You should kno,~J too, to set your mind at ease somewhat, the beachlot ordinance we have now i.,~i~.ch wasn't there I think at the time of that little lot was set aside down there on Lake Riley that's been such a thorn in everybody's side, is much more restrictive. They have to have a minimum of 200 feet of lmkeshore. They have to have minimum depths and then they can only have one dock with 3 boats. So we've got a much more restrictive ordinance now than ha~ ever been there before. Erhart.' Okay. Is there any other public comments on the proposed s u ,5 ,.d i v i s i o n ? Dennis Baker: Hy name is Dennis Baker and I live at 9219 Lake Riley Blvd. which is a couple hundred yards from the intersection in question at Lyman ~...nd Lake Riley Blvd.. I've lived there for 11 years and through that entire ll years I have been taking segidisk readings for the PCA measurin~ the water quality of Lake Riley. I've worked with the U.S. Geological %:~rvey, Hetropolitan Council, the Association. A number of ~roups studying the water quality. The water quality of Lake Riley has improved almost ve¥'>.~, very little over the course of 11 years in spite of the fact that 1.1.. years ago the sewer project was completed around the lake and we anticipated a lot more improvement than we got. One reason for that lack of improvement is the U.S. Geological Survey determined that the eutrophication of Lake Riley was 95~ caused by runoff. I contend that a holdin~ pond during a heavy rain that will hold the excess water for whatever~ even if it's 24-48 hours, is not going to absorb or have enough vegetation t.o absorb the additional phosphorous, etc. from lawn fertilizers that will come off of 75 15,000 foot lots so I would like to propose to the C_~ty Council that they ask the Department of Natural Resources to investigate what the environmental impact is of this project because that p~c:rticular holding pond is one of only 3 on the lake and I think it can pretty easily be proven that there's precious few wetlands protecting Lake Riley now. I think that a further study needs to be done in order to determine~ the engineer of the project had I don't think is sufficient to determine tine environmental impact of this 75 unit subdivision. Another comment I'd like to make is the intersection of TH 101 and L. yman 8],.vd, is an extraordinary concern. There's a lot of accidents there already, A lot Planni. ng Commission ~4eeting October 3, 1990 - Page 20 of .'-;ingle car accidents. There's been many cars that didn't make that cu~-ve and fortunately did not collide with another car. Right now it's ext'r'emely dangerous because of farm crops which happen to be Klingelhutz' fr~rm crops. Expressing their concern for the safety of the intersection on t:.-'~t intersection. The City hasn't done anything about it and I peop].e have called the City about the danger on that intersection. ;.,,ct.,. have to go, my t4ife just is scared everytime she comes through that intersectiolq because you have to actually accelerate to come from TH 10.1.. ~oi'n9 sot.~th onto Lyman Blvd. and hope that there's not a car speeding c,:_)rr, tn!~ into that intersection from the south because if there is, goin,q to get.. nailed and the only way you get through it safely is to .¢cc.::e].erate up that hill and onto Lyman Blvd. I don't think that, we talk ab, c:~...,t t. his particular issue and the previous issue, what we're going to do ultimately relative to traffic on these projects. I know Chanhassen is eager to develop and I'm as eager as everybody else in here to see ch~nlnassen grow but we've got to be careful that we don't outgrow our t7;.r].tch,...~$ to the point ~4here we make the community dangerous for it's re~idents. Thank you. Thanks Dennis. Paul, would you respond to that first issue there? l<~-auss: Mall the water quality one is one that we've become increasingly st.,.J~-e of over the last year or two. Lake Riley has a series of problems that .~ren't stemming exactly from the lake itself but as water is flushed ].nt.o the lake. One of the problems that the fO, atTo Council Hydrologist..~ Dicl< Osgood has identified is that storm water as it passes through Rice ~darsh Lake is picking up sediments on the bottom of that lake that ~4ere deposited when there used to be a sewage treatment plant there and ! l;:,elieve a chicken farm or something like that and everytime it rains., that's flushed into Lake Riley with some pretty disasterous results, k,Jater q{..:.al, it¥ is a sensitive issue throughout the city and the City Council has been ~orkin.q with staff and the City Council recently adopted a surface ~...,~7~t'.er uti].it.y program which is designed to deal with water quality issues in the city. To allow us to do planning to understand what exactly the ,~-~roblems are and to actually address solutions with capital improvements or treatment or weed harvesting and street sweeping and everything else. And ~,Je aye also participating with a number of other governments on ~4ater quality .~ssLtes. I've been asked to serve on a technical advisory committee fo~- the [4etro Council that is trying to work with local governments to establish new regulations for runoff. That doesn't specifically deal with t. hi~ particular subdivision. However, this particular subdivision is using the best availble technology that we have at this time. The water is bein,q flushed ~nto sedimentation basins. That's designed to capture the heavier n~aterials. It does not do a very effective job on capturing nutrients. The ~.later 14ill then pass through the wetland. Wetlands do have an ability to filter nutrients to a large extent. Then it will pass out through into t'.l'-.o lake. Po~3sibly that is not enough but that is the best technology that ~,~ have to offer at this time. The reason why we're going through the m~..,~-face ~4ater utility district and participating with the other governments a.s ~el]_ is that we want to address this to a better extent. ~4e ~ant to ,~;~dd¥...-.-.;?.*.:s it. comprehensively, not just for Lake Riley but for all the other l,.,ate'r bodies in the city as well. ~'rhart.: currently you're adding how many holding ponds? Planning Commission Heating [- ~.. C.~ct.o~_,~r 3, 1990 - Page 21 Krauss' There's two. ,:.., ~,a,t.' And what percentage of the water currently goes into the current po'n<t off the site would you estimate? Nolch' The predicted increase that needed to be retained back was 1.75 acre feet of storage. I should have the calculations here on the existing. ..'-lrhart.: I s.~uess what I'rn trying to get a feel for, are we taking the ho].d{ng pond, is the holding pond is going to keep the amount of direct f]c',w into that existing wetland the same as what it is currently? 8J.J.]. Englehardt: Yes. Yes it will. But the big difference is that before it goes into the wetland and before it goes into Lake Riley, you're going to be polishing it almost like a treatment pond before it gets to Lake R~ ],e>.'. I just want to point out that we're sensitive to the issue of the loading on Lake Riley and that's why we did put the holding ponds in there but your best cleaning agent for the water going into Lake Riley is your wetlands. You. r wetlands pick up most of the phospherous and most of the nutrients. The only thing they don't get is nitrates and it's very seldom that. the wetlands themselves, the vegetation will pull the nitrates out so t. ho~e will pass through but I think what you have to remember in this particular subdivision is we're converting farmland now that is probably more heavily concentrated with nitrates due to farming than a residential su!}d.fvision would. Albeit you're going to have grass in there and they're cle{~:g to be fertilizing their lawns but I think it can be shown by alL, dies that the heaviest loadings that you have is from the farm operation itself.= {~c.., I t. hink that if you really wanted to get down and look at the loading in this ~articular thing, you're probably going to see less nitrate loading ,..,~h.~ch is the most detrimental to hake Riley than what you're going to see ,~,~ith the subdivision. Baker: Can you tell what percentage of that land is currently in 8:;I.! Engelhardt: I don't know. John, can you? 3chh K].-ingelhutz: I think about 60~. Bill Enge].hardt: Okay, about 60~ of it. So I think we're helping, ~4e're gojn.q to help the situation. I really don't think we're going to hurt it ar,,:d ~4e are channeling our storm water runoff into the ponds prior to entering wetlands. Prior to entering Eake Riley and as Paul said, that's the best. ~e can do right now. Oennis Baker: Is there any other alternative for drainage? 8J..].i Engelhardt: Not really. On this particular piece of property ju. st :~e way it is. You have your wetlands with everything coming, the slopes ;:.:..¢.I comin~ down to it. Dennis Baker' It's a basin. Si].]. Yn.o..elhardt: Right. It's a big basin and we're preserving and maintaining easements all around that so those wetlands aren't going to be Pl.<'--:nnin.q Commission bleeting . ~ r.~.~;.f 3; 1990 - Page 22 .... ',. L-,..,''~..- I to',.Jched. They're going t.o stay there in their condition the way they are Thanks Bill. Any other comments? [t:,r~.:'.s; Nickel. ay: My name is Dave Nickolay. I live at 8500 Tigua Circle. I 'rr, curiou, s ~4h',y we were invited to the meeting when it appears that the C, .~;v,~toprnent is all to the south of the new Hwy. 212 right-of-way. l{r~:s~;: All property owners within 500 feet of the property boundary are notified. The property boundary goes up to Tigua. It's going to be outlot correct. Nothing's being proposed up there but you're on the notificat.ton .].ist because you're within that 500 foot circle. Dave Nickolay: Okay, and I guess then my concern would be originally on l:.h~ map that was sent, which was a very rough, it showed the property as ~ think ~.¢as just shown here a little bit ago by the first gentleman, ~4hat ~.~ the plan for the land which would be north then of the proposed TH 2127 q.'-].=on' There are no plans at this time. They are showing it as R-I2 ¥ .C, F; .t lq g bu.t that would require a rezoning and a lot of other public hearin,.?..s ~-',l ,-!- ' . .... .~,~. at.. this time it s an outlot They'd have to go through a whole other .Pr OC~S:..~ . n~ t' And R-12 is what 30 Ann? Olsen' High density, apartments. Again, that's just what they showed on ,..,,,.~.'; plan. It's not even on the official application. [)ave Nickolay: Was it in the original because this was a delayed process because I think it was up about a month or so ago and almost all the residents from Tigua were here at that meeting and was that a change in the ~lan? o].sen' Oh, no. It was tabled at that time because of the issues that ~,~e ~:,.~d on the,., single family lots but no, there has not been anything, proposed th¥c, ughout this application. Dave Nickolay: Is the ].and owned by the same people who are developin~ the ].~nd to the north? It's all one piece. ',~.),?~',...'~t~. Nicko]ay: Okay. Are there plans to do something with, the land to the no~-t.h of that? 3ohn Klingelhutz: At this time, no. Dave NJ ckolay' That's all I have. Thanks. Okay, thank you. Another person here? Don %itter: My name is Don Sitter. I live at the end of Lake Riley Blvd,, ~..~ I m going to pretty much echo the same concerns we ye heard before but s:ek a few more questions. Regarding the holding ponds, if those are ,- .....nih..9 Commission Meeting Oc'h - t _ t~>~er 3, .1.990 - Page 23 c:~.~hle of handling the runoff now, are there plans or ordinances or any kind of maintenance items that would take care of making sure that they :~"~:~:y in effect or that they are effective both today and 50 or however, 100 ¥'eart~ from nov~ so ~e make sure that the water quality of Lake Riley maintained? I appreciate that they're at least concerned about the water q,..~.a].ity. I want to make sure it stays that way forever and I guess -?i'nJsh my other comments and maybe you can get some reaction. [dith ~egards to the L_yman BI. vd. situation. I hear that ~e're admitting that it's ~,.]i. read'/ a problem and the traffic is already too much for that road and the ~,t.~te and ~e're going to further compound the problem and yet there's no pla'ns J n place to rectify the problem. That really bothers me. I don't knob., %4by we can't stop somewhere along the line and say before we add more prc,}:r,].ems to an already existing problem, that we can take care of it. ~gYee v~ith the concerns about TH 101 and Lyman but at least you've got dr'-';';e~ ~.~3 there will be some resolution. That's a plan. That's some ~ction being taken. I can live with that. Maybe we can do something t[¢mpors~.ry t]ntil 1993 comes along but are there any plans for Lyman Blvd. ~-¢ght: now? That's a pretty bad situation. And the other thing, on the '~ke~hore access. I'm very much afraid that they're going to end up Mit. h s;ome type of a beachlot or an outlot on there and have 75 homes being ;~,cc:eseed to the lake and I understand there's ordinances in place but .als;o remember a little while ago when Lake Riley ~oods was being developed ~:'~'c~d the ordinances were just changed because they didn't meet that ,:;~e,,/eJ. opment. They required the houses to be so close to the beachlot ~.t:~e].f and they said, well these houses aren't close enough so let's .~ust <::hange the ordinance and I've seen those ordinances changed through the '/~e2~'cs and I think you spend a lot of time making the ordinances and if you ~;t:.ick by them, I think we could handle the situation. I'm afraid that i':~",ove's ¢~oing to be pressure on this one ~hen that actually comes up and ordinances may be changed and then they're going to have another 75 homes ~.,~Jt.h access to Lake Riley and the lake just can't handle anymore. ~e're 81resdy in trouble as it is. Other than that, Z understand the City's f:~rowJ, ng and ~e have to have developments and I guess all and all I don't thJ;.nk it's a bad development. I think there are some real concerns to make s~.J~-e that the lake is protected but are we really looking at it for the J..on¢~ run. Thank you. Erh,~-:,,-t: Thanks Don. I'll respond again. As Paul indicated, that City Council here .iust passed an ordinance to create a utility for maintaining holding! poncJs and wetlands and use for storm water control. Oon Sitter: And that includes money for maintaining on an ongoing basis? E"~'}",,'~-t: Right.. Number two, I think the Lyman Blvd. thing is going to be a '.?i~ .issue and I'm sure the commissioners will address that here in the q~.,'...~.,~tionin.~. Three, I guess maybe I can speak for the current Planning Commissioners. I don't think we're, I doubt seriously whether ~e're 9oi~ag t.o '.:"el~x any time soon the requirements for beachlots. As Steve pointed out, it's pretty severe and this one wouldn't qualify as it is now. c:]..~.son They don't have the 200 feet. Erhart' According to what I see here, there is no shoreline. 3o Ann, do '..;ou h~ve any additional thing to tell? ~, r,r~.ning Commission Heating O~tober ~' 1990 - Page 24 got'. some half sections that show that it does have shoreline a. su}vey here doesn't really actually show where the ordinary high c:,f Lake Riley is so there'd have to be, but even if it does~ i r'e-~t~,~u., the square footage. It doesn't have the lot depth and it reqt~.ire a lot of variances which I don't think that we would be :3on :Jilt. er' ...variances is a piece of cake in Chanhassen. ~rhsrt' ! don't think that's true at all. Okay, ,se can deal again with t t"..:~ bea. chlot. Go ahead. Come on up. Nor~-n Grant.: I'm Norm Grant. I live at 9021 Lake Riley Blvd. and I'm .just a. ~- ....... ~ ..... ~ throw from the project. Two ideas really. One is Lyman Blvd. a.s I t~l'-~derstand it and like you say, it's going to be a big problem. Land has ~. ..... ~/, declicat, ed for the widening of that, if I'm understanding ali of this ri~:~ht, but that's something that's down the road. ~ tentative or a N>"eliminary selutien~ somethin~ we could do right now~ I was talking with ~. r~:,~.:, earlier, was turn lanes. $omethin~ like that that would lust make '~" .... ..... st ~:~ ..... ~it. tle bit safer area. If you've driven Lyman 81vd you know t.,R~,~t it ~s had shape. It's hilly. It's in rough shape and I think turn lanes c-ot~]d be a s:o]ution at least~ a temporary one for Hhen ultimately th,ere~s er~ouo',.,r, development there that almost demands that something be done. Okay? ~.e:r,d by the ~ay~ I think that~d it be wise that that be part of the .~e',3.s~oQrnent plan or the plattin~ of the proposal or however you describe that ~ ~nother idea I ~uess is the outtot. I sense that there's somethin~ g.TC:,~Jg ON there that in the future could be trouble for Lake ~iley~ Hhc::n I f{rst saw that it appeared that it was a lot and probably a ~-~,u.i].cta... hie ene at that although with variances. Now because of dedication ,.:, ia'nds far the widening of Lake ~iley Blvd.~ it appears that that., s .I .k . c~e:5:tined to be some kind of an outlot and I guess I feel that in a couple '"~:-'~'~' ~hen t. here~s 75 families there demandin~ that they have lake access .:- ...,~ ~ ~.~ their wishes probably will be met one way or another. If I saw the :i,-r~[,d.inss accurately earlier~ the widenin~ ~as done on both sides of Lake ~'.~ icy 8].vd.. 27 feet I think into that outlot. ~hat if the whole distance was taken from the other side of the road? Okay~ leavin~ that let baeica].ly intact and then potentially buildable. In my mind's eye~ r,er see a single family home there. Okay? Somebody living there rather ~ ~-~,n having 75 potential families utilizing that property Ideas :Frhsrt' Okay, thanks Norm. Jo Ann, is there any comments on the TH 101 _{ntersection turn lane idea? That's something that could be part of this development and ~,;e were d.i. sc.~.ssing it. That actually is a good idea.. Turn lanes on !_,/man~ ,-..ra~.JSS On Lyman and leaving the site. Nrhsrt' At the intersection? O~.sen' Of the development. Norm, that's what you were talking about is turn lanes at the C:, ....'rt..: Okay Any other public comment© ~mm/ngs moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the mot£on carried. The public hearing ~as closed. N'~"hs.'~'t' Okay', let's talk this one around a little bit. 3can, do you want to:. s:t?.r't, c!own on your end? ~'::':,,v-ens Back t.o the Lyman/TH 101 intersection. It seems to me, I drive that h:/ there all the time and you can't see around the corn. That's the ,,:,ig,..:!c,st-. problem and John Klingelhutz owns the corner lots on there? o!.sen' I't mi.qht be another Klingelhutz. m,,,ens: Oh, someone said that earlier. Can't the City somehow require th~ owners te cut down the corn on those intersections to improve sight '~$!-,es basec! on public safety? .,.'~'auss ~de may be able to declare it a public nuisance. That ordinance is i-~.:::.t very t.i~ht but we could look at that. :.-.:.~,~-.ens: It. wouldn't cost the City much money I wouldn't think to solve the, temporarily solve the problem until ~993 when the intersection there {, s comp ]. et. ed. q'rhsrt.' Excuse me a second. I guess I'd like to point out, I don't think th, ere's, ].et's clarify that 3o Ann or Paul. When do you realistically see · ?.his TH 3.0.1. intersection being put in, or even start construction? l(raL~ss' Nell it's going to be tied to the realignment of TH I01 which tied to Hwy. 2&2. The State has committed funds to start construe%ion o¢ TH ?t2 ~n ~993. They're not specific on when that gets it out here,, It's probabZy going to be in ~994 by the time the work comes out this N.s;:'ve been trying, the City's been trying to expedite that project for 7"c::aYs and at least there's finally funding for it. I ..~ust didn't want to leave the impression ~ith anybody that 199:3 going to begin at improving those intersection. Go ahead 3can. Ahrens: Maybe cutting the corn down is a more viable solution. As far as 'the holding ponds go, I'm going to have to go along with the City re,:'::omn'~endation on that .... that the holding ponds that are proposed... q. oi¥',.q through the report, there's a mention of sidewalks here along the r~{'~.-t¼ road and ~est road. I know the City has had problems before in other developments. Curry Farms for one, stating that there may be sidewalks there but not. putting it onto the plat so the residents after the fact say ~e .:don't ws'nt sidewalks there. We didn't, know about it. r.')l~sen' Right. I believe what we do now is that's part of the construction of t..he street. The sidewalks are installed so whenever anyone purchases s. lot. it's there. F' i. e~'n'ni 'n?i Cc)mmissi. on Hooting Oc. Cc. her 37 i990 - Page 26 :...,,.; e-ns And install...and they will be put in for the north road and b,~est -~- o.a d ? Ahre'r~s: I had a question about the utilities. There seemed to be a c:..~,{:-....-7.;tion about the calculations for the sanitary sewer system to verify ?::;.'he cmpacity and maybe.., no idea what's going on with that. A plan right r.