Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
4. Consider Comp Plan
i I i C I TY c F -- � i 1 CHANHASSEN 6 90 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1,1 ' 1 MEMORANDUM [ / - -i-1 I TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director �_ 1 DATE: January 22, 1991 SUBJ: Adoption of the Draft Comprehensive Plan for Conveyance I to the Metropolitan Council, Response to Issues Raised at the January 7, 1991, City Council Meeting 1 BACKGROUND I On January 7, 1991, the City Council first received the draft Comprehensive Plan from the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the plan after making any appropriate changes and that it be conveyed to the I Metropolitan Council for approval under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. As the City Council will recall, the draft Comprehensive Plan is designed to guide Chanhassen's growth through I the 1990's. The existing plan was developed over ten years ago and does not adequately respond to the issues that have been raised in the community due to rapid growth rates. The plan is also designed to respond to issues dealing with environmental protection, land 1 use, housing, transportation, construction of public utilities and facilities. I At the January 7th meeting, the Council voted to continue action on this request to give staff an opportunity to respond to several issues that were raised. During development of this plan, there I has been an extensive volume of public input gained through participation at Planning Commission work sessions and hearings. The public has also had an opportunity to participate through discussions with staff and with the submittal of written proposals I and or inquiries. Lastly, the newspaper and individual mailings have been used frequently to convey information. As a result, I believe that the issues are now being raised are relatively few and I generally minor as compared with those that appear to have been resolved during the public information program. This staff report update is designed to respond to those issues so that the City I Council may feel comfortable acting on the proposed plan. The following list constitutes issues that were raised at the meeting. 1 1 Comprehensive Plan January 22, 1991 ' Page 2 They are in no particular order and do not infer any .sort of prominence from one to the other. 1. 1995 Study Areas /Fleet Farm issue. ' 2. Questions raised by Gene Quinn regarding mixed uses on property owned by Jim Curry at the proposed interchange between Hwy. 101 and Hwy. 212. 1 3. Status and designation of Lake Lucy. 4. Neighborhood commercial uses in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Hwy. 5 and Galpin Boulevard. 5. Non - residential uses in the vicinity of Timberwood, between ' Galpin Boulevard and Audubon Road along Hwy. 5. 6. Park issues relative to the major expansions of large city .parks indicated on the Land Use Plan. 7. Response to letter received from an attorney for Lakeview Hills Apartments relative to changes on their property between the 1980 Plan and the draft 1991 Comprehensive Plan. 8. Issues raised by Jerome Carlson pertaining to buffering around ' their original home on Galpin Boulevard, south of Hwy. 5 and relative to a proposed trail corridor between Lake Ann and Minnewashta Parks along the Lake Ann Interceptor easement. 1. Jerome Carlson's Issues a. Jerome and Linda Carlson raised a concern relative to their ' existing home located on Galpin Boulevard south of Hwy. 5. They did not express a, concern with the Land Use Plan itself, but rather were concerned that the presentation board illustrating the Land Use Plan did not provide for a buffer yard between their parcel and proposed industrial uses to the south. The buffer yard concept is one that staff developed to provide enhanced protection for residential property and is ' ideally suited to be employed in such cases. Staff indicated that we saw no problem adding this buffer yard since it is fully consistent with the policies that had been developed ' concerning them. Upon further investigation, we found that this change had already been made to the blue -line maps provided with the plan but it simply had not been updated on the presentation board. This change has since been made and no City Council action is required so long as you are in agreement with this inclusion. 1 1 1 Comprehensive Plan I/ January 22, 1991 Page 3 ' b. Proposed Off - Street Recreational Trail between Lake Ann Park and Minnewashta Park. , At the meeting, Mr. Carlson addressed concerns about the trail that is shown bisecting his property. His specific concerns seemed to be related to timing and the potential impact on his property. The Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission has had a desire to link the Lake Ann area to the Lake Minnewashta area via a recreational trail for over ten years. The trail desire was expressed on the 1980 Comprehensive Plan as shown on Exhibit #1. Correspondingly, the trail is also delineated on the current draft of the plan as shown on Exhibit #2. On the 1980 Plan, the line was shown in a direct point to point fashion due to the