-olc:h: Haybe I could just, I'll briefly address that. That's just a norms], requirement that we have as one of the items we want to see for r~ubm.c,.tt, al at. the time of final approval of construction plan documents. .It. ~..~a.-..s; not a requirement at this time but we like to make the applicant aware that ¢.t. is needed for the final stage. C':-hsrt: I think to expand on that. I think there is an issue here with '.,~hether the existing sewer has the capacity, whether the existing pump station and force feed has the capacity service area. That's the impression I get. That's the reason I brought it up is because I think... ;-~-..'~ ~ ~n.qe].hardt: That was a question that came up This particular land ~i~._:~ ~..--~r'~.'ed by a lift station and we checked the pumping records and the i'.~air, tenar, ce records of that lift station. That lift station runs 2 hours .s ,.:~-/ c,~..;~, of z_4 [~hich means that there's adequate capacity. It's not runnJ.'ng .F., ~",~, ,here. ,.:- ¢. near Hhat it probably could be running to operate at a norma.]~ r?~?.e. P~s far as the 4 inch force main goes, for this particular type of dc~',.'e].opment and number of units that ~o in there, ~hat happens is that your 4 ir, ch force main will see a little bit more velocity in it if anything~ P:nd if your pumps are going to generate, if you're generating more flow, your pumps are going to be pumping a little bit more and they might pump at. a tittle higher head which means you're going to see a little bit more veloc:j_t.y but the flow is still going to 9et through there. It's a pressure .sit,].etion. It's not a gravity flow ~here it's going to get clogged so it's ¢~oi. ng to ~t..¢~. pushed through there. The bottom line is that the lift st~Jtion has capacity for this particular development. It's only runnin9 2 hot;rs a day. :-~rens' Do you agree with that? 8i1] ~:'n~e].hardt: That came right from the pumping records of the City. okay, thanks Bill. What is the City's position? Folc:h' [4ell I guess we'd have to. take a closer look at that. That ma}/ be an ie:.-?ue that would be addressed in the feasibility report that is proposed to h,e c:e',qclucted for servicing watermain and utilities to this subdivision. Bill En.qe].hardt: That really doesn't answer the question. The feasibility st'..~'d'::, t. hat's being proposed is to provide water service and Mr. Klingelhutz h.~s agreed to pay for the feasibility study for the water service, k3hen k..~e .qet. into the final design for the utilities in this particular property, you look at:. the heads and the design capacity of the pumps, tf your pumps, 4!:' {-'~ appears that your pumps are going to have a problem with capacity.-, i,t ~:~: s very simple matter of increasing the horse power or dropping a ..j ~' c ...... -~'f~rent. primp to increase the horsepower and we ~ould have to do that as part of the approval of the ¢~nat construction plans for the sourer and 'sa!Tot. [ghat.. I'rn telling you is I don't anticipate that because the lift .:~:{':atien right now is only rushing 2 hours out of the day, out of 24 hours ~.ghicF, means that there's plenty of capacity in those pumps and I really d.2. R'~,.. see it as being a problem. But if it does become a problem duri,~g,,._ +. ~.~ ..... ,~- , ina]. design, then we change the pumps over to a different pump. ~.s~ue then becomes is the force main big enough with a bigger pump. It's net that it's big enough. It's 3ust that it's going to go through there ?'~h',~-ens' I understood they...be a problem. My question was whether the ::i';ity thought it was a problem. ~:'o]ch: [4ell it's my understanding from the City Engineer that the initial '.,'- e.:-oL; est for the study was strictly for the watermain service but that Gary ha,-i rnentJ, oned that they also added on the scope of that report was to i nclt.~.de sanitary also specifically related to that lift station. fRrha'Ft: That's the way I read the report. While we're on the subject, do a'ay other commissioners have any comments on this particular or concerns ShOL',L this sewer issue? I guess if you don't mind ~oan, it just seems t.o me, whether it's 2 hours or 4 hours, Z don't know what's standard. .T.t iL;st seems to rne that the question that I would have, are we trying to tap into a system that just wasn't designed to essentially a development like this .s.r are we tapping into a system essentially was to bandaid a problern we had ©,..,.'t on Lake ,Riley with sewers? bJith septic systems. :-':.'r.:~.~ss: If I coL~ld, that's basically one of the questions the feasibility ::;tJudy is designed to answered. That line down Lake Riley was initia].]~y :,,.'F:,F::ta].!ecI basically to serve the lakeshore homes but there is a !et of ca~eacity left in it .... determine how much capacity there is. This site i~':< ~.,.~it. hin the HUS~ line today. They are going to be petitioning the city fc, r improvements. ~t that point Ne do the feasibility study which is on i. ir~e to be done and the city determines the best. way of serving this and other properties. The cost to them develop, the developer then decides if t.~-'",:~ cc, st benefit is there. You know they can still walk away from a prc).ject at that point. The improvements that would be installed, the water ~mprevements certainly are 9oing to serve a number of other properties b.~%'/end the Klingelhutz site. Those properties may be subject to some area a::':.s:essments or something else where tbew"d be brought into the process but %h.:?':/'re certainly a wide spread benefit that could potentially be had. 8u.t -:;.hat ~r.~: a normal process. They petition. The feasibility study. The City Ca:..',ncil acts on the best Nay of serving it and the developer decides if the':/ want to do the project. r{'r'h~;¥t: el{ay, well I guess l'd sure like to see that that be looked a ~.ttl. e more comprehensive manner than just this item for this partict.~lar ,.~l~?,.....',.~:ic, Dm,ant. We're just trying to tap into something that's already ur,,::~ersi, zed or wasn't intended for this, that it be looked at comp'Fehensively because certainly that whole area around that intersection i:e ..q.:.-:,in,.{t to require services. Commission Meeting 3, 1990 - Page 28 ,don't have anything else. That's it? '.-,ii!c'..::errn,..,.th' What is planned for the land west of the current cJeveloprnent? ,-., ~-~,..,.:~s: ~n terms of the Land Use Plan? i,,3 i .1 d.s'r nut h ' Right. i',.:'r~.~u~..~' The draft. Land Use Plan shows single family development immediately ~¢.;;;:-.-.~t: of the site. It blends into I think medium density or commercial at:_ t..',~ TH .1.01/212 interchange. "~].d,~*-.rmL.,t.h' I was wondering why the park group chose Lots 24 25, 26 2'~ · ~..~ .., ~ ~ ,~ ~/..- ~ and why they ~ouldn't come down to roughly where Block I lettering is on map so that any future development to the west could benefit? :~I: Il I I~: ( I j ~ ~ : O ] ~ e of the things this would also be serving is existing and ~><-.,1'<s~-:timl development to the east. Ultimately that east/west road Ia.ben-ct · - £ n.:-.:::-th -road would be extended in both directions. There's another high den:airy site adjacent to the existing apartment complex and the thinking th~;t we'd have this road extended over through there looping back out to l.~ske Rile'/ Blvd. so they would have access to the park as well. Oi?.r~n' There's also the Bandimere Park to the southwest. That's going t.o ~c" ]., gev community par k ~.~ :~ ~. ~ r W~.].dermuth: That's the undeveloped? O];=;e;q' Yeah, to the south of Lyman so they were looking at. locating the ,,." to the t of this subdivision. ;':,:~,'r-',*, more eas ~.,ii]..~,:.-.,rnut. h." As you look to the east how much of that wetland extends Does the wetland fade out? !'..'~.(.~ss: No. It does extend to the east. In fact, one of the benefits of i-.!-.,~t-n development is that wetland is currently bisected by a driveway that ~.,,~:e~ f~.l. ied. Placed on fill right across the middle of the wetland, ¢~.s a .:-:ondition of approval for this project, that driveway is going to be p~_!].!ed out of there and the wetland can function as a whole unit. again ,~nd not s bisected water body. P.~.Zderrnuth: That sounds pretty desireable but if that wetland, a good p,.~.~"t.';on of that wetland lies to the east, it's going to be a long hike dot....~n to the parklands, I mean I don't know, this doesn't seem too logical, to think that that parkland is going to serve much to the east, But that ..-~...~7;:;de, moving on, Where are these proposed turn laf~es 30 Anr~ that yell were ,;i:....,.:st referring to a few moments ago that you thought were a good idea? '-'::;?ann~.n~.~ Commission Meeting October o 1990 - Page 29 ~('-,".::.~uss: What we'd probably be looking at is something along those lines. 2,:-.~,~:-~.b].y being ab].e to widened it out on this side as ~e].l so you can make .::: tt.~'¢'n in this way and out that way. !..~:ildc::rn~uth: ~ho'd stand the expense for that? A developer? ',,:.i.]cler,~n',..~th: Is Lyman Blvd. a county Toad or a city? '.:O':.:!?..~,i-~' ~;~t. this point it's not a city road. The County jurisdiction ends .ct.. TH '].0.I and then it becomes City jurisdiction. [4i].dermuth: Does the City have any plans for upgrading that? :'.:r~.::Js: No1:. at this point. :.,J'.:~4errn~..~th: Kverybody that spoke from the area has a concern there about !<'rau::~:s: The way that road improvements that. benefit an area or a .neighborhood typically occur is the City Council's petitioned to do a fea::~ibilt'/ ~tudy on what the road upgrading might accomplish. Me'd be h~F.,~y t,3 Yeceive a petition...City Council to take action on that. ~4i.i..c!~:.rmuth: So it behooves the residents in the area now to petition the ~' ""' n c: ~. 1 ? K'rs,..l,%s: Yeah. One of the other issues we deal with too with Carver County an,:.:' they ~.4ith us, is jurisdiction. This road is carrying a substantial srnc. unt of traffic that's generated from not only Chanhassen but around the ...~'~-ea that's just passing through. It's projected that it will carry more in the -Future and we may wish, and we've talked with Carver County about t'l~is:~ to have the jurisdictional problems resolved that may ultimately Nc;come a county road· ~.di}derrnuth: Okay, so that would be one way for the area residents to add'r'ess this Lyman Blvd. issue? Other than that, I like the proposed berrning for TH 212. That looks like a good solution for the highway noise n,~',zement problem and it seems like holding ponds on the perimeter of the :.~3~:tland are the State of the ~rt ansNer for storm water at this point. don't think there's anything, there isn't anything better on the horizon t. her e? X',-.-~;..:ss: Well there's more active programs that a city could undertake and ~4e ~4ould intend on to take with the funding provided by the service LIti. ]. ity. L,!il. dermuth: bJhat would that be? K','st.¢~t;s: Well it's a range of things that would be considered from semethi, ng as simple as making sure the streets are sNept frequentl¥~ ;)ari:~cniarly before you have the first flush of organic material in the spring to the possibility of weed harvesting. The wetland capture througl* t.h~ ~,.;eeds capture the nutrients but in the fall the cattails, which absorb ,,~ .:71 'an '~ n g C o m m i s Es i o n Id e e t, i rig ,,-., .... -'_ .......... ,..,,.;~,r 3, .1.990 - Page 30 it but the cattails die off and introduce the nutrients to some back into the system. Weed harvesting is something that's heinE,~ ,.,..,¢;, mut. h These are largely city responsibilities then? Well these would become city programs and responsibilities in ,the That s what's envisioned. R~gh~ no~ nobody's doing ~t,. Right :i..ide,~'r[~uth' There's nothing here that we could logically expect from the .c!e¥'e].oper in addition to what he's outlined? 7.: r ~u.:ss ' No. Right. Okay, I support the staff recommendation. thanks 3in. ~nnette? E].].son: Z ].ike the idea of adding the turn lanes. I like the idea ¢:,f the property owner to cut back the corn. I don't know that we can that J. nto the thing here but as far as solving these short Yan.cje ~';-.?,J].erns that people have on these streets. The park is dedicated arid T.'wc wondered this, doesn't mean it's necessarily going to be built ¢..s ~-fght.? It's .just set aside at this point? q].s.~7.:n' .... Right. And then there's a separate fund. In addition to giving ,sjrk]~nd they also have to give money and they're trying to work it so that .:.~.;.~::: th~: homes a~e built, that a park is there. ison: That. seems to be a concern and a complaint continually from 'ne~ developments. So that's what I was just wondering. There's no 5ec..suse it's us building it, basically the city, that ~e can put anyth~.n~ here that says it has to be paid in a year or something like that? ',<now it's s continual problem that the parkland is set aside and then t'-~o[oo,:~y has but that was just for my own i~fo. I would go along with the stnff's recommendations. Thanks Annette. Steve? :---turnings: Let's see. Outlot A in Block 3, Bill mentioned the possibility c:,f connecting that to one of the other lots. I think that should be done :~-7:. '.::.h..:qt somebody's responsible for the maintenance and maybe the east end c:,f it c:,ught., to be joined Lip to one lot and the west end of it should be Joined up to another but otherwise we've got a piece of ground sitti, nfa '~.~';ere that nobody ~il]. be responsible for. So I think you've ~ot to ~-id of that outlot and join it up to other properties. ~s far as Lyman E~ivc{. qoes~ I guess I look at that a little bit the way, ~e have the same ..~xact: discussion on another scale with TH 5 all the time. We shouldn't be tt,~.,~].ding all these houses out here because TH 5 can't hand,ze the traffic %,..:t. it's soYt of like cranking a car. You wind up getting the road because y'c:,~.;"ve ~!ot ~]].. the people living out here screaming about the fact that -:~--'~:,, don't have decent roads and to some extent I think you're going to ;..:5'c-d ~Jp with your improvements on Lyman Blvd. faster as 8 result of ::~ .... :...;,~.,:.,.~::.~ ]..ike this. I don t think it's good planning but I think that. s <:';n'..:: ri.c: Comnl~.ssion Meeting ., ~' J_990 - Page 31 :(.i. nd of t.h,e way the ~.~orld works. As far as the beachlot issue is c,::':,i--,<::.:~-~;~:;c~,~ T, rn confident that the Planning Commission as is presently · c:on:::t, it~.~t, ed~ will never weakened the beachlot but you know~ it won't be the ..:,:n',e P.l. ar, ning Commission here in a few months. Maybe who knows and that :::.:'c::n~:nce h~:s been changed and changed and changed. The last changes we ,d'.L~'~ : think were good ones and the fact is, if they meet the requirement~ ,.~,~,.. ordinance they get the beachlot ~e can't stop them from havin: it. i'F they meet the requirements. We've got to treat everybody the same, but ~f th, ay don't., they won't get ~t trom us at least as we're presently ...... ,.uCcc. That. should give you at least 5 minutes ~orth of comfort. :.<:,?::.: Riley ~s a recreational development lake is it not? And it has a public access? (?:::~en' On the Eden Prairie side· Ummi..,,,f,.:~,¢.... I al. ways like to tie together approvals and to do that wi~.h~ t.h<~:,.,~'-' (.:,~"~,::{¢ i. would tie the preliminary plat approval. I'd add a condition to that. it .ts; conditioned upon compliance with all conditions of the wetland :~].te:-s. tion permit and similarly add a condition to the wetland alteration p¢~:n'~it. That it's conditioned upon compliance with 811 conditions of ~-~ p:-:e].imtnary plat approval so those are tied together. Is something going ,,, ..... recorded against each lot that borders the wetland? Okay, is that in here already? Olu~;en' T. didn't make it a specific condition but we do do that now. :,::cord it. a.clainst each lot. :Z'.r:rnings: That's a development contract and that doesn't record it aga.inst ::ach ].ct· Something should be recorded against every lot to tell. then*, t.h,c~.-.::~ ,ere prohibitions or we're going to wind up with another, which one .:";'.].me'r:' Yeah, with the wetland permit, the permit itself is recorded ,,<-.~u e~.:ch lot and yeah, we could make that a condition. What ha. ppen<¢.x tn ,..qu~-'ry Farms, it didn't go to all the adjacent lots. ~e do that now. s-:n.~mings: ShouJ. d it be on here as a condition or will that automatically '~'" '~ ...... 'lq · t.,~v~ icall do it but you can make it as a condition. .... .; .-.. ~:, automat y ::':::n':rningu-s' And the reason it didn't happen on Curry Farms was, if it's ~3 ,'..' Corns t i c:? :':: :i :-:: <:?.. 'n klell we ve learned our lesson We went with only alono. :,., :-. t: ]. .:~ in ct . We ,didn't go along all the Class B. E'rr, rn:'n:~s~' So should I be comfortable that it's going to happen or should :,:.'-it.e it in as a condition? Cornrn £ssion Meeting 1990 - Page 32 0.i~:;e'~'~- I've learned my lesson, yes. Z think you could be comfortable.: -mrr:i. nt:.!s' Otherwise Z agree wLth the conditions in ~he staff report. ~;rh::t~-t.' C. kay. A couple questions here. Zs ~t clear in ~he conditions '[;:~',¢t. ~.~.:~ are requiring the terming along the future Zn~erstate 212 that Bill '"'~r;;~,.'-....:. .... [4e do in condition number 8 state that noise abatement measure~ ?¢,.~cJ-: ss earth berm.Lng shall be shown on the plan. That they do have to p-,"<'>',,'ide something like that. Again, their plans have been... f~;;':-h.a~-t' Okay, do you feel that's strong enough language? :<~-~3u:7;[~:: They will have it resolved before final plat. · , ...... ¢:!'rha. rt Yeah I was going to suggest that maybe the way to word it. 17. o r:sorne height above freeway center li~e at any point. I think m~s:nt.~.oned 8 feet. You may wan~ bo use that kind of wording or sornc:~.,,J, ng to but as long as you're satisfied there, I won't dig into it any ].on~;;..t.:'~-. We're saying in ~he fu(ure Lyman Blvd. 's going ~o be a collector, isa it an arterial? Fc,~ch'., I believe it's designated or proposed to be a minor arterial C" ~.)eJ. ieve. Yeah, that's correct. ,,art." Well I think on Audubon Road where Lake Susan Hills [Vest .:,}-o c] :~,.~,:,z~:..¢c:, or lOth Addition or ~hatever it is ~here ~e have these houses ri¢~',--,!-, or, Audubon Road ~ithout any terming or screening in the back of t_k~ose !,::-:,e:;.~-, back to the yards, I think we ~ere, somehow we overlooked something ?.h,.3~-,.o because I 'm 5ust aghasted at driving do~n there and seeing the backs these houses essentially ~hich are on a street ~hich is going to be F'F,':r;iJ.l*?;~$' ['J~-~ PUt a berm in there. :Zrh~r't: It i. sn't there no~. ~immings: I remember, if we're talking about the same place, there was ~'z.,a'¢rn on t. hat plan. f::':--~:~n: By the wetland I believe. <:irr, ming~:~' Setb~een the road and the houses. ~z;f:~n: By the wetland? ;Z'::~rnJ. n~:~: Yeah, well the exit from that division goes out onto there. ,~;.: ,.: bJe talked about this before and Z just, it's hard for me to b.[,-.l~e',./e that we approved that the ~ay it's go~ng in and Z would ask that. :ctsff review the permit on that subd~v~sLon. Have you seen ?:,'~r~in~s: ~ feel like Z remember it when it ~as in here. '"'1. a'.qnLng Commission Meet`lng O<.;~.,..,oer 3, 1990 -.- Page 33 ~:'.7 ~- i-~a ~- t:' ~,,.J t.. anyway. '--{':-n~.,.?;...e" '.,'oi¢ point though is well taken Mr. Chairman because there"s . r:,~',:-,eap]y an ana].ogous situation with having what may become a 4 Lane st? .... You're taking the Norris wight out o'F my mouth. Zt: you would look .it only affects two lots nob~ the way you're proposing .it. Three really. They're eliminating, Lot 3 is eliminated. Yeah, but then there's,,. ,_n.qelhar..lu= Zt d be three tots. ~7'.~'i-,~rt: oh, oh okay yeah. The one Block i so three lots and I think ;~:e s;i-',,3t...'],,..~ put some kind of a barrier between the road. What ~4ot. J. ld MOLl ,:.'.'...-.r:,r~os~e? A berm? Screening? Okay, The names of the streets bothers me.. .x.:~-::.. ~,.,..~ goin,.q to leave them that way? Those are just there. .-:.-..'~ i Etn.<ie~haYdt: I hope not ~:-~-~,,:t~ .... ?.' Thank you. Loop cul-de-sac. Have we considered, what's ,;:,:t, lqt;-~-ol]ing the elevation of hte wetland currently? What controls the hew .1. eve.]. ? ~il]. EngeJ. hardt.: The DNR has got a high water mark set on that. Me'ye got. it shown ..on the plan. What's the control structure? O).~n' There's a culvert. '::.--.i',- h s. 'r *';. ' U 'n d e r T H 101 ? ..;.~san: Lyman. Or under Lake Riley. f.~-hsrt: Has anybody considered raising the Nater level in that? From a .!or: sell. ability standpoint, just increasing the ~ater a foot would make ,. :,.-:.-..+' not onJ. y ~ more aesthetically pleasing ~etland but it also :..'.reprove it's nesting habitat ~ithout really taking up additional, space ,.~ '....;,?. could take into special consideration, to use at it's existing high vr~:...':-...--~Y level and increase the level of the ~ater in that wetland to i. rnprov..-.--:; it.. .T. think it also would improve it's ability to filter. ii ...... :...n~e].hardt: Nr. Chairman, my experience always has been that the DNR .....oe:-~: 'no,.. ook favorably upon changing those elevations, either bM c:ulvert. overland swale or ~hatever it is. My guess is that they probably are, n't .qo:'nq t.o ].et you touch that. They set that elevation, in fact that b~et.land singled out as being purchased at one time by the DNR and those ~,)].¢;'.,,g~t. ions were set so I don't think there's anything Ne can do about P ,i, .:: n n .:. n,::: Commission bleeting :)':: t ' ' ooe~ 3, 1990 - Page 34 ...... '*'-*J .{t is , '_ l:~;r;¢'n: ,~,,,~, a really I think it does have a pretty good depth r:.ght u:.nt.;.,. ,:,nd it's a high functioning wetland. ,...,~-t.: I guess that's Dot my experience Bill. HM experience is that. th.::.ur,~, i..2 ~.~a>' to improve wetlands, the DNR has been not only b~illing to tsl.'---~,~ ::,~-?o:~.t -:,.t but ~4ill actually fund some of it. :31::::..:-., .... I 4on't kno~ that this one needs to be improved. In going out ti...,er.:~ ~.{th the DNR a~d the Fish a~d ~ildlife Service, it was don't touch '/o~.: knot.4. It's fine the way it is. :.: :,~;'rt. So you think that's a waste of time to pursue that? o::.5.3~' b~ell b;e could look into it. I don't kno~ that it needs that ~ m:)r ove~lent . .... Yhart.~ Okay. 14hy is hot 5, 8lock 1 or am I reading that ~rong? One the conditions is that hot 5, 81ocr 1 is not o'L:::en' It should be lot 1, 81ocr 5. Z~'~' :ar, ..... ct 5, 8lock ~ shal~ be designated as an out~ot and unbu~ld~;~D ..... ~.e:: e~h, ~ ye got it. :::'rhart' Okay, I...ot 1, Block 5. We are requiring that the developer replace tree.::: ever, good trees over 4 inches. Is that an ordinance? Is that c:.<.3'r- what, clear cutting ordinance? Is that the ordinance or what is the · :;.:-dinance that. ~e're using there? ;':,]:::en' I'ra sorry, what? ?r' art' ~.)e're requiring the builder to replace all trees with caliper ever · ~ inches. Ail good trees over caliper of 4 inches. ol:s.:+:n' The ordinance does allow for the replacement per caliper inch under the lLandscaping for tree removal. ~7,- ?:ar t ' MhJ. ch ordinance? ·':';]sen' It's under the landscaping? I believe it's in the Zoning Ordinance ,_,nder the landscaping section. Under tree removal. ?':' ....:-t' In :<Chat Section? .. J' :::, ]. '--' :':-- "a ' Do you have the pages? It's 1253, page 1253, Section :rrhart' In the Zoning or Subdivision Ordinance? ¢":."en' Ieningj Ordinance. Page 1253, Section 20-1179. Tree Removal ,,~.. ,.. .. _. .... a .¢i OhS . ?':h::rt.' And does that include, let me see. ,--.:::nnin:.~ Commission Heeting ....... , ...... ~.,,: ..... , - Page 990 35 Oi~:::'n' It says that the City may require replacement of removed trees on c~:J. ipe~-- inch per caliper inch basis. At a minimum however, replacement :". ',"' ,? :~ s sha].l conform to the planting requirements set in the... That's '...,h:...r.e :/o~ have to do exterior landscaping and such and shade trees of ~ :nches or mote caliper shall be saved unless it can be demonstrated that i-~-...~,':'.:~ ¢ s~: no other feasible way. Essentially aren't we talking about replaced trees where he's in the streets and everything? C]sen: What we usually do, we never go the caliper per caliper inch. I :,'o,..~ would get 1,OOO. He was saying if there was 170 trees being · :' :; :r, ¢::, ,,..' e d but the caliper inches is you know, so what we usually do is work the DN,R forester and go out to the site and determine, you knou~ what b~:j.]"~ lost and how it's best to replace those. Ne never go caliper per c.::.;.iDer inch replacement but it does give us flexibility to provide ~:om.¢-.thing in the future that will replace what's been lost. .'J:hart' Okay. Would we consider on this outlot, Block 5, Lot 1, would we · c. ons:~dm'~" t~.!rning that now unbuildable lot over to the City? O~:<~n' No, we haven't considered that. I don't know actually what we :.,~o:..,.].d ~.~se it for . c¢-:,...'-h~:'r-t' For example down on Bluff Creek for example, and that was :::-:-,,'-.-'ivio,.c,,.., '-~ south of the golf course there. A lot of the, all the area ~- '" b 1 uf~ .... ',e . , land was turned over to the city for future ~hateve~. nature and trails. ?'::':hart: Nature and whatever. It would seem to me that would give the City control over this lot. Also it would provide maybe some potential future z:,.q,:,i'n comprehensive use of what is a long unuseable, I shouldn't say Lind::-;mab]_e. Now it's unuseable shoreline. It could be something. I me.:an yc..',~ co:]ld put a walking path through there or something. Ol.~en: It's real, well. lJel] you'd be surprised what somebody, at some day when that area developed, you know you could just like the Lake of the Isles ~....Jhe¥'e it.'s~ just a walking area. Not a beach but something useable thi.:n point it becomes an outlot that somebody, 3chh will be paying it which he probably doesn't want to do if it's of no economic him and this point might be an appropriate time to look at simply it over to the City. So any other comments from the Commissioners .~dea? No? Okay. No positive ideas? don't think it's a bad idea. You. do? ::mm.ing-:;: I do not think it's a bad idea. I'm sitting here looking at that ;_:.i~.c:c~ of pT-operty and thinking he wouldn't have to buy much to the east and ~c~ ].itt. le something to it to have what he needs to put in a beachiot. other thing is, maybe the neighbors who don't want to see that happe?.- ... :c', ~'~n i. ~--,~,~ Commission Meet ing ;. ....... :,;..et..,, 1990 - Page 36 :~',~.:'....' t..;~t;'~-;t t.o go together and buy it themselves. That's what occurred to rne. F:'.'..'i] ~;n¢~e]..hardt: Yeah Mr. Chairman, that's a valuable piece of property. '...J,.'t c:~o'n't ~.,~.~'nt to give it to the City. b~e'll hang onto it. 'l'r?,n'~i..n¢!:~' ~:e long as we're talking about it, is there any plans to do ::...r~'.c"i~.hi~,.c~ ;.~it.h that at this time? .'_T:" 11.. En:qeiha. rdt: Not at a].l and there is none. There's nothing you can do Have you considered making it a beachlot? gngelhardt: No. We haven't. You can't do anything with it but it's a valuable piece of property. Mr. Klingelhutz wants to own that oi: property. If the City wants to buy it at it's market rate, h.c~ ~.~ot~,ld sell it to you but we aren't going to give it to you. '.-:iYn-,n-,in<;:~: b,lhat's the value Bill? 8'i.I] ~n.q. eihardt: I don't know. ~'.--rr~mir'~!.--;~:~' No, 13o. I mean what's the, how does it have value if he ca.n't for ,~nyt. hing? I'm just curious. ':'....,,i~,,~ ~ 5ngelharctt' The value is that he wants to own a piece of property on :.. ~-~ :..,?. ~ ;i~ 1. ey. ~<:,~'~, '.%itter' Who maintains that? .... :.":.n .u,':..tter: The owner has.., f{:-'.-"..;*-~r't: Okay. I like the sidewalk plan and I agree with, as much as I :c'?.~.'."-~d that I don't think we give variances liberally, I think this one :'r,~'-;kc:::::~ c~ood sense I support the agreement ~ith agreeing the variance~ .::~'.,'~7~-¢.I.:~.. comment on this plan is that I think what we're doing here is that :..,,~:~",'~:. ,.fi,3veloping this piece of property a little bit in advance of c;,:.¢~- services are at the time. Not that doesn't mean that every <:¢'¢ve]oprnent, that doesn't mean that developers don't have every right, to dc., · '::hat but on the other hand, ~e have some mechanisms that allows them to .:7;c,r~t'ribu~..e the&r share ~he~ they do tha~. Z really thi~k ¢ha¢ as eh~ me.,v.:.:., on to Council., ~hab ~e ough~ bo bake a look at C~o bhLngs here i~ mc)re c;omprehe~s~ve man,er before ¢h&s gets approved. O~e &s the seNer, a'nd Z 'r'es.}.ty think ~e oughb ~o look ab a ptan for ~ha~ ~hote area. The area. :}:~-'..uth of essentially sou¢h of Lake An~ Z~¢ercep¢or do~ to Mhere ¢he end t'.'~ ~:,roposed addition to the MUSA line is to see what that sewer system :,.: ~.;. ,. ¢1. ,:j ].ook like. And I think this developer ought to be made to contribute t.c-. that plan at this time. Secondly, I think the City should proceed b~ith t.'~ f ~ - .. . ,-~e ¢asJ. b:].ity study for Lyman Blvd.. I think the one shocking thing -'-h~;:~.~ ~hol¢ development is that ~e're going to put, not only are we golFeD p,..¢-h 75 additional households on a street that simply is not designed to do ..... :-~__ No~. adequate Co do Cha~, bu~ ~e're goLng ~o puc essentially for ?..c.-]o ':/ear~, perhaps even }onger Chart ~0 years, a cu~-de-sac~ Zf f~ i .:..:. n n :[. ri.F4 C©mn't i ss i o n Nee t ing ':')ct...::.be~.- 3, 1990 - Page 37 · ,'; :':. ..- ¢ r-.-: ,. : ',- r~ ~.t. from Lyman Blvd. to the east end of North Road, ho~4 long is it.? ':?., 000-~-. .3,000 f em t ? f) [~. ;7. ~; 'nC .i~ o.~-.;: e t o i t . ::;', .... ,~:~:-,-t.' 1~000 feet? I've been here 4 years and anything over 1,000 feet. · ;'?. '....,e've t~sed that as a reason to force developers to come u.p .::;~'~te'r'n~Jt.J. ve access. And I'm not against this pla~. I think it's a ;;]:~n. T think they're using the land wisely. I think they've addressed <-~-'~::~ t-~..~no'Ff ¢.ssues to the best, say to the same level as other developers .~;:-.~ do'~ng. ~ don't think that we should, I think no~ is the ~ime to ..... ~ ... ].].eot monies to improve Lyman Blvd I really think it should be .'.? !;',. t" (.;, . i;i...~d t-.oget, her because ~t's not reasonable to put th~s house on there .:-:,'r; L.t:,'rnjn $.tvd. in it's current condition I don't think. Hi ldet-rntJ, t½' ~ut the adjacent property owners petitioned the Council t.o do -'- F: ~: ',h , then t.h~t will be addressed? If they don't petition the Council. t.o .:.~.3 that, it ~on't be addressed. '-':',-h.:sr'l:.: The City can proceed with this on their own. It doesn't requ.iwe a .:.:~r-.;tit..~ion. Correct me if I'm wrong. It doesn't require a petition of ,.-?; .- .., ~ ,_. :, o ¢1 i:,' . The City can initiate it. Yeah, ~e can initiate the feasibility study. ',.(r;~t.,ss:: Yeah. the City can but you know the City likes to kno~ that ~-,.':.-::i~:i'.'nb,:)rho,od honestly wants a road to be improved before we go to the .~3..',:,3.'.-:-~;'nse c,f figu. ring out how it's done. H'~ tci:.-:t-rnu, th: You. have all the adjacent property owners. ~;.'..~?-,,~:¥'t' BLJt. the neighborhood is the developer today. l:;-;.-~u:~:e: I think it would not be unreasonable to ask the developer to · ::';o;r~n'~iss~on the City to undertake that feasibility study in conjunction · !-.~,.::.~ p(.'::~.gh[~ors signing onto that but there are many instances where ~e hear th.st.. ;~:nd obviously we agree that there's a road improvement needed at some ~,c.:;nt .spd ~e do agree with that here but when the plans are actually d~:ve].oped for the road improvement, the neighborhood turns out and says thJ::t-.. ~;~: ,don't giant this and you know. It puts the city staff in an :¢~'~cc, mfort, able position of taking the lead on a project that's to benefit ~.3~~ .~ neighborhood. ~e'd like to kno~ that at least the neighborhood's b~;h~.nd us looking into that improvement. ::",,'-l'-,.at-t.' Thet-e is no neighborhood. The developer is the neighborhood ,:~-'.-. !",~-~ acce~s to the funds today. ;,:f.],d,-._,rmuth' The neighbors that we've heard from tonight. One of the t:hf:.n;i.~:: t.h~t we see, the more expense ~e tack on to a development like this ,. ~- ,...,,.¢.~,~l,3per, I think the lo,er quality, the lo,er caliber deve.~.oprne~.. :.;;- .~:~;t ~.n the end. If you look around town and look at the costs of land ::~,..~ ,Jc,:3ts of some of Lhese devetopmenbs, Z think ~e're diluting the ,.~.::~.ve~oper s efforts by tagging him ~h a ~ot of additiona~ expense~ Commission Meeting 3~ 1990 - Page 38 Yeah, Z understand that but some day someone's going to pay zc,~.'- :... ':..' r?, ~ '.~ 9].vd. improvement. Either you're going to go in. ~J;i~c.:;e-.'r-,mt..~t.h: That's rJ. gh~. The proper~y o~ners are going to pBy for it. ~.;;~ont n'ropBTty owlets. Ez'h,sr-t : And ¢he ~h~ng ~s ¢ha~ ¢ha¢ serves 75 }ots here and ~¢ you let. this in ~¢ithout doing bha~ ~oday, then you're never going ~o be able to ;~.?ot ¢'rc, rn 75 iota. You're going to go ~:~:on' Th, a%'s ho~...you have 75 more people who ~anb ~b and E].ison' Your comment before ~a~ the 75 ~]~ be more clout. ¢o get lo Ho~ many people ~snL ~ no~~ C¥',,.,;',-t. Me.].l that s not the issue. I'm just trying to get some th,.i¢~ hli. nut. es here Ray and ~e're not going to decide that here. So ,,o?;e are my comments. Is there any other discussion? ~mrn'Tn~s' Yeah. I have one other question. Bill, I think last time, · -'~.d'n't you engineer Timberwood? Didn't you present Timbe~Nood to Lis? Engelhardt: Timberwood Estates, yes. ¢ls;: I'm just ~ondering if you're going to come and help us Nhen ...... ~-,~ rs. ce a].]. those roi. ks in the hearings on the Comprehensive Plan. Engelhardt: As far as sewer goes~ ,~..;...,.~on: Developrnen~ a~ound i~. E~r~r~i.n.~:s' ~ ~hole bunch of o~he~ issues. ~ ~hfnk ~ha~ ~a~ Lhe ~ast time .~; you ~.~as on Timbe~ood and ~ kind o~ sca~e~ me ~hen ~ see you no~ F;nge~ha~d~: ~ ~ha~ ~ime ~here ~e~e no p]~n~ ~o~ anyt. h~ng a~ound ~Z~h,~.~t..' Okay, if there aren'~ any more commen~s, Z']l en&er~a&n a motion. L~nm~n~s: ~ m going bo move bha~ ~he Planning Commission recommend pYe].~minary Plat. ~90-~0 Tot Lake R~]ey H~]]s as sho~n on ~he plans :'~:.. ,r: o ,t .:? m ?', c;: ]- 4, 1990 with a variance to permit a 240 foot offset bet~een the ~'nte':-~;~;ction of South Road and Lyma~ Boulevard with the conditions as set. ,~ ~n t.h¢., s~_aff reporL changing bo ~5 so Lh8b ~e've go~ Lot ~ ~ 8]~ r-,,. -, ~:...nni. u.:.q CommiBs£on Nesting C,',,2'*o:.,er %:, 1990 - Page 39 ?;c~,:",in~:~ I~5 which will state that approval is conditioned upon compliance t,~:;th al.]. conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit. Adding a l?th c::~ 'it..ior~ that says that the applicant should look into the feasibi.].ity of t'.~.rr',"~, ].~ne~ and turn lanes should be added if the City staff feels that .~,_.'.~..;.~ ar:.i..~rc.~,':"iste and necessary for safety to get people in and out of that_ new 3~.;,.,,..,~.',.¢:;..:s~.on. Adding an 18th condition that ~ould say that Outlot ~ in ?)o<-:k 3 she].] be under o~nership o¢ adSoinin9 properties in some manner. ~.~o~.;e'...,,er t:.he developer ~ants to divide it up. ~dding a 19th condition - ~ns shall be dra~n and submitted to the staff for approval to get a berm .~:;~'~,:3.~ ?;crooning.. along Lyman Boulevard and between Block ~, Lot ~ and '~.~o,.... ...... .j ,-, · , ., '~ n I o c k 3 N~'{-;art' Is there a second? ~.,,.I ? .'.. ,:'-i<-.r rnu t.h: Second. An"/ discussion? U~:m{~s mcved, ~ildermuth seconded that the Plannin~ Commission recommend ~ppTova! of Preliminary Plat ~90-10 for Lake Riley Hills as shown on the dated September 4, 1990 ~ith a variance to permit a 240 foot offset ~stween the intersection of South ~oad and kyman 8oulevard ~ith the foiiowing conditions: "~ ,--,,~¢/~.se the preliminary plat to provide for the following: ,~. !..ct 5, 8lock 4 shall have a depth of at least 125 feet. !~.. L. ot 10, Block 1 shall have four sides. c. Lots ~.1 and 12, Block 1 shall have lot frontages of 90 feet. Lot 5, Block 4 shall have a lot depth of 125 feet. The ri. ght-of-~ay dimensions for North Road and West Road shall be 60 -Feet {n ~4idth and the right-of-way dimensions for the cul-de-sac shall be a 60 foot radius. The applicant shall grant a 60 foot wide '¢i8hi;.-of-way for Lyman Boulevard along the southern border of the plat and a 1.20 foot wide right-of-way along ~ake Riley Boulevard. The temporaYy cul-de-sacs on North Road shall be barricaded and signed · designating them to be temporary in lieu of future road extensions and w{i]. be provided with easements over the cul-de-sacs beyond the dedicated right-of-way. .3. '[!',e applicant, shall remove the gravel road bisecting the Class A tset~ --- . ..men,. Aond into 2 wetland areas coordinated with City staff, Depart Natu',~al Resources, Corps of Engineers and Fish and ~ildlife Service. r:. Final plat approval will not be granted until the applicant has subrn.{tted the letter of credit for the feasibility study to be pe'.,'-formed and not until tbs findings of the feasibility st;Jd¥ are ,~ ~,.'.~,~ and the City Council takes appropriate action to provide mupicipal ~,et. er..,e ® ~'vJ..ce, to the site. mmis:~ion Meetin~ 1990 - Page 40 T i~ ,:,e applicant, shall submit flow calculations for the sans~. :~y::..~t. em to verify pipe capacity and minimum score velocities through !:be .vee~,~er segments within the proposed subdivision. <. "he appJ. icant shall provide the following easements: a. Easement over the temporary cul-de-sacs. b. Saeements over all sanitary and storm sewer extensions. c. Easements over detention ponds. ,..~. .~t. andard drainage and utility easements. ~. Dedication of all right-of-ways. Tho applicant's engineer shall review the total capacity of the ponding !'-~s~ns needed to meet the predicted retaining requirements and ~.?mr.ification that the proposed ponding areas can be accessed for city !n~intenance. Provide existing drainage facility information to and f~om the site (specifically, the culvert under Lyman 8oulevard)~ The ~:torm drainage plan shall be modified to incorporate runoff from the ~,~e:~t. arly temporary cul-de-sac on North Road. t.,:':.ts.~ ..~0.-°5; Block 3 and Lot 4-8, Block 3 shall be provided wl,~h special :~.].ope stabilization methods such as wood fiber blankets and Type .:.~; erosion control. Type III erosion control shall be provided over entire area bordering the wetland and along the north side of North Road. bJood fiber blankets shall be required as slope stabilization for ::].i. of the rear lots bordering the wetland area and on all the areas ;,.~heY'e 1:he slopes are 3:1 or greater. Silt fence erosion control shall ,':.'.e J. nstalled around any and all proposed detention ponds on the pro.jeer ~.:~':nd the entire site shall be seeded and mulched immediately fotlo;~in.ci completion of the grading operation. The ¢~pplicant shall provide current planned right-of-way grade and ~,,~-.,J.~_.ion information for the future Trunk Highway 2~2 Improvements fo'..'-- ,,,..~ r-:egment of road~ay through this subdivision. Noise abatement measures such as earth berming shall be shown on the plan along the ~::~ 0 U !7. ]' . ~ern border of the Hwy 212 corridor. The applicant shall provide a tree removal plan with detailed i:~foYmation on the size and type of trees being removed and with a landscaped plan provided for the replacement of over 4 caliper inch being removed. ,',e applicant shall receive Natershed District, Pollution Control ..~,~.*nc'/....,.... . and Health Department and any other applicable agencies o: ;.) :":'? m ~ !" :~.. applicant s engineer shall make the necessary changes as out .... the plan sheets reviewed by the Asst. City Engineer dated Septembe¥' 1990 and submitted back to the applicant for the proper changes. T','-;.r:; ~¢ppJ. i. cant shall provide a registered engineer's report on soi].s... ~oot. in¢~s and structural design and certification of a registered ?:new, neet verifyin~ that the grading and drainage has been constructe~ .:.ccc:,:ding to the approved pla~s prior to the issuance of building ?.,.:..)r m i t.s. ap~,.Licant shall dedicate Lots 21-26 Block 3 for parkland and shall construct a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk alon.9 n boulevard area of North Road and along the eastern ,~Tea of ~est Road. The app).icant shall enter into a development contract with the city p'¢-o',..'ide the necessary financial securities associated with the pro .~.5~ Lot. ~.~ Block 5 shall be designated as an outlet and unbuildable. · .~..:i... ~,.f.:,proval is conditioned upon compliance with all conditions c,f the '~,,letl. a~-,,-.l ¢.~lteration Permit. a~pplicant should look into the feasibility of turn lanes and tur'n --hould be added if the City staff feels it's appropriate and for safety to get people in and out of that ne~4 subdivisio'n. ?,..~7:. out. lot A in Block 3 shall be under ownership of adjoining properties. ola'ns shall be drawn and submitted to the staff for approval to get. be~'-m and screening along Lyman Boulevard and between Block &, Lot i '..c','h3 ~ and 2 in Block 3. voted in favor except Tim Erhart ~ho opposed and the motion carried a vote of 4 to 1. ~*.";--!'~,;';.:.~--I~.' T oppose it on the basis that I don't believe that even thou._qh ' :~.,.; the plan, I don't believe that we've done adequate assura,~ce~¢ that .:;.:.?--',..,~ccs, both, the transportation and sewer are adequate to see this ¢!'~'~;~'~.q.s: I'd like to ask a question to follow up on what he just said. ~,.ie'r.? doin..q a preliminary plat here. Before this is a done deal you've Sot ~:~-~ -?,.:~a:-sib.i.].ity study to do and you've got to do, there has to be final plat .~}i.:~:.~-oval also by the City Council and now if deficiencies were found in -7- .~ ;~. :;.-:... i b ~..1. ~ t y study. They would be addressed prior to final plat approval. there's another plat of this. 3ust want to be sure ,-,~.,.../, now we have to deal with the wetland alteration permit ~-:~-:re ~¢ny discussion on that from the Planning Commission membersm tf not '..,.,.?:...,.'ic] Gomeone make a motion to deal with the wetland alteration? ',:;i3..cls;--rnuth: I'll. move that the Planning Commission recommend approval, of the L,J~tl~,~,d Alteration Permit for Lake Riley Hills Subdivision as shown ~3!..