lack of any type of development in the area. With the alignment and subsequent installation of the Lake Ann Interceptor, the trail configuration was changed to follow the sewer line easement. The sewer line easement that was obtained for the interceptor does not currently allow the placement of a recreational trail. The easement is a single purpose description allowing only placement of the pipe. Despite this fact, the sewer alignment represents an excellent location for an overland trail due to the fact that it contains suitable grade characteristics and because of the vegetation removal that occurred to accommodate the sewer line construction. The ultimate location and construction of a trail segment connecting Lake Ann and Lake Minnewashta Regional Park is dependent upon the timing of development in the area and the corresponding land use pattern that evolves. Development of any trail in Chanhassen has to be accomplished in concert with the development of the surrounding property. Correspondingly, if Mr. Carlson elects to subdivide his property in the future, the development proposal may be expected to accommodate the trail movement in some manner, not necessarily precisely following the sanitary sewer alignment. It is possible, for example, that the trail connection could even be built as part of the future extension of Lake Lucy Road as shown on Exhibit #2. , The City is aware of Mr. Carlson's sensitivity to the trail alignment and it's potential impact on his property. In reality, there is no practical intent to attempt to install a trail in the area until he or a subsequent land owner makes a decision to subdivide the parcel. In order to clarify the 1 Comprehensive Plan ' January 22, 1991 Page 4 situation, modification of the Comprehensive Plan language may ' be in order. In order to more accurately portray the City's intent ' regarding the Lake Ann /Lake Minnewashta trail, the City Council may want to consider the following plan modification: On page 12 of the Recreation section immediately before the ' paragraph with the heading "Funding Sources ", add the following: ' "The timing of the installation of the phase three trail segment connecting Lake Ann and Minnewashta Regional Park is particularly dependent on the timing of the development of the ' surrounding property. The Land Use Map identifies the trail along the alignment of the easement for the Lake Ann Interceptor. Despite this fact, the actual alignment of this trail may vary depending on the ultimate land use pattern in the area. Eventual connection of the trail may involve the placement of segments along local streets or possibly even the planned extension of Lake Lucy Road." 2. Lake Lucv Status Discussion and questions at the meeting focused on the use of the ' term "natural environment lake" in the Plan text. A rewording of the Plan text may alleviate the confusion. ' The City Council may want to consider the substitution of the following text in lieu of the description of Lake Lucy found on the top of page 50 of the Recreation section. ' "Lake Lucv: Lake Lucy does not see heavy power boat usage because of it's depth, shape and associated aquatic vegetation. Additionally, the lake does not presently have an improved public access so the only source of power boats is from the existing private residences that abut the lake. ' Greenwood Shores Park provides a publicly owned, land based connection between Lake Ann and Lake Lucy. Utilizing the park, it is possible to launch canoes and similar non - motorized watercraft ' into Lake Lucy. Unless a more permanent access is provided to the lake, boat usage of Lake Lucy is expected to continue to be very light. ' Because of the fragile ecology of Lake Lucy, installation of a future access should be approached cautiously. In combination with improved access, the City may want to consider the prohibition of ' motors as has been enacted on Lake Ann. Such a prohibition may require the agreement of the current riparian owners or the .I/ Comprehensive Plan 1 January 22, 1991 Page 5 establishment of a variance procedure to reflect their property rights." Incorporating this language will also eliminate the confusion over the existing text which refers to Lake Lucy as a natural environment lake. In point of fact, Lake Lucy is designated as a recreation development lake by the Minnesota DNR and by city ordinance and there was never an intention to change this. 3. Neighborhood Commercial in the Northeast Ouadrant of Hwy. 5 and Gaipin Boulevard The City Council may recall the request from the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. VanDeVeire, to reinstate a neighborhood commercial designation on this corner. There is considerable background on this matter. Staff had initially proposed that this corner be designated for limited commercial use during one of the earlier . drafts of the Land Use Plan in late 1989. Our reasoning was based on several factors including the following: a. The site was envisioned as a neighborhood ' commercial node offering limited, low scale retail and service uses to surrounding residential neighbors. It was not viewed by staff