~3~:~ c!~.ted September 4, 1990 with the following conditions 1 thru 3 .~-ddin9 condition 4. Steve, what were those words? Ei~':~}i,-,.:~s:.... It would just be conditioned upon compliance ~;ith all conditi~.'-. o!: '::.h~:~ pYeliminary plat approval. ~-..~. J.,:Se}-muth Those words. Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 42 Erhart: Okay, is there a second? Ellson: Second. Wildermuth moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit for Lake Riley Hills Subdivision as shown on plans dated September 4, 1990 with the following conditions: The applicant shall provide a drainage, utility and a conservation easement over Outlot C and the proposed ponding areas and the 866 contour shall be the edge of the protected wetland. 2. Any surveys for lots adjacent to the Class A wetland will provide the 866 elevation with verification that the home and any further improvements such as porches or decks will maintain the 75 foot setback from the 866 contour. 3. A development contract will be recorded against the property and will protect both the Class A wetland and the ponding areas adjacent to the wetland with a conservation easement and not allow any alteration to these areas. 4. This approval is conditioned upon compliance with all conditions of Preliminary Plat ~90-10. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A 4,260 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE EXISTIN6 BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP AND LOCATED AT 7870 PARK DRIVE, INDUSTRIAL INFORMATION CONTROLS. Sharmin Al-Jarl presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chairman Erhart called the public hearing to order. Erhart: Is the developer here, the building owner? Okay, do you have all the conditions? Have you seen all the conditions? Tom Ryan: Can I speak to a couple of them? Erhart: Alright. Go ahead. Tom Ryan: My name is Tom Ryan and I represent R.J. Ryan Construction, the general contractor for the building. There's two issues that we'd like to, a couple issues we'd like to address. The first regards the drainage problem which exists with the neighbor to the north. We feel it's important that we go on record as stating that Industrial Information Controls and R.3. Ryan Construction did not cause the drainage problem which exists. The drainage problem which exists is a result of the failure of the previous engineering staff of the City of Chanhassen as well as the contractor for the Component Engineering building which allowed the water to run up against our property. In the interest of solving the problem we agreed with Component Engineering and the City staff that's presently in place that because we have a lot of excess material, we would provide the Planning Commission Heeting October 3, 1990 - Page 43 grading and construct a berm on the Component Engineering site but the Component Engineering people would be responsible for the restoration of the sod which is really the major portion of the cost involved here. We }nave about 2 hours worth of work but there's a couple thousand dollars worth of sod that's going to be replaced. The last issue under this item is, we really question the need to retain an attorney to grant an easement to us to do what amounts to 2 hours worth of work when we would hope that a simple letter from Mr. Ganz, the owner of Component Engineering would suffice and I'm sure he would give us a letter that says yes we have permission to do the grading. The grading will be done with his agreement. Erhart: That's it? Tom Ryan: That's all I've got. The owner has a couple more issues he'd like to speak to. Erbar}: Why don't you go ahead. Tim Raschlager: Hi, my name is Tim Raschlager and I represent lC Incorporated. I'm one of the three owners of lC Incorporated. First of all I want to thank the people who represent the city for coming out to the site. I think there was more than one visit by several. It's nice to see they go out and see firsthand what's involved with our application. This application started as a bigger addition which has been scaled down, probably more to do with business conditions than anything and our need to improve our facility for our current number of employees. Some minor issues that surfaced are I think the problems with the dumpsters. I've kind of got into a big ordeal about dumpsters here. Not what I want to spend my time on but I kind of got into this whole ordeal because we were trying to do some recycling. We work with a lot of cardboard as a lot of industries do and I found that the area doesn't have, at least from what I could determine from the people that handle our trash, there seems to not be a real comprehensive plan for how to handle the trash. The best way to handle the trash ended up to sort it by us and place it in different dumpsters. In other words, to eliminate all the landfill on the cardboard which is probably at least 50~ of our waste, it required an addition of a second dumpster on the site. As I spoke with them with a longer range plan of what they think will be required for a manufacturing site like ours will even include more separation of material and may include a third or fourth kind of container so I think there's not a good plan maybe for looking forward for in general dumpster problems on industrial sites recognizing the need for more containers and how to hide them and all those kind of things. In addition, I don't know quite honestly, never noticed this either but there's all kinds of different dumps}er designs. One backs the truck up and pulls it on and another one takes it from the side and no matter how you try to package this dumpster, if you change either the company you do your trash with which we recently did, or have to change the size of your dumpster, whatever plan you had doesn't work anymore so it really makes it difficult to figure this out. However, on page 2 in several places it references our loading dock which it states that it's completely screened and off site from appearance from the highway. We have currently put our dumpster and now dumpsters in that same area which is non-visible from the highway. It turned out that the design of our building and the way we hid the loading docks works well for this plan so we would like to take exception to building some kind of a permanent Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 44 structure as it indicates in here which we're not quite clear where we'd build it and what we'd do with it and what we're hiding. Other than that I think all of the other areas are addressed appropriately. I'm amazed at the complexity for the addition size we're making here but I think we meet all this other criteria as far as I know. The landscaping issue, given the linear footage that we're going into amounts to 2 or 3 trees. I'm not clear being a good resident of Chanhassen and pollin~ many of it's staff, why we're required to put up what appears to be some kind of proof of planting 3 trees. It's almost kind of an insult to a sense I think here and our hope with this addition is to improve our, I think the people that came over recognized our problems is to improve our working conditions and we would like to improve our site in general. We're having to store things outside that should not be outside right now. We need more area in our manufacturing. Thank you. Erhart: Thanks Tim. Before this gets too far away, why don't we address the issues brought up before we get any other people up here. Number one was this drainage thing. Krauss: The drainage thing being the letter instead of the filing? Erhart: Yeah. Is there any problem with that? Krauss: I guess there isn't. I mean we want to know that the adjoining property owner has agreed to the alteration of their property because we're approving a grading plan that requires alteration of somebody else's land and we don't have the authority to do that unless that property owner agrees. Emmings: But you don't need an easement? You can get a license and the property owner over there can grant a license by simply writing a letter. Krauss: I would concur. As long as we have some verification, I'd be willing to accept an alternative so I think we can resolve that. As to the garbage dumpster, I had never realized that it was as complex an issue as it appears to be. Nobody's raised that before. You tend to build those things oversized. It's a requirement that I think staff feels very strongly about. There are also parcels southwest of this property that remain undeveloped. The back area may not always be invisible. Got a lot of tree cover right now. The city always has required dumpster enclosures and I think where we don't have them, problems occur in the long term. Erhart: But your statement here is that, are you saying that has to be not visible from any direction? Krauss: No, it's got to be in an enclosure. I mean the enclosure can be visible. Erhart: Yeah I know but how does a guy, he's got to come in from some direction with the truck. Krauss: Yeah, you put masonry on three sides and you gate the fourth. Erhart: Do we do that consistently? Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 45 Emmings: We've never approved buildings without them. Ever. That I know of. Krauss: I know in the time I've been here we haven't. Erhart: Okay, does the building currently have that? Krauss: I don't believe so. There's dumpsters, at least one out back. Erhart: Okay, and when was the building construction completed? Krauss: 3 years ago? Erhart: So apparently we approved it at that time without. Emmings: Nell 9o back and look. Did we? Maybe we should check. Maybe they just didn't build it. Erhart: Well I think Tim's got a real problem. We're looking at the same thing on, our building is adding another dumpster to separate trash but we're fortunate to have a U shaped building so everything is, well it's invisible from 3 sides but not 4. I don't know that that's really, I guess I don't know. Al, what's your situation there? Is everything enclosed in your, from all sides? A1 Iverson: On 3 sides but not on 4 and I can't say that... 3 sides but not 4. Tim Raschlager: We are invisible right now on 3 sides. The problem with a gate, do you ever notice what happens to those things after one season? They look more rickety than the dumpster does. Quite honestly I'd be happy if all the dumpsters in the community were painted the same color but I can't get the trash people to paint their dumpsters but I don't know if you block them from 3 sides, can the trucks come and access it? And the large trucks with big forks on it, I don't know where you'd open the gate to if you've got the big... Krauss: That's fine as long as the open side faces the interior which it does on the PMT site. I mean it faces, as I recall, the rear of the building. As to the letter of credit, concern about letter of credit with landscaping, that's a requirement for any developer in the city. That's not a matter of trust. It's a matter of contract and it's a standard requirement. Erhart: Thanks. Is there any other public input on the proposed development? Okay, if not is there a motion to close the public hearing? Ahrens moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. AIl voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart: Let's see. Steve, why don't we start with you. Emmings: I essentially concur with the staff report. I didn't see any reason not to take into account, but if there's some other way to do the trash storage it makes more sense than what's here. If it's okay with the Planning Commission Heeting October 3, 1990 - Page 46 staff, it's okay with me so you can wrestle with them as far as I'm concerned before it gets to the City Council and if you come up with some kind of a plan that suits them, I wouldn't be opposed to it. Then my only other comment I guess I've already made on number 5. You don't need an easement. You don't need to do anything very formal. I think a letter from those other people setting forth a time period during which you have the right to go on their property and what the purpose of going on the property is and when it expires. A lot of meet the purposes will act as a license to allow you to do that and should address Paul's concerns. That's all I've got. Ellson: You know I suppose this trash thing, I guess everybody else didn't think it was such a big deal but it is something that I've 3ust automatically see that we do add I've never seen a problem with it. I guess I don't remember if it was 3 sides and a gate or exactly how it's been done but I guess from a consistency standpoint I'm not opposed to Steve's ideas of trying to work it out but maybe we should relook at it consistently then as to how we state it or something like that versus give one an exception because they brought it up and then make it a boiler plate for everybody else but in general I go along with all the recommendations. Emmings: The Code, Section 20-912 for the IOP area states that there will be, I'm quoting now, "no exterior storage of trash or garbage is permissible except in an accessory building enclosed by walls and roof or enclosed containers within a totally screened area." That's what our ordinance says for that section of town. It's pretty clear. Erhart: 3im? Wildermuth: I'm glad to see industry in Chanhassen is building so well they can warrant an expansion. I support the staff recommendation. Ahrens: I support the staff recommendation also although it's very difficult for me to recommend that someone doesn't need a lawyer to draft a very difficult easement agreement...but I'll go along with staff recommendation. Emmings: Food out of our mouths. Ahrens: That's right. Erhart: I think it's important to be consistent on this trash enclosure. If screening is using gates, I adamantly oppose putting that requirement on people. I mean a truck hits the gate, the gate's bent and that's it. Ellson: It doesn't really say in what way. Erhart: Well, how do you screen 4 sides without... Krauss: I think you really have to take the site into account. A dumpster enclosure that appeared in what was not the approved location on the Country Hospitality Suites Hotel. It sticks out like a sore thumb on Harket Blvd.. Ultimately we had to agree with it in that location but it's going to be gated on the front because it's visible from our main street and we're having them cut it down and reside it so it matches the building Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 47 but that's an example of when you'd want it. Erhart: Okay. Two, I agree with Steve there that we could use a licensing and last, I think on this landscape we're talking about how many trees, 4? A1-3aff: It's 1 every 40 feet. Me won't hold them to 1 every 40 feet if they could show us a landscaping plan that... Erhart: Okay, well. The issues in my mind, if staff found some other way to guarantee in minimal really small landscaping 3ob. There's some alternative that the developer could propose to guarantee that it's going to get done, you know we could take a look at that but other than that I think the staff report's adequate. In fact it kind of makes me feel good that this building isn't going and someone else is having a little downturn in their business too. So with that, is there any other comments? Tim Raschlager: If we're required to do something with this dumpster problem, how is it determined...what kind of material do we do this with and, I'm going to bring up an example. Across the street from us there's a site which has their's inside and there's a...and all kinds of things associated with boat storage. That site looks far more unsightly in terms of...in terms of structure and the nature of the... Erhart: I think where we're going Tim is the staff will take our comments and essentially work with you to come up with something before it goes to City Council· Mould you agree with that Sharmin or Paul? Yeah. Anything else? Do we have a motion? Tom Ryan: If it's of any value, we would be glad to do the landscaping prior to the· · · Erhart: That's sort of what I had in mind. Okay, is there a motion? Wildermuth: I'll move the Planning Commission recommends approval for the Site Plan Review ~87-9 as shown on the plan dated September 4, 1990 with the following conditions 1 thru 6 with 5 being changed to wording to the effect that the applicant will collaborate, cooperate with the adjacent property owner to the north to resolve the drainage issue. Erhart: Is there a second? Emmings: I'll second it for discussion. Jim, let me ask you on 5. I'm not sure I exactly understand how you're changing 5. Mildermuth: Yell what we're saying there is that it doesn't have to be legal access granted. They can cooperate together or collaborate and perform whatever grading has to be done. Ahrens: Maybe just change that one sentence to read, where it says the applicant shall document? That he has obtained approval from the adjoinging property owner to the north to perform grading operations. Mildermuth: That sounds good. Take the legal access business out of there. Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 48 Ahrens: Is that okay with you? Emmings.' Yeah. No, I think they should do something to show the City that they've got some kind of a written agreement but I don't care what form it is. A letter's good enough. Wildermuth: The attorney in you is coming through. Erhart: So are we talking an amendment here? Emmings: No, as long as I understand that's what he's doing. Wildermuth moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #87-9 as shown on the plan dated September 4, 1990 and sub3ect to the following conditions: 1. provision of trash storage enclosure for all outside trash storage. The enclosure is to be made of masonry compatible with the primary structure. 2. Designated handicapped parking shall be shown on the plans. Provide proof of parking plans for 8 stalls for staff approval. These stalls shall be installed upon request by the City after there is evidence of a parking shortfall. 3. Provide additional landscaping on the north portion of the site and all disturbed areas shall be seeded and an erosion control blanket installed until vegetation is re-established. Financial guarantees for landscaping shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of a building permit. Also, provide Type III erosion control around all disturbed areas of the site, especially along the creek. 4. The applicant must demonstrate that there is no more than .5 foot candles of light from fixtures at the property line. 5. The applicant shall work with city staff and the adjoining property owner to the north to resolve the current drainage problem. The owner of Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 4th Addition shall grant the owner of Lot 1, Block' l, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 4th Addition a temporary grading easement to allow the owner of Lot 1 to do the required grading. The applicant shall obtain approval from the adjoining property to the north to perform grading operations to resolve the drainage problem to the satisfaction of the City and Engineering Components, Inc.. Also, the applicant shall provide the required security to guarantee the erosion control, grading and restoration operations. The dock area drainage problem must be corrected. Additional pavement areas may need to be removed and replaced in order to allow proper drainage from the loading dock and concrete pad area. 6. The applicant shall submit plans to the Watershed district for review and obtain a permit if necessary. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 49 PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTIONS 20-714 AND 20-814, CONDITIONAL USES IN THE 8H AND IOP DISTRICTS TO ALLOW AND CREATE STANDARDS FOR VEHICLE INSPECTION STATIONS IN THESE DISTRICTS. AND, JERRY PERKINS OF POPE ASSOCIATES, PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF PARK ROAD AND PARK PLACE: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A VEHICLE INSPECTION STATION; B. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 3, BLOCK l, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 5TH ADDITION INTO TWO LOTS. Public Present: Name Address ...................................................... ~,. Jerry Perkins Dennis Palmer John Uban Walter Rockenstein Alan Klugman Dave BrasIau Stanley J. Krzywicki A11verson Sue Krienke Hugh YeaGer Dick Hellstrom Dave Kelso Barb 3ackson Tim Raschlager Gary Welch 1360 Energy Park Drive 5275 Edina Industrial Blvd. Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban Attorney for Systems Control Traffic Engineer 1313 5th St. S.E., Suite 322, Hpls, 55404 5275 Edina Industrial Blvd. PMT, 1500 Park Road 1500 Park Road 320 W. 76th Street, ~201, Edina, MN 55435 1500 Park Road Pollution Control Agency Pollution Control Agency Industrial Information Controls Industrial Information Controls Paul Krauss presented the staff report. Vice Chairman Erhart called the public hearing to order. Emmings: If you're still Gathering information, are you asking us to act on this tonight or to table it again until that information comes in? Krauss: The only information which we are in the process of attempting to gather is we spoke, the Mayor spoke to us this morning and suggested that we contact ad3oining property owners. What we propose to do is bring that information to the City Council meeting if you act on this proposal tonight. Erhart: Okay, what I'd like to do is open this up to the public input and to deal only with the first item which is the zoning ordinance amendment at this point. And that is the amendment that would allow a vehicle inspection station in the 8H and IOP district. What I'm trying to do is not get specifics related to this site plan initially until we have an opportunity to, well let's Give it a shot. I think we can get more sense done. So with that, would someone have some comments about the ordinance change? Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 50 Dennis Palmer: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Dennis Palmer. I'm general manager with Systems Control. Thank you for the opportunity to come here and speak before you. Erhart". Excuse me. You're general manager of which company? Dennis Palmer: Systems Control. Systems Control is the private contractor contracted by the State of Minnesota to conduct the emission testing program here in Minnesota. The location here in Chanhassen is one of 11 sites selected for the program. We're here to support the staff's recommendation to allow emission testing stations, vehicle inspection stations in an IOP district as a conditional use. I have with me this evening a number of people to address just about all your concerns regarding the use and traffic and such. We have with us John Uban from Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban to talk a little bit about the use and I guess I'll reserve my comments for 5 shortly after that. Erhart: Okay, thanks· 3ohn Uban: I'm 3ohn Uban. I'm a consulting land planner and they've asked, we've looked at the particular ordinance, the condition of the area and we have looked at the industrial park and we have found that when looking at an ordinance that I think you should really decide where is the best place and not have it go into two. And as we look at both business uses and industrial uses, we see that this testing facility in our opinion really falls better into an industrial type use. For instance, in Plymouth the State has similar facilities that they use to test drivers to get driver's licenses and it's off Fernbrook. It's in an industrial area and normal industrial growth has happened around that facility. It tests people. It tests cars. It tests people for driver's licenses. This facility as proposed also tests and that is basically an industrial type use. Industrial type activity. They don't come and pay money. It is a fee that's covered in their normal licensing applications and so there is no commerce in the sense of people buying things. Buying services. Transactions with money· That kind of activity normally would happen in a commercial zone where you do have people buying things and it's that kind of activity, that kind of commerce that this particular use usually does not fit in with and it's commonality is best with industrial type uses. And so to try and encourage it into an area that is better suited for businesses or is more attractive for businesses I don't think is wise. And the other thing that the areas along TH 5 have in the business zones is visibility and that is a very important attribute that property has that makes it valuable and very attractive for businesses, especially those areas close to the downtown area of Chanhassen and I think you want to strengthen downtown, strengthen your business zones by having uses t-hat have common interests and business uses that have commerce as that base would be better suited along TH 5 with visibility. And so I think this type of use of testing automobiles is better suited in an industrial area. Industrial areas can handle the minimum amount of extra traffic this may create. It is built that way. The facility is very attractive so it meets all the aesthetic concerns and it's peak traffic for instance, the peaking of traffic in industrial areas in the morning and evening where you have traffic problems that may occur, this facility does not peak at those particular times. And so I think it works very well and is complimentary in that fashion. The other thing that we looked at and we had an appraiser Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 51 look at the impact on property values if such a facility were to go into an industrial area. Their review found that there was no adverse impact to surrounding properties when this is located in an industrial park and so we feel that allowing this use, either permitted or conditional use, in an industrial park is the appropriate approach. Thank you. Emmings: Hay I ask a question? Did you provide a copy o¢ your appraiser's report to the city? 3ohn Uban: That, we have a summary which will be provided tomorrow. We just did not have a copy that had been finally prepared for tonight but that will be for them tomorrow. Erhart: Thanks 3ohn. Anybody else? Is there anybody opposing the ordinance changes? Sue Krienke: My name is Sue Krienke and I'm the Office Manager for PMT Corporation and I have some, what I feel are very legitimate concerns about the location of the station. At the current time we are having 6 to 10 people per week coming in and asking directions. Now not directions to the station. Directions to other businesses in the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. In the 3onathan park. Chanhassen. All over the surrounding area. Okay? So even with the signs that will be provided, I still see that these people stopping in and asking directions will at least double if not triple. I mean you're even talking where's the McDonald's. You know we're going to get that type of question. We'll also be getting people stopping in asking to use the phone and the restroom facilities and again, I don't feel like PMT or the people who work with me should have to deal with that. I would think that a much better location for the station would be on a major highway where people can find it right away. I feel almost like PHT is being penalized, we'll be penalized for being next to the station. Also at the present time, the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park is a clean industrial park. If you drive up and down Park Road on an average day you'll see numbers of employees from PM/, Empak and other places down the road where the employees are sitting outside having breaks, walking up and down the road enjoying the nice weather and getting some exercise. With these cars traveling up and down the-road, will the walking be possible? You know it's a nice quiet pleasant atmosphere now to get away from your work station. What will it be like with the cars and the traffic out there? Thank you. Erhart: Thank you. Anybody else? Again, I just want to emphasize that we're discussing now is the ordinance change that if this is passes, essentially it'd be very difficult not to allow this use in an industrial park or the BH district so anybody who opposes it, please speak. Dick Hellstrom: My name's Dick Hellstrom. I'm a consultant for facilities, planning and construction. Right now one of my clients is PMT Corporation. I was retained by them to help plan and build 50,000 square foot addition to their existing 25,000 square foot facility. The concern I'd bring up is whether it's PMT Corporation or another industrial office park type of client in the Chanhassen Business Park or another IOP, they've got a great deal of investment in their land already. Their specials and in case of PMT, the ownership of the property. Use of, in my opinion, non- compatible type operation is going to cause his property value to go down. Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 52 I would think there would be good potential for it. I don't think I could guarantee it's going to go down. I don't think opposing people that want to put that non-compatible use in there can guarantee that it's not going to go down. He also, or PMT in this case has very expensive property. Not only are they impinged on the west by the inspection station, they'll be impacted on the north because he's got even a larger lot and the two facilities, the 25,000 and the 50,000. The potential to develop office industrial operation on that lot is going to be impacted negatively in my opinion. Not only if he owns to use or to staff it with his own operation or builds to lease. It would seem to me that there's a big potential for a negative use of that property that he might not even be able to build what he wants to build because he won't be able to find a clientele or be able to lease the property to, whether it's manufacturing, whether it's office, whether it's warehouse type operations. I don't think staff has adequately explored the negatives of what one of these stations has done to an existing industrial office park. They said they have plans of contacting some of the people but they brought up nobody yet. Nobody else that we can contact and say is it really true. Is it really have a very minimal impact? They've only talked to city people and all the city people are probably concerned with is maybe an additional tax base or something of this nature. Not the negative impact on the existing businesses. That's all I really wanted to bring up. Thank you. Erhart: Thanks Dave. The survey we did was on talking to other cities about problems? Krauss: It was other units of government, yeah. Erhart: Do we have plans to contact surrounding businesses or did we talk to any? Ellson: Before the Council. Erhart: You were going to do that for the Council? Krauss: Yeah. The Mayor spoke to us about that this morning. It was a good suggestion and we'll follow up on that. Erhart: Tim, this is, we're struggling with this one. You guys own a building in this park. Do you have any feelings? Tim Rashchlager: We're neighbors with Roman and he has of course a facility also there. I think probably the impact... I really think two points that are well taken that need to be strongly considered. We already have a real problem with the road...and the number of people coming in our front door and asking directions. It's a real disruption to normal business every day there. The second impact...we've had two employees have serious accidents in the last 6 months. Both cars totaled. The problem was traffic on those corners there. And without doing the proper directional signals at the corner where you enter the park there and down by...and even potentially down as far as the miniature golf course on TH 5. Those three corners already can't tolerate the current traffic and any amount on...would be suicidal. In fact I will strongly guess that you're going to have a fatality on one of those three corners in the next I2 months. Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 53 Erhart: Thanks. That was Tim Raschlager from IIC. Okay. Anybody else on the issue of the ordinance change? Al? A11verson: Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, my name is A1 Iverson and I'm the President of the PMT Corporation. I appreciate the time that you put into this. I'm a manufacturer and I'm not totally familiar with all of the things that take place and I guess that each man is really right in their own eyes. We came to the IOP looking for an environment to grow. Our company has been growing very, very rapidly. Me manufacture medical surgical products. Me have 100 employees. I expect to add 50 in 1991 minimum. You've listened to a number of people and we believe the IOP should not be rezoned to allow this. I~ve witnessed what Ms. Krienke goes through. Mr. Hellstrom who is assisting us in the development of what we'd like is four total buildings which actually would surround, almost surround the inspection site, and I do anticipate to build it for our use and there's a possibility to build it for, I know right now we have about a 20~ office vacancy rate but I don't expect that to last long with our growth in Chanhassen and I anticipate there might be an opportunity for additional office building to lease out to professional tenants. I don't think this is going to help me bring in any professional tenants because there's a nice pond there. We're going to anticipate, the DNR wants us to leave it. We wanted to leave it anyway. That is directly behind there. A pond where some of the employees can go out. A pond, a nice site. It's a nice amenity. It's a natural site so we feel we could build around it and add to the IOP the way it should be. And so we came here with the philosophy of it being truly an industrial office park and I think the word park is really something that we should seriously consider that employees deserve. We don't have sweat shops. We have good breaks that we pay for. They have lunch times. They like to walk. They like to get out. Me'ye added a new lunch space with more window. More plaza. More exposure. Me have all air conditioned facilities. We try to do the best we can. It's a small to medium company. They do like to get out and about and this is not conducive to that at all and I would be going against my philosophy and not doing my part in not opposing this strongly. Mr. Uban, the consultant stated this item. This training center in plymouth is actually a very short distance off of a well driven road. This is not. I think that unit in Plymouth is not a good example. We see and you've heard about the disruptions. I've rethought about the corner areas myself and I think it would become more of a dangerous, serious situation and I just don't think this is the site. I appreciate all your time and I must state that this is just not the site nor within the true philosophy that brought us out here. We've very satisfied by the way with coming out here. We've got a tremendous group of people. We draw from as far away as Hontgomery and Hamburg. It's a little bit harder getting people out here but it's getting better and we have a lot of openings in everything from assembly to engineering but this is not going to be conducive to our growth and our future expansion plans for additional office buildings and I think these are more in line with the office park. Thank you. Erhart: Thanks Al. Hugh Jaeger: Mr. Chairman and the Planning Commission, I'm Hugh 3aeger, attorney from Edina. I represent PMT Corporation. I also reporesent Empak Corporation. A1 asked me to come out tonight and chat and there are a Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 54 number of areas I can dwell on but it's getting late and I'm sure all of you would like to get home as I will so I'll make it short and sweet. AL is concerned about the IOP designation itself if the area is rezoned to a conditional use or another type of use. What will it lead to next? If you open the door to this type of use, you can be assured that other people will be knocking on the door. I was asking A1 some of the other exceptions I thought people could come along with and I'll just cut it short there. I look at the IOP which the Chanhassen area has as a clean technology industrial park. Everyone who is there is quite clean. There is light manufacturing going on. High technology. A number of sophisticated groups of people lead to our quality of life as our governor speaks about. I called the city employees this past week, or the first part of this week and chatted with them and suggested to them I thought there were a lot of other areas this type of a station could be placed next to. My first thought I had was next door to city hall itself. I thought that would be an ideal place since people could take care of their city business here as well as anything else they have to do. Possibly along TH 5. Maybe somewhere inbetween Chanhassen and Eden Prairie itself along TH 5. I was politely told that they really felt that the lots along TH 5 were more for commercial business use. I look at the problems of coming in, not only the zoning problems itself but that the property values will be going down. I asked the city employee if they had ever been to a vehicle testing station themselves. I guess they had not they really said. My parents reside in Delaware and they have a number of vehicle inspection stations there. I know that when my dad and I take our car down, we like to be first ones down and at 8:00 they will have anywhere from 20 to 100 cars lined up. I was looking at the summary here, but I'm talking massive lines of cars. I don't think this is really what the IOP was planned for. The clean technology look of looking at people coming and going out. I checked with some of the other residents on Audubon Road. They were talking about the traffic congestion and some of the other problems and the lack of stop lights on TH 5. I personally know one person, myself on TH 5 who was in a serious accident there a couple of years ago and I would hate to see a large pile of bodies form. The highway itself I think is congested at this point and it just can't handle this type of traffic going through an industrial park. I think between 8:00 in the morning and 5:00 at night, between the trucks that do egress and ingress in and out of the park, there is enough traffic going in and out right now that you don't need to significantly add to it. Something I've found was interesting myself is that the people said they're going to be submitting a summary tomorrow. I thought it would have been more timely to have submitted a summary in advance so everyone could inspect the documents along the way. I'll go ahead and not dwell on the legal issues tonight but I fell it's a Pandora's Box. You rezone one parcel in the IOn, what's it going to do to the other parcels along the way and you really have, what they're asking for is potential change of the whole characterization of the IOP and what will that do to the property values along the way and when the IOP was established was that really the true intent of the zoning of the Ion. I don't really think it was if you look at the existing buildings going up. It's devoted to clean technology, not vehicle repair stations. Even though this is not going to be a vehicle repair station, it's going to be vehicle testing but vehicle testing means vehicles coming and parking. LiMes. People and all of the other sundry things that go on. With all due respect to our city employees who have checked with other vehicle testing stations in other surrounding communities, I think if you go off to the PI. arming Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 55 east coast and look at vehicle inspection stations there, especially those run by the State, even though they're not run by private contractors, it's a very much more different story than I've seen protrayed myself and I just see that that would do nothing but devalue the property here and I don't think the intent is there. I'll skip a lot of my other arguments for a later time or reserve those for submission at a later time. I'm sure we all want to get home. Thank you. Erhart: Thanks Hugh. Anybody else? Walter Rockenstein: Mr. Chairman my name is Walter Rockenstein. I'm an attorney representing Systems Control and I'd like to respond to a few of the points that have been made and try to confine myself to the issue of the zoning ordinance and the change that's being proposed. I guess I'll work backwards. First of all a few of Mr. Jaeger's comments as rapidly as I can. His reference to the long lines and problems with testing stations in the east where I went to law school and lived for a number of years, almost uniformily those testing stations are safety testing stations and are State run. They are not emissions testing stations only. That's a very different process. A much longer process to go through the safety test than it is here. The time to do one here is 2 minutes on the average to handle one of these. In terms of whether it's a clean technology, the building basically has two types of equipment. Computers, which read the exhaust and dynanometers for making sure that those cars that fail the test the first time are warmed up properly to take the test the second time and if they fail it the second time, they have to go get the car fixed someplace else. Not on the site. There's no vehicle repair done on the site. As to the issue of cleanliness and noise, we have provided you with studies by Dr. Braslau who does this regularly. He has