as a major commercial center since our primary goal is to complete the development of the Chanhassen Central Business District. , b. The site seemed qualified to contain this type of use since it is physically separated from other surrounding residential areas by tree cover and a drainage area. c. The parcel is even more limited in size than had originally been anticipated since there is currently a proposal to extend a frontage road through the southern portion of it. ' d. The site represents a less than optimal residential environment due to it's exposure to the highway and will ultimately become a signalized intersection. This does not necessarily make residential development impossible, simply that it will be difficult and will require extensive berming and landscaping to create a minimally acceptable residential environment. The questions of whether or not this type of use was appropriate , was the subject of some discussion at the neighborhood meetings that were held during the summer of 1990. Several area residents 11 1 Comprehensive Plan January 22, 1991 Page 6 addressed this concern and spoke against the introduction of commercial uses in what they believed to be close proximity to their residences. Staff cannot verify whether or not the actual residences of those who spoke are in the vicinity of the site, since residential development around it is rather sparse. The Planning Commission discussed the proposal and ultimately, at a later meeting, directed staff to remove the designation and replace it with a medium density residential use as illustrated on residential properties to the east. The Planning Commission's 1 rationale for removing the designation rested on several points. a. They wished to limit commercial development to the ' Chanhassen CBD with the long term potential of considering additional commercial at Hwy. 5 and 41. In their opinion, this resulted in bracketing the site with ' sufficient commercial and retail uses so as to make commercial designation on this property Unnecessary. b. There is a strong desire to avoid having a commercial/ ' industrial strip road create along Hwy. 5. The plan very supports the introduction of a residential component starting at Lake Ann Park that brackets both sides of ' Hwy. 5 for an extensive distance as the highway travels west. 11 Planning and Mrs. VanDeVeire are requesting that the Council reverse the Planning Commission recommendation to include commercial designation on their property in the final plan. Staff does not have much more to add to this proposal. The facts concerning this ' site were reviewed on a number of occasions and staff's belief that commercial could be acceptably developed on the site is evidenced by our original recommendation. Staff is, however, unwilling to recommend one way or the other on this proposal since the current plan is the result of a lengthy and comprehensive planning process. This issue is truly one that needs final direction from the City Council. ' If the Council is interested in keeping options for the corner open • without changing the current plan designation which gives you the ' most control, we would suggest the inclusion of a procedure similar to that which has been discussed for the area north of Timberwood. That is we could include language specific to that corner and the fact that non - residential uses may be considered under certain very limited circumstances. This language would be quite simple for staff to draft, should we be so directed. 1 1 1 1 Comprehensive Plan January 22, 1991 Page 7 4. Non - residential Area Located North of Timberwood 1 As you are aware the draft Comprehensive Plan has been designed to provide a residential corridor south of Hwy. 5 wrapping around the Timberwood area. This is the result of a long series of meetings where concerns raised by area residents were addressed and by concerns raised by the Planning Commission that the Hwy. 5 corridor should not become a commercial strip road. Other factors such as promoting the use of Hwy. 212 and the desire to locate a middle school site at an appropriate location also entered into this discussion. Throughout the Planning Commission's review, the property owners have indicated a preference to have this area available for office industrial uses. The Planning Commission and staff have indicated on several occasions in the past that very high quality office industrial uses developed in a campus format may in fact be acceptable under some circumstances in this area. There is a good possibility that this type of use could afford the residents of Timberwood more protection then some types of single family development that conceivably could be developed on this area. It was indicated that if such a high quality proposal were presented to the City that Planning Commission and staff would review it on it's merits and consider it. There was still no desire to change the draft Comprehensive Plan at this point since to do so would severely impact the City's ability to regulate what might occur on this property. During a recent meeting between a group of individuals who currently control this parcel and