provided you with, specifically with noise contours based on the State Noise Codes which show that the noise contours permitted in this type of zone do not reach outside the property lines of this property. He's also provided you specifically with information on the impact on air quality. Not on the site but actually on the PMT site which shows that those levels are far below the State standards. The State standards are a health based standard based on the impact on people who are susceptible to carbon monoxide pollution so we are talking about a facility which is technologically quite advanced and quite clean. When we get to the specific site issues, our traffic engineer will be happy to discuss the traffic flows, the capacity of the streets in the area and I think he will demonstrate that the streets do have the capacity to take the traffic and we will avoid the problem of people looking for it by signage. Frankly I drove out here tonight. I've never been in that industrial park. I drove out in the dark. I did not have my map in front of me. I knew only the names of the streets and I hit the testing station on the first try in the dark. It is not a particularly difficult place to find. You come down TH 5 from the east, you go down CR 17 and across park and you're there at the testing station. If that is supplemented by clear signage on the State Route and on the County Route, it should be a fairly easy place to reach coming from either the east or the west. Our appraisal which we will provide the full report. We simply couldn't get it assembled for tonight's meeting. We'll provide the full report to the City tomorrow. Our appraiser reviewed this carefully in terms of other comparable uses that vehicle testing stations, license testing stations and he determined that there would not be an adverse impact on property values for making this kind of change to the zoning. In PLanning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 56 short we disagree with the points raised by Mr. Jaeger and Mr. Iverson. We believe this can be a good neighbor and we have provided for you information which is in your packet I believe from other, both from Illinois and Maryland which indicates that around those testing stations there has been a continued growth of industrial districts where they're located in industrial districts. In office district districts where they're located in office districts and indeed where they're located adjacent to residences, there's even been increase in the amount of residential development around these testing stations. Mr. Krzywicki just told me that in fact one of their ones in Illinois is located on a small lake immediately across from a professional building and there's not been an adverse impact on the professional building so we do not agree with the characterization of this as something that's going to have an adverse impact on the ability to develop the surrounding land and we think Hr. Uban made that clear in his presentation. We will be more specific about the site plan when that comes up. Thank you. Erhart: Okay, thanks Hq. Rockenstein. Anybody else? Sue Krienke: I'd like to comment...regarding the signs. We're not so much concerned that people are going to have trouble finding the station. The roads are going to be well marked like you said but what about what other things are they going to be looking for while they're in there? How many times are they going to knock on our door looking for McDonald's or downtown Chanhassen or use the telephone or use the restroom facilities? Erhart: Thank you. Anybody else? Stan Krzywicki: May I comment to that? Since we are, my name is Stan Krzywicki. I'm the implementation manager. Since we're going to be a State run operation fully signed with an information office, you're not going to be getting those calls, we will. We're going to have a phone. We're going to have a public restroom there so the people that have been coming off the street will be more likely to come to our facility than. Sue Krienke: One phone and one restroom can handle how many people? Erhart: Okay that's, I think we'll discuss that here if we've got any more questions on it but I guess a procedural discussion here. I guess my point here was to essentially leave open the public hearing for the ordinance change and I guess what I was thinking of doing is closing that and discussing that and I guess passing on that before we proceed to the site plan or to the conditional use permit. Is that the way you see it Paul or the other commissioners? Is there a reason to go ahead and treat them all in lump? Emmings: I have a feeling we can do it either way and it doesn't matter but I think we'd probably save some time if we got comments on everything because I think we've probably heard just about everything. Erhart: Alright. Is there any other comment then on the conditional use and the specific site plan that we're looking at? Gary Welch: I'm Gary Welch. I'm Tim's partner. I run IIC. In one of the gentleman's comments he was saying that it would take 2 minutes to check PLanning Commission Heeling October 3, 1990 - Page 57 our car. Is the traffic then 1 car every 2 minutes going down the road? Zs that a correct assumption? At least? Z mean you know that would be no back-up right? Erhart: If I remember the report right it was 800 cars a day. Ellson: 400. Krauss: They have their traffic consultant here who I think would respond to that. Dennis Palmer: Can Z address that? Erhart: Sure. Dennis Palmer: Each lane is capable of testing an average of that's the capacity of the station... Number of vehicles will be somewhat less than that. We build our stations to exceed the capacity. This particular station is over 250~ capacity of the average daily volume so there won't be that much so we can service cars as they come in. Gary Welch: I guess my comment would be that I kind of agree with the people from PMT that the industrial park is a nice, relatively quiet park. I was just in here on zoning on our building and I have to say that Chanhassen as a whole has done a real good job on making the industrial park look good and if you go around to the other surrounding communities, and compare them, you'll see that Chanhassen Lakes is probably one of the best looking and well planned industrial parks in the area. To put a car every 2 minutes on all the roads I think would greatly diminish the industrial park. Nhy everyone is out there. It is kind of a nice location to go to work to. There's ponds. There's trees and I don't think that amount of traffic, I mean why would you build a station that can test 3 cars every 2 minutes if you're not planning in the future of having 3 cars every 2 minutes go through the thing? That to me is an awful lot of traffic to be diverting off of and down those roads. That's all I had. Erhart: Thanks. Anybody else? Dick Hellstrom: Maybe just a little follow-up here. On the say it was 800 cars a day and if it was spread over...it wouldn't be such a significant impact but what kind of guarantee or assurance do we have that it is spread out over a whole day? ...they all come in at 8:45 and 8:50 all the way down through the day? It doesn't work that way. I would think people are going to go when they're good and ready to go and there's no guarantee when the 800's going to impact. It would seem to me also that at the end of the month when everybody now knows that it's November 30th and before I can get my new tabs I've got to get in there and I forgot to do it. I've been putting it off. Then I would expect an inundation of maybe a couple thousand cars a day. What kind of assurance that this is not going to happen and what kind of affect it's going to have on access to TH 5 from 17. Erhart: And your name is? Dick Hellstrom: Dick Hellstrom. Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 58 Erhart: So we're going to get the traffic report. Dens, is Palmer: Yeah, I'm Dennis Palmer. The assurance you have sir is the references that Paul Krauss and Sharmin received from the other locations. We do, and I am here to address the traffic, since we are on the use question. I do want to say for the record that Systems Control accepts the conditions that the staff has recommended. We also agree to the 5 foot setback. We've extended our berm and we've provided more than adequate screening on the west side of the property. And let me address traffic if I may. Before I introduce A1Klugman from Westwood Professional Services, he's here. He's a traffic engineer and he'll address it further but I do want to say that our studies are based on peak demands. We do realize that people do not come in in even intervals. These are peak demands based on experiences. 1998 levels. However peak demands don't occur very often but all the studies are noise studies, our air quality studies, our traffic studies, everything is based on the worse case situation. We spoke a bit to air quality last time. I think we've addressed that adequately. I won't get into that. With respect to traffic, we do concede that there were problems in the Illinois program. Let me say that as the report indicates, that there were problems with the mailings. It's a fundamentally different program here in Minnesota than it was in Illinois. In Minnesota the appointments or the times that people were supposed to come in for their tests were not tied to registration renewal. They were tied to the State's distribution of notices. What had happened is the notices weren't distributed evenly. That can't happen. This program is better. It's more balanced here with registration renewal s. nd they're evenly divided over the 10 month period. There was also a problem with openings. Not all stations opened immediately the first date of the program had begun. That's the reason why some stations were over burdened. It's the MPCA's position and they're here tonight to say that first hand that no station will open until all stations are ready to open. ~Jith respect to the Florida program. The Florida program was a State run program. It was safety inspection and it was grossly undersized. The stations were small and there weren't enough of them. It was a State run program. What Florida did was cancel the program for that reason and they put out a request for proposal and awarded Systems Control a contract to do the emission testing and do it right. With respect to California, that's an entirely different program. I think someone mentioned last time that there was a problem in California. California's a decentralized program. There's not a contractor that tests vehicles. They're done in garages and gas stations so it's just a different program. With that, I know it's getting late. I apologize. Mr. Klugman from Westwood can take a minute a. nd talk about traffic. Alan Klugman: Thank you. My name is Alan Klugman. I'm a traffic engineer with the firm of Westwood Professional Services in Eden Prairie. We have prepared a traffic study for this project which we're submitting tonight. I have a number of graphics which I've summarized on overheads. Is it possible to use those? Maybe I'll do these out of order because they'll somewhat respond to the comments that we've already heard tonight. Before I begin my more formal remarks I guess I'd like to talk to four specific issues that were brought up tonight. The chart that I'm starting ~ith which would have appeared later in our presentation represents the projected service volumes for this site during the lifetime of the program. As presently contracted, it is a 7 year program running from 1991 thru 1998 Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 59 and as you look at the numbers you'll see growth in the program throughout that period. Our analysis will focus on the final year which will be the highest traffic year, both for the subject site and the surrounding area. And to run through this table, what we see, we've heard the number 800 mentioned today. If we look at the top figure there, the average day in 1998 we see a number of 405. That represents 405 vehicles served on a typical average day throughout the course of the year and I believe that's where the 800 number is coming from in that yes, it does represent 400 vehicles into the site and 400 vehicles out of the site. Traffic engineering, we call that 800 trips. It's 405 trips that are being served. To step back a bit and see where that 800 or that 400 number comes from. As part of their contract with the State of Minnesota and the proposal for this project, SC developed a program which involves 11 testing sites spread out throughout the metropolitan area. It's a very sophisticated program that they go through. It's obviously computer based. It's based on population statistics and growth. Vehicle registrations and locations of those vehicle registrations and so forth and the required service times, how far vehicles need to drive to each of the sites. When all that is analyzed and worked through, they developed a system that in order to meet the requirements of the State guidelines, the State request for proposal, a system of 11 testing sites spread throughout the Twin Cities with the projected service volume in each of those sites. So the 405 vehicles that we see represents the expected amount, maximum amount using the Chanhassen site in the final year of the program. I think it's important to say that if a question comes up, will that number grow? Can it be under projected? Because of the flexibility of the distribution of the sites throughout the metropolitan area, for example there's a site in Minnetonka. We're not going to have people driving from Minnetonka, from St. Paul, from Bloomington, etc. to come into this site. There's not unlimited potential for growth but moving down through those numbers and carrying them out to the end of the table, the 405 vehicles represents a typical average day. Based on the other sites that SC operates throughout the country and typical driver behavior, I think many of us have done it ourselves, more people tend to renew towards the end of a licensing period. Towards the end of the month so the last 5 days of the month when they know the registration is due. Therefore, if we look at the peak period day we see an increase that represents the last 5 days of the month. They're designs for internal operations are based off of those numbers. All our analysis for traffic operations on the surrounding area are based on that as well. If we then carry that down to the l0 hour working day we see that the 1998 final year, 632 trips in a day represents 63 in a typical hour. If we look at the peak hour we would have 88. That represents a peaking characteristic within this site. I know you've all reviewed many traffic studies for various types of developments and it's very important to keep daily traffic away from or separate the issue of daily traffic from peak hour traffic. In any traffic study we try to accurately define what is the peak hour and what component of daily traffic does it represent? In the case of the testing sites and Systems Corporation has a wealth of experience and background data on that, they found that the peak hour averages between 10:00 a.m. and ll:O0 a.m.. It does not coincide with the peak hour of the area roadways and in fact the peak hour of the area roadways is typically about 40~ of the peak hour that we would see there so we're talking in the neighborhood of about 40 vehicles served during the traditional roadway peak hour which is 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. so it's definitely complimentary use in that respect. Stepping back to some of the other Planning Commission Meeting october 3, _1.990 - Page 60 issues that were raised. One more issue regarding rates. The rate of 2 vehicles served per minute. In no way does that imply that throughout the day every 2 minutes a vehicle shows up is served and then leaves. That states that that is how long it takes to perform a test. I believe the number approximate 250~-258~ over capacity is what this site is because it is not in fact a case where every 2 minutes a vehicle arrives amd is served but in the busiest hour in the busiest time of the day in the busiest portion of that hour, the busiest 15 minutes that ability to serve a vehicle in 2 minutes is what makes this site function without backing up onto the adjoining roadways. I believe that responds to some of the questions. I would just like to very quickly, I understand it's late but very quickly go through some additional material we have regarding the surrounding area roadway sites and I am going to edit down what I originally had so certainly I'd be open to questions on the material. have slides for some of this so I will not show them now for the sake of time. Presently I think as we all know this site is served in a major fashion by Th 5 with corresponding access from County Road 17 and Audubon Road. We've all talked about the signing program and how that will insure efficient access to the site. There's been reference made to possible dangerous conditions on Park Drive where it intersects TH 5. Yes in fact that is a way that vehicles can access to the site. In none of our calculations have we assumed that vehicles had to access that way. We've assigned vehicles out to CR 17 and Audubon Road where they'd be signed knowing that possibly some local people would use Park Drive but those would be the people familiar with the roadway. Using these assumptions in future traffic growth which could appear in the area, in fact I would like to show graphics for that. This graphic represents existing traffic volumes in the area. Sources are the Minnesota Highway Department, city data. and additional studies that we've done in other traffic counts in studies done in this area. We can see that presently TH 5 carries approximately 12,600 cars on a daily basis. County Road 17 is at about 4,&o0 and Audubon Road is at about 2,000. If you recall back to the previous graphic we showed 568 vehicles using the site on a daily basis. If we split those to the two main approach roadways and given that this site is centered in a geographic area that it's due to serve, we expect approximately an even distribution each way. We've rounded our 568 to 570 of course and representing that as trips in, we see approximately 570 vehicles added to both County Road 17 and to Audubon Road. That's a total of north and south so half of that, about 280 in each direction. In regards to the Park Road, since the site is located on Park Road I think it's important to remember that the traffic is split. Only half of it passes any one parcel or any one location on Park Road. In terms of roadway widths, Park Road is a 44 foot road presently striped for one lane of traffic in each direction. Maybe if we go to the next slide. That shows the addition of traffic from the testing site on top of 1998 projected traffic based on the eastern Carver County Comprehensive Transportation and Land Use Study which prepared traffic projections all the way out to the year 2010. In summary, at the end of the testing period the 7 year contract period for this site we feel that there's adequate capacity on the roadway systems to serve these volumes both with the growth that will occur due to other parcels in the area and this specific parcel, whether it develops as a Systems Control testing site or any other use in this area. We want to comment that TH 5 as you recall has been expanded from 494 out to Eden Prairie Road. That was completed this year and by 1992 will be completed out to and through the intersectiom of CR 17 Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 61 providing additional capacity there. There's been comments on operations at Audubon Road and at Park Drive. In other studies that we've conducted in this area, we've anticipated traffic signalization on Audubon Road in the very near future, certainly by probably 1992 and that will alleviate some of those concerns. Again in summary we feel the surrounding roadway system can carry the traffic. I would like to talk to one last item and if you could, it's the very last graphic we have there and that represents the circulation on the site and ability for the site to handle it's pro3ected demand. As part of their submittal to the State of Minnesota, SC did a very deatiled computer model of what we call cueing or stacking, service rates, times in cue, etc. to prove that their site had adequate capacity and as they stated, has about 2 1/2 times the capacity. The model they use is a proprietary model that they've developed. Since we were not able to use that we went to our standard traffic engineering source books which also have cueing models applicable to any type of site, drive in bank, fast food restaurant, etc.. We took the pro3ected 1998 data for this site. ~Je took the busiest 1 hour on the businest month. The busiest day of the busiest month. Busiest 1 hour so this is when everyone's doing their registrations on the last day and we said with this given capacity, could this site handle the expected demand? I set my parameters very tough. Z said in that busiest 1 hour how many cars would we need to be able to cue on the site so that we had only a 1~ chance that at one time during the hour, not for the entire hour but at one time the back-up would occur in all the lanes to the back cueing area of the site. If you run those calculations, I did this independently. I came out with the need to store 23 cars on site. That's a maximum that you would have to for the given demand at the very peak time. Measurement of the site indicates that we could store 54 cars at a rather generous 25 foot storage per car which is what we typically assume at signalized intersections. I think on a site like this where traffic is not moving fast and so forth, we could stack them even close but the point is, with my calculations on cueing theory, ..,~andard cueing theory accepted in the traffic engineering profession we show that the site itself could handle, could store twice the maximum anticipated demand at the end of the contract period. So again, to summarize the site itself we feel there's adequate stacking distance and operational distance on that site. As I said when I began my remarks, I did have more material. I did want to keep it brief. I hopefully haven't ].eft out any questions anybody has but I can address those as well. Erhart: Okay, thanks very much. Al, you had something quick? Al. Iverson: Real quick. He's showing 10~ growth in 7 years. Tim, this morning we were talking about a lot more growth than that. 10~ growth in 7 years, I don't believe it. Their peak periods are right during my break periods. I mean this is really going to be rough. Erhart: What, the 10:00 to 11:007 Is that what you're saying? A11verson: We break 10:00 to 11:00. My break's right there and I think it's quite explanatory. Dick Hellstrom's been working on buildings for 23 years. In my opinion is, my personal opinion is that that's really going to affect property values in our business. Erhart' Tim, have you got something? Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 62 Tim Raschlager: I guess I have a couple concerns. One is we came tonight to worry about a little border around a dumpster. The scope of this is uncomprehenable. To not know about it I'm also, I don't know what to make of that actually. Erhart: Excuse me Tim, that's a good point. Who did we notify? Did notify everybody in the Industrial Dark? A1..-Jaff: Within 500 feet of that site. Erhart: To me that's not appropriate. Tim Raschlager: To me, our investment in that park, for someone like us is our life. We personally for example aren't unusual to like the radiator company on the corner there or the two little shops next to him or the people across the street and on a bigger scope these people but we've invested a million dollars into that piece of property. Our whole life. And I love the people that own it. I love Roman and it's a nice area but I'm shocked as I sit here tonight. I'm shocked. I'm devastated. The figures on the highway, I don't Deed to put a piece of rubber across the road to do a highway count on Park Drive. 3,000 cars is, it's off a digit. It's off a O. Park Drive is a very quiet road that runs there. There's not, he had 3,000 cars there and he had some other ratio on TH 5 that the numbers make no sense at all. The people do all walk out on break. In fact I envision the day on that park when we take that little pond which is 8. beautiful site and maybe put a little walking path around it. There's a very high density of people there during the day that aren't moving except for to maybe take a lunch break. Take a walk down the road. Several of our people take a walk every day. His very figures pointed out 1 car a minute on the peak days. He's arguing 2 but his very figures on the board ave 1 a minute. I think the park was never intended for that. We're devastated to have ended up in a meeting that we weren't expected to be involved in and I think there's lack of preparation here on the part of all of us and I think the seriousness of this matter, the scope of the matter and the investments of the people in that neighborhood need to be strongly considered. Erhart: Thanks Tim. Anything else? Anybody else? Dave Kelso: Thank you Hr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Hy name is Dave Kelso. I'm with the Pollution Control Agency. Also is Barb 3ackson from the Pollution Control Agency and we are here tonight primarily to make ourselves available to the Commission to answer any questions you have about the program. I would like to restate ~hat Mr. Palmer said earlier that it is the Pollution Control Agency's position that the ChanhasseD facility would not open until the rest of the facilities in our network are operational. When the formal presentations are done I'd be glad to answer any questions. Erhart: Thanks Dave. Appreciate your coming out tonight. Wildermuth: ~re these numbers that are offered for carbon monoxide consistent with what you know to be the case? They seem awfully, awfully low. 5 parts per million. 7 parts per million. Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990- Page 63 Oavid Braslau: My name is David Braslau. I'm the one who did the air qLla~ity studies. Typically at the carbon monoxide monitor in downtown Minneapolis, back in the 7O's we were getting readings about just over 9 ppm. Now we're down to about 3 ppm in downtown Minneapolis and that's on Hennepin Avenue. Generally in suburban areas when we look at concentrations next to heavy intersections, we get somewhere in the order of 4 ¢.nd 5 ppm. So it's really for a suburban area, it's quite a high concentration but yet it's well below the 9 ppm standard. And again, I should point out that the 9 ppm standard is an 8 hour standard. Is a concentration that you can be exposed to, that an inferim person can be exposed to for 8 hours a day on a regular basis without any harm and the hou. r concentration is 30 ppm and we're far, far below that. Wildermuth: Do you look at carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide as well? David 8raslau: No we don't. That's carbon dioxide is not considered generally a micro pollutant. That might be a macro pollutant in terms of gl. obal warming. Wildermuth: It's just that you can't survive in it right? David Braslau: But carbon monoxide is actually, in high concentrations can be lethal and therefore it is considered a pollutant. Erha. rt: Thanks. Anybody else? If not, I'd entertain a motion to close the public hearing for the ordinance amendment. Emmings: Okay. That wasn't the public hearing for whole? Erhart: I'll have to open that and close it quick again but I never did open it for that. Emmings: I'll move that it's close. Ei. lson: And I'll second it. Emmlngs moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing for the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Section 20-714 and Section 20-814. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. The public hearing Nas closed. Erhart: Okay, let's just talk about the ordinance change first and make a recommendation on that and then we can quickly, if it's allowed, then we can move quickly onto the conditional use permit itself. So with that, let's see, 3can do you want to start? Ahrens: I just had one question on that. And this is addressed to the gentleman...how often are the things that...checked for compliance? ~re you the ones that test for compliance? Dave Kelso: Our agency does a lot of work continuously throughout the Metroplitan area of carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, particulates and a fe~ other minor pollutants. Planning Commission Heeling October 3, 1990 - Page 64 ~,hrens: But this is a new deal we're dealing with now. Z mean are you going out on a regular basis? Once every 6 months or once a year? Dave Kelso: Nell we have a permanent in place monitoring that continuously monitors. Ne don't go out to specific locations unless there's an actual reason to. Unless I'm misunderstanding your question. ~hrens: Well, maybe Paul can answer this. Part of the conditional use permit standards we have to get a State and Federal air and noise standards shall, be complied with. How do we know that? Dave Kelso: I'm sorry, do you mean at the proposed test facility itself? Ahrens: Yes. Dave Kelso: There is a carbon monoxide monitor at the facility itself that will. monitor the indoor levels of carbon monoxide. Ahrens: But that's like the fox...chicken coop a little bit. I mean how do we kno~? Dave Kelso: It's a requirement of OSHA. ~ildermuth: But who monitors that? Dave Kelso: Monitors that? Wildermuth: Yes. Ahrens: I mean it's not automatically transmitted to some office at OSHA. Dave Kelso: Oh I see. No, the data is collected and will be stored in a computer system at the Pollution Control Agency. Through our normal auditing procedures we'll be checking that data and that information on a routine basis. ¢,hrens: Nhat is your routine basis for a new type of operation? Dave Kelso: That hasn't been fully established but at this point we envision visiting each facility once a week. Ahrens: And you're going to be visiting each station once a week to check and make sure that state and federal air and noise standards are complied w i th? Dave Kelso: No, we will not be checking to see if the outdoor air quality standards or the outdoor noise standards are being complied with. We'll be checking whether or not the facility is running in conjunction and in compliance with the contract and that the carbon monoxide levels in the building are meeting OSHA standards. I think you're asking whether we're going to be monitoring the affect of the program and we'll be looking at the affect of the program but the specific carbon monoxide levels at every test facility that point up or down depending on the area. ~ianning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 65 Ahrens: Paul, maybe you can explain this. It's 11:30. Am I missing something or am I hearing... Krsuss: I think I know what you're driving at. As a condition of the conditional use permit they're required to maintain a certain quality of air and noise emissions and not exceed that. Who's going to monitor that? The proposal as it now stands is that we could require them to do monitoring if we believe a problem exists. ~hrens: How do you know a problem exists though? Krauss: Typically it's because we're either made aware of it through complaint or it's something that we experience ourselves. ~hrens: So it won't be a monitoring process? Krauss: No. It will be a response to an issue. I suppose one could be more proactive at least at the outset and require a 6 month update or something like that. A!~',rens: I would think that that would be necessary...because that seems to be the big concern of everyone. I don't have anything else. ~ildermuth: First of all I'd like to see some calculations as to ho~ many tons of carbon monoxide will be produced. I'd like to see some isoplots for carbon monoxide concentration around this immediate area. I guess I'd like to hear from a State ...ologist regarding the affects that different ]evels of carbon monoxide concentration. I'd like to know what the direction of the prevailing wind is and what the velocity is in that location as to how the pollutants will be carried away. I don't know what the investment is in the Systems Control testing station but I suspect that it is no~here near PMT's investment or Paisley Park's investment and I think our first concern with the industrial park has to be with those ~eople who are already there and who are already paying taxes. On the other hand I do think that we Deed to find a location for a vehicle test station in chanhassen. This just is not the location. I don't know if you've looked at a number of other locations or what kind of effort you put into finding a location but I don't think this is one. We've got an excellent industrial park. We've attracted some first class occupants in that park and I would not want to do something that appears to be so contrary to their wishes. In terms of ordinance changing, in terms of zoning changin~ and I don't know how to do that without letting something like this into our existing industrial park. Business Highway and IOP seem to be logical places for a facility like this to be located. The problem is how do we pass an ordinance to allow that but keep them out of a particular location they're looking at and keep them out of this particular industrial park. That's the question. I think a facility like this should be immediately adjacent no more than probably 200 yards from a major arterial. I think it ought to be very readily accessible. It ought to be near a signaled intersection. I agree with, I don't recall your name but I agree ~ith you. If there hasn't been a fatality up there on ~udubon, there probably will be soon or around that mini ~olf course. Those are ¢tefinitely problem areas. If the test facility has to go into the location that ~e're looking at, I think one of the conditions absolutely has to be that there's a signal on TH 5 .... I think that our homework has really Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 66 b~.~en done here in locating this thing. I'm not convinced that a facility like this doesn't present a health hazard and I think that there are some :~trategic issues that you look at in siting something like this. hike for example pollutant iso~lots and prevailing wind velocities and things like that.. You look at the same kinds of things when you site something like thi.~ that you do when you site a power plant or a sewage treatment plant and 'that hasn't been done. Erhart: Okay, thanks 3in. Annette? Ellson: Actually I'm concerned about the air quality. I picture this, you knouJ we were talking last time about the drive thru at McDonald's or something like that and I was the one before that thought the Business ~{ighu~ay was probably the most appropriate just because of the convenience they were trying to get and the in and out access and things like that but the more information that's coming forward, the more I'm less opposed to it beinD here. I guess I don't see a lot of homework on the other side. Maybe before it gets to City Council there would be but there's a lot of 'fears that haven't been verified and maybe I would suggest that those o~oposed try to get more facts before it goes to City Council. Maybe that one in Delaware was just an emission only and we could find some concrete examples of emission only type testing that has you know failed and hasn't. ser',~ed the community well. I need more of a shadow of a doubt than I had last time. Before I was totally against it because I pictured the volume like a McDonald's you know breakfast meal or whatever and I didn't see that bein.g here. Now they're saying the average wait is 6 cars and you can get more than that at a McDonald's easy so it just doesn't seem like it's quite as much but this would be a conditional use and when I look up what we allow right now, I can see the exact same complaints by the same people in the industrial parks complaining if it was a motor freight terminal goin~q in which is perfectly allowed right now. They wouldn't want people walkin.g with freight vehicles around and yet lumber yard we say we can do. Cot, crete mixing plants we say we could put in without them even having any s~y so I don't think this is so overly different than some of the ones that obviously be complaints for the exact same reasons. I don't quite onderstand the idea of people asking questions and I don't know that this would necessarily increase that. I think if a person is going here and they're ~;aiting anyway, that probably would be where they're getting their lin. formation as well as their bathroom stop so I guess I don't see that as a big negative but I'm leaning towards allowing it more because now all the data's coming in and the property values haven't been proven to go down and ~¢nless I start seeing more things that say that they have, and again maybe we'll find that out by City Council but I don't see it in front of me that the fears are confirmed but I would suggest that that kind of homework be ~.:1one before it gets there. I think it would be more readily allowed. So ~t this point I'm leaning toward approving it although I think the Susiness Highway is perfect but I'm less opposed to the IOP but I would be if I could see more evidence. I mean I just need more shadow of a doubt 'that it hurt 2 or 3 people's property's then I'd be all for probably allowing it only in the business highway but I'm not seeing anything that ~sys that except for people that think it's going to happen and then not '..~e~-y much proof. $o that's where I'm at. Kind of on the fence. hart: Thanks Annette. Steve· Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 6,7 Emrr, J. ngs: Nell this isn't easy. We've heard a lot of stuff here tonight and some of it was kind of silly I think but to me there's only, and there I'm referring to people worried about people coming to use their bathroom. I don't regard that as being a very substantive comment but you know it ~lm¢:.st fits in the BH but that's highly oriented commercial development. That's ~4hat the intent statement says and this really isn't that. And the office iF~dustrial intent section, where's the IOP? El. ison' Here. ~rr, rn~gs= The IOP is large scale light industrial which just doesn't quite seem to fit and commercial planned development and I don't even know what thst is. I've never really looked at that one before but as Annette said, ~hen you read down through the uses we permitted and the conditional uses we've designated, it does kind of seem to fit in both those areas so I think we've targeted the right ones and I think it can go in either. And ~¢hen you collect all the data by the way that 3im wants, make sure you give my copy to Jim because I have interest in reading it. I wouldn't ur~derstand it anyway. I assume that our city engineer can evaluate that stuff. He's going to have to for me because I can't. ~hat I hear in this room tonight is the same thing we hear over and over again and that's l think just a standard problem in a developing community. Here we've got neighbors who are content to have the property next door be empty or just like theirs but really don't want it to be different and we hear that when ~e do rural subdivisions. The farmers don't want the houses in there and then the big lot developments come in and then they want a smaller lot development next door and the folks with the big lots dop't want the small lots and it's just endless and nobody seems to realize that if the zoning hadn't been changed in the first place, they wouldn't have been able to build there either. It's also kind of amusing that everybody that's against everything here tonight so far has piled up dead bodies on the highway. This is the third one where we've had dead bodies on the highway 3nd maybe they're right. I don't know but it seems to be one of the most popu].ar tools for trying to argue against something. I was impressed by the things that the staff found out from other communities that have these facilities. That's real meaningful and what they found out there was they hmd problems with these places for the first year and the~ things weren't so bad. The other thing that they found out from these other governmental u]Jits is that this particular outfit, Systems Contro.1 has been very easy to wo~-k with. I'm quoting from the staff report, "they move fast to resolve and eliminate problems and are readily available to work with State and city staff to meet demands" so that's impressive to me. They sound like they'll be good neighbors even though you don't want them and in fact have threatened to sue the city over...which I think is a little strong. But ~y case, to me there's one issue and that's traffic. That's the only thing that seems to me to be a substantive issue and so far ~e've heard their side of that and what I hear there sounds reasonable to me. ~t doesn't seem like it will over burden the loads or anything else in that 6rea so I have no problem either with the, I know I'm supposed to be t~lking about the condition use permit but these things seem to get woven to~ether a~]d you can't really take them apart so I would support the conditional use permit. The one thing I don't like about them, I frankly do~q't like (f). First of all it says the State and Federal air and noise st¢.ndards will be complied with. Well they don't have any choice anyway. ,--~ar~ning Commission Heeting October 3, 1990 - Page 68 :.~"~-st.Jss: No, that's not true. I mean you should~'t exceed those standards but-. things occasionally do. Err. mings: But they have to whether we say they do or not. Our saying that ,..,~-:;.¢ have to doesnt add anything to the fact that they have to. What we're saying is that we want to be in the loop so that we. can additional way of monitoring. Emmings: So you want to be able to enforce it from here? Kra,J. ss: Yeah. I mean the PC~'s a very cooperative agency with these types o'? issues but they deal with a very large area a~d at times a community ca~ act more, be more responsive. Emrnings: The one thing is if problems are found to exist, the property owlqer is required to pay for testing deemed to be required by the City to cls¥-ify the situation. I don't know how somebody else said, how are you .'.9oing to know you have a problem until you test and find out? It seems kii",d of arour, d if] a circle. I don't understand it real well. That's the only one that seemed kind of odd. Otherwise I support it. ~rhart: Okay. In dealing with the ordinance, I guess I don't like tabli~g things but I think this is one that it does everybody 3ustice by tabling it. I started out pretty neutral oD this and I guess I shouldn't have been running a business in the industrial park. Since that time I've become very strongly opposed to having these types of uses in the industrial park. And I say park, I see this as an issue of the Chanhassen ~akes Industrial F'ark as opposed to perhaps what you view it as 3ust another use and where you best 'fit it. I think the City, we put together the Chanhassen Lakes If'~dustrial Park and we defined it as an entity with certain uses add ~-estrictions and we sold it to businesses coming into Chanhassen that this ~.~as 9oing to be a park with certain expectations. I think going back and then changing that, in the first place I don't think that we should make z-.:~¥' ordinance change that deals with that park without notifying everybody ~1] that park. I mean that would be the most unfair thing I could imagine to sit here and not have a complete public hearing without inviting ail pe©¢-~le that are i~ the industrial park. Everybody got the same sales pitch ~out why they ought to go in the industrial park and what they could exi-~ect in there. Second thing is, if they do come in and we've heard two ~'~-,c..' now I guess I'll throw my ring in there too, I'll take it back. I'm r~ot. a building owner so I won't say it from that standpoint but when you i3e~'r' from the existing tenants and the existing owners in that park that they object to a new use, I don't think, I disagree with ~nnette. I don't thir~k it's up to the building owners and the people in that park to prove to us that it's a non-compatible use. It's up to them, it's up to this ~..~se to prove that they're a member of this park. ~ member of this s. ssocia, tion and I think by the fact that we've got some people and I would ve]-,ture to say that there's not many people in the park are very aware of ~..~b.~.t ~e're talking about doing, is that it's not acceptable and I think ~¢..;~e'¥'e .going against the commitments that we've made to the users and existin.;~ people in the park by making a change that they're against. t. hir]k this is not, we've had someone come up here amd tell us that this is ]~ot a commercial use. It doesn't make a~y difference whether the State's p, aying for the service or the person's writing a check. Somebody's paying Commission Meeting 3, 1990 - Page 69 J'"or some individual to drive iD and get a service. Is it any different. than a gas station? Is it any different than a post office? Would you put. a 1-;ce'~-lse center in the middle and right smack in the middle of an .~,~du. strial park? I think it's clearly a commercial use. It's people come i'~, get a service and leave amd it's not like some industrial parks where you have a gas station that the intent of the gas station is to serve ~.ef'~,.~rally the people iD that park. This use is intended to serve people 'F~'orr, a broad area. ~nd so it is clearly in my mind a commercial use and le-ds itself specifically for the BH district. Dealing with the traffic in my mind, that's Dot the biggest issue. It's the park issue but a bigger issue is the people walking around in there. No~ I think we made some r,]istakes il~ this park and one is not putting sidewalks in but our employees ¢.,"~ my window faces out there and essentially during the middle of the ds.y people are ~alking up and down that street. That is their, you know the ~rk has no restaurant in it. Okay so people like, I assume these ,~mployers they have lunchrooms and then people go in and bring their bag lunches o¥' machines and then they go out walking for their half hour or 45 minutes. People are walking on the streets. There's no sidewalks there and I would recommend that in the future for industrial parks we do put ~:~ide~a. lks in. So adding a b~hole bunch more traffic at this point I think c.~oes ir, terfere ~4ith that and will significantly change the way this park is used add so I oppose it for that reason. On the other hand the BH district , I_ ,, .i.. 9 ~:..>~ i~.. s rlature is designed to use retail traffic It s got the stop lights. It's designed to deal with the kind of traffic that comes with the cc.~'~',mercial use arid this is clearly a commercial use and the traffic use I t~-~-;'ak proves that out. I think the point is, you know this is a pollutio~ s't,~¢t, ion but once you allow that in the park, as soon as the State regulates ~4e've got to have a safety inspection and they come in here, you're Dot f~oi~g to say rio to the safety inspection. I mean they're all somewhat the s'~¢r,',e use and so I think that, someone mentioned that well pollution] stations don't require because they only require 2 minutes a~d the safety statiol-,s is longer, that argument actually supported my opposition to this thif-,g. Ir~ general I've been in this park for 5 years. Going o~ 6 years .¢.f]d initially the first buildings that came in the park were not the cj-¢-eatest. Over the years as the park has~ I don't know if the City's done s good 3ob selling the park to people or whatever, the quality has improved .:-~J;~smstically in the newer buildings that have gone in. The PMT building is ~--eally beautiful. Some of the things are improving. We do have some old b~.~ild~ngs across from me like the ~uto Unlimited building and so forth, they don't fit anywhere and I think this is a step backwards in our ind~.~strial park to put in essentially a specialized gas station. Lastly I also look at this as a temporary use and I think there's a real danger that you could put this temporary, this specific gas station in. It's c~l. led 8 service station and it won't quite offend as many people but where this use 811 of a sudden they lose their contract or somehow all of a :~-.-;u~:iden you have a building standing with a bunch of overhead doors in our j.!-~dustrial park. Where you cam lease other office buildings like ours and zIc's to other people quickly, this is a very specific use building and I don't think if it's use discontinues, you're not going to lease it to .¢nyUody. It's going to sit there until someone develops that, really tears it do~n and does something else with it. So I think it's an issue. I '-~-ink,~.~, we have a commitment to the people in the industrial park. Certainly hs-,,..e 8 commitment to notify them at least because you're dealing ~4ith something that we sold these people and right now we're talking about c~8'~:;i~3g the product and the people say they don't want it. The current ~la,,~.ning:-. Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 70 ......... icj. pants in this agreement don't want it changed And so I'm opposed t-...n it.. bJith that I guess I would invite a motion on the issue dealing ~Jith t':-.~e, o,.b there's one last item. The staff bad an argument that Ne have any room in the 8H district, therefore ~e ought to put it in the ~e.,.~l, you know we don't have any room in the industrial parks either. I/%'r'~lJ~_~S: NO, ue 're running short · E'?'hart: Okay, so to me that, when we look at our' Comp Plan which we're <!oi'n.c.g right now, if we don't have room for this kind of thing, are ~e going to, have this and we're going to have a quick oil change thing, I mean ~4e have just, the community and I agree with the Pollution Control people, b~e t'~,~/e ]qeeds for these things. Ne have to find provisions for them ir, the t-ight place and this is not the right place· Anyway, I'll entertain a ;',~,<')tior: for that from anybody who'd like to strike out. Ahrens: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of ion3;n9 Ordinance Amendment allowing vehicle testing stations as conditio'nal u--3es in the Ion and 8H districts as stated except for (g).·.to read vehicles, second line, vehicles stacking in fire lanes, parking areas and other dr ives. Err~ i ngs ' Second · ~'~'i~a¥'t: Okay, the motion's been made and seconded that we approve the cha. nge in the ordinance for both IOP and BH districts. Is there any ,::! ~. scuss i o n? Ahrens moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance ~mendment allo~ing vehicle testing stations as conditional uses in the IOn and BH districts amended to read as follows: Section 20-293, Conditional Use Permit Standards, is added (amended) to read as follows: Zrnissions Cont¥'ol Testing Stations - Authorized to undertake emissions safety monitoring required by the State of Minnesota provided that: the operatio~ is under contract agreement with the State of Minnesota to provide these services; ,..:,. no ¥'epairs ate performed on the site; c. no gas or parts are sold on the site~ d. no outdoor storage of vehicles or related materials; e. no diesel testing to be allowed at the site; :~tate and federal air and noise standards shall be complied with. If problems are found to exist, the property owner shall be required to pay for any testing deemed to be required by the City to clarify the situation; Plant, lng Commission Meeting '-' ' ' 1990 - Page 71 OC'k. ODeT 3 :, ali vehicle stacking shall be provided on-site in designated lanes. Vehicles stacking in fire lanes, parking areas and other drives shall be prohibited. Section 20-814. Conditional Uses in the Industrial Office Park District is a..rne~.ded to read: Emission control testing stations. Section 20-714. Conditional uses in the BH, Highway Business District is amended to read: (9) Emission control testing stations. Ahrens, Emmings, and Ellson voted in favor. ~ildermuth and Erhart voted in ~position and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Erhart: 3in, do you feel you need to add any more comments on your negstive vote? I don't either. $o with that then I think we'll have to move 8head to the conditional use permit and preliminary plat. I'll open the public hearing. If we don't have, if there's nothing new I'd like to move on with it. No new comments then I'll ask for a motion to close that ~ublic hearing. ~!ison moved, Mildermuth seconded to close the public hearin~ for the Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Plat for the property zoned IOP, Industrial Office Park and located at the intersectio~ of Park Road snd Park Place. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried. The public he,ring ~as closed. 5rha. rt: Steve, do you want to start with that one. Emrni'n.gs: I don't have anything additional. Er'hart: Annette? Ellson: No. Erhart: 3in? 3oan? Ahrens: Well I only spoke to the conditional use permit before and I 3ust b~anted to say that, or the zoning ordinance amendment. That we asked these pc. ople to come in with this information and they did it and from what they presented to us, I can't see how ~4e can deny them. Me didn't get a~y evidence at all, concrete evidence from the people who were opposed to it and ! agree with Steve there were a lot of silly statements made that I don't think we should even consider. ~ lot of statements that I think are, I mean I understand the concerns. They don't want the park changed but I thi. nk that, I don't think this is a brand ne~ use that is so offensive that we should deny it. I think it's a new type of a use and we've never had this in Minnesota before but I think that it can fit within the ordinance. I think t4e should recommend approval. That's it. Okay. I guess given that we're going to permit this use in the Znd.~,strial Park, I guess I have no, I mean I think the plan is fine. It's Pi~_.nning Commission Heeting October 3, 1_990 - Page 72 4;, :;nod plan, I just think it should be somewhere else but if it's a pern~it!.-..ed use, then I guess I support it as well. Is there a motion? Fr¢'~rr,&ngs: I'll move the Planning Commission recornmend approval of Site Plan .~!:eO--? as shown on the site plan dated August 10, 1990 subject to the conditions contained in the staff report. ~hrens: Second. ~'rha'rt.: Any discussion? ~mmings moved, Ahrens seconded to approve Site Plan #90-9 as shown on the plan dated ~ugust 10, 1990 subject to the following conditions: The applicant must provide roof top equipment screening for approval by staff. Screening must be of materials compatible with the building. 2. The applicant must submit revised screening for the masonry trash enclosures compatible with the building exterior and additional landscaping around the proposed dumpsters. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. The applicant must revise the landscaping plans as recommended in the report to provide improved screening. Provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District. Type III erosion control shall be used along Park Road and added to the north and east portion of the site. Slopes steeper than 3:1 will require wood fiber blankets and Type III erosion control. The applicant's engineer shall submit 10 year storm flow calculations for the site. This may regulate the location of the cbnnection to the existing storm sewer facility. 7. A concrete industrial driveway apron with a minimum radius cut of 20 feet shall be constructed at the entrance off of Park Road. Revise the plans to provide an additional 5 foot setback on the west property line while extending the berm and landscaping to the north. Al! voted in favor except Wildermuth who opposed and the motion carried ~ith a vote of 4 to 1. E':'-hart: The reason opposed? ~lildermuth: The reasons previously stated. Erhart.: Okay. Do we have one motion on the preliminary plat as well? olanning,.- Commission Meeting , .... L.,.,t. er 3, 1990 - Page 73 We've got to withdraw the original. Kra. uss: Yeah. Erhart: Okay, so that takes care of that issue and I guess this will go to Council . E:,'~rn.ings: No, we've got 2 more to go. On page 7. We've got to do III and Withdraw original site plan. E~,~mings: I'll move the Planning Commission recommend withdrawal of approval of Site Plan 89-8 for the Rome Office building concurrently with the approval of Site Plan ¢90-9. The applicant should file a notice of ~ithdrawal against the property at Carver County. ~h-re ns: Second. E'].lson: What is this one doing? I'm confused. Emmings: We're withdrawing the site plan that was approved for that property previously. ,~_.=1 lson: Okay . .%mmings moved. ~hrens seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the [4ithdra~al of approval of Site Plan No. 89-8 for the Rome Office Building, concurrently ~ith the approval ot: Site Plan No. 90-9. The applicant should file the notice of ~ithdra~al against the property at Carver County. ~11 ,;~ted ir, favor and the motion carried unanimously Would someone like to make a motion on the Conditional Use Permit? ~,'¢.,¢ings:,,. ,, I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the vehicle testing station subject to conditions contained in the staff report altering (g) to conform to the changes made by 3can. Just in that second sentence. Er hs'rt' The wording? Emmings' Yeah· Evhart: Is there a second? Ahrens: Second. Emmings moved. ~hrens seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the conditional use permit for the vehicle testing station subject to the following conditions: Compliance with conditions of Site Plan ~90-9. P;[.a~'~ning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 74 Emission control testint stations - Authorized to undertake emissions ~nd/or safety monitoring required by the State of Minnesota provided that: the operation is under contract agreement with the State of Minnesota to provide these services; no repairs are performed on the site~ no gas or parts are sold on the site; d. no outdoor storage of vehicles or related materials; e. no diesel testing to be allowed at the site; f. state and federal air and noise standards shall be complied with. If problems are found to exist, the property owner shall be required to pay for any testing deemed to be required by the City to clarify the situation; all vehicle stacking shall be provided on-site in designated lanes. Vehicles stackin~ in fire lanes, parking areas and other drives shall be prohibited. AIl voted in favor except Wildermuth who's vote ~as silent and the motion carried. Zrhart: Okay, that's the end of that and now can I say that will ~o to city Council on Sharmin, what date? October 22nd. Okay, thanks for coming PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT A PORTION OF AN OUTLOT IN CHANHASSEN MALL ADDITION AND PLACEMENT OF MARKET BOULEVARD. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST SCUTH AND WEST OF CHANHASSEN 8OWL AND NORTH OF THE SO0 LINE RAILROAD T~ACKS, EASY RIDER ADDITION. Vice Chairman Erhart called the public hearing to order. {-.~rhart: Does any commission member need a staff report on this? Apparently not. Is there any public input? Is there any issue. K',-auss: It's a good plat. Please approve it. Emrr, i'n.gs: Oh, the City's the applicant? ~'~"hart: That ought to make you suspicious. Okay, any public input? ..7~¥ Johnson: Southwest Metro's all for it. Emmings moved, Ellson seconded to close the public .hearing. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing ~as closed. P.%~..~-~','~ing Commission Meeting October 3: 1990 - Page 75 JCy 3ohnson: You're selling it to Southwest Metro for a buck. Ei-~'Jrr, i,;,gs-' Oh no. Nhat do you think of that? 3s'/ Johnson: ~4ell as a Southwest Metro Commissioner, it's a pretty good des_!. As a City Council, I'd raise it to ten bucks. · ~:-..r~'~mings' Okay, we want two bucks. I'll pay a buck and a half. ~.Z~'-h8~-t: Is there a motion? Em.mings: I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of p.~'elimina¥'y Plat ~90-8 for Easy Rider ~ddition as shown on the plat dated SeQtember 6, 1990 with the condition contained in the staff report. El ].son: And I'll second it. Erh.art: Any discussion? Emmings: Oh discussion. I hope to hell that isn't going to be called Bowling Alley Road. El'had-t: No, that's in the write up. E!.]_son: That's mentioned on there that they had a contest. Emmings: Okay fine. That was my only obEection to the whole thing. /. like Bowling Pin. Emrnings moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #90-8 for Easy Rider Addition as shown on the ~-~ dated September 6 1990 ~ith the follo~iing condition: 'i. outlot C and the portion of Outlot ~% used for the bus shelter shall be sho~n as part of "Bowling ~lley" Road right-of-way. a~ I voted in favor and the motio~ carried ~PPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September ~9, 1990 as presented. ,-~.~1 voted in favor except Ahrens, Nildermuth and Ellson who abstained and the motion carried. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Erha~-t: ~e read it. Is there any questions on that? Krau.~s: I have one thing on the update. We have some terms on the Planning Commission that are up. ':::'m~n i rigs::...Who? Krauss' Well 3ira I think for one. Planning Commission Heeling October 3, 1990 - Page 76 Eli. son: I think mine is too. Kr:suss: Is it yours too? I think so. You should think about what you'd like to do. I think we're obligated to put an ad in the paper pretty quick to ~:ee what kind of people we have responding. ~r, mings: Do you advertise if people want to re-up? Krsuss: I think Councilwoman Dimler's direction ~as that we go ahead and advertise, yeah. Erhsrt: That's the way we've been doing it. Jay Johnson: Councilwoman Dimler's Dian was to start advertising in about 5eptember and have everything done well before the term was up versus doin~ J..t after the term. hfraut~s' ~o we're going to put an ad in the paper shortly. Jay Johnson: My idea was to extend the terms to 3une so that it's not a U~Fand ne~ City Council making the appointment. I was doing the same thing. I was making appointments the first day I ~as on the Council and so was the last Council. I want to change all the terms of all the cc, n~missions to 3une instead of 3anuary. Better time to consider it~ Emmings: Let's get the meeting done. Erhart: ~nything else Paul? Ahrens moved, ~mmings seconded to ad3ourn the meeting. ~1I voted in favor and the motion carried. The meetin~ ~as ad3ourned at 12:00 midnight. ~ub,mitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director ~'repared by Nann Opheim