two members of the City Council, staff was asked to investigate this matter further. The conversation centered on the possibility of drafting amended language for the Land Use Plan text that would indicate some degree of flexibility to consider non - residential uses while establishing very strict guidelines as to what type of development would be required before such consideration would be taken. By handling this in this manner, the City would not compromise it's ability to prevent inappropriate non - residential uses from occurring on the site. As a result of this discussion, I have taken the opportunity to draft language that could be added after the third paragraph on Page 21 of the Land Use Section where the Timberwood area is discussed. Therefore, the following is offered for your consideration. 1 DRAFT PLAN TEXT "The area located north of Timberwood and south of Hwy. 5 has been , designated for residential uses for several reasons. Among these are the desire to avoid the creation of a commercial /industrial strip road along Hwy. 5, the desire to avoid Timberwood becoming a residential island by expanding the residential district around it, the desire to provide a potential middle school site at an 1 1 Comprehensive Plan January 22, 1991 Page 8 appropriate location, the desire to provide adequate buffering between what are often incompatible non - residential and residential uses and other factors relative to the placement of office industrial land and, in particular, access to it. During discussions on this portion of the plan, the City was aware that for several reasons this area contains several constraints for residential development. Among these are proximity to Hwy. 5 which is a high traffic corridor that will also have associated noise impact and the lack of significant natural features that would ' enhance the residential atmosphere and provide screening from the adjacent highway (of nearby industrial uses). Even after considering the constraints, the City has determined that the Land ' Use Plan should reflect residential uses on this parcel for reasons outlined above. However, it is possible that certain very high quality office industrial proposals could offer the City and area residents a use that is compatible with the goals outlined above. The purpose of this discussion is to clarify the type of non - residential development that could be considered as a guide plan ' amendment in the future for this area. The following guidelines must be met prior to the Planning Commission and City Council considering uses other than residential. They outline the need for a very high quality, moderate intensity non - residential development that could be handled in a manner that would offer the city and residents high degrees of control over what may ensue. 11 1. Office - industrial uses would only be considered up to the western branch of Bluff Creek. The remaining acreage would be reserved for residential uses and /or the potential middle ' school site. ' 2. The development proposal shall result in a strong orientation towards office /corporate headquarters type of development developed as a campus for a single user or under a single master plan for several users. Office space should comprise ' at least 50% of the total floor area. The balance of the square footage should have a strong emphasis on research facilities, light manufacturing and warehousing associated only with primary on -site uses. 3. The site plan shall protect creeks, wetlands and tree cover ' while providing extraordinary measures to protect nearby residential uses. Creek corridors will be dedicated for public use. These measures should include provision of at least 100' buffer strip provided with berming, heavy landscaping and tree preservation and a building orientation away from existing residences (protecting these neighborhoods • from areas of high intensity use on the site). Maximum hard surface coverage shall not exceed 60 %. 1 11 Comprehensive Plan 1 January 22, 1991 Page 9 4. Architectural styles should have a strong orientation to the 1 use of brick and glass with only limited use of tip -up panels. Truck loading areas should be concealed from off -site views and no visible exterior storage or placement of heavy equipment will be permitted. Project landscaping, lighting and signage must be coordinated and of uniformly high quality. Normal IOP District building setbacks must be maintained or exceeded. 5. The development must be handled as a Planned Unit Development with a binding development contract that gives the city adequate assurance of completion according to approved Master Plan." Again, this matter is really one that needs final determination by the City Council. Our focus on this part of the community was intense throughout the entire Comprehensive Planing process. Staff is again, therefore, reluctant to propose any changes that may give an indication that resident input is being taken lightly. We believe that the language provided above can be incorporated without violating that trust since, if an appropriate development were actually proposed, it could well offer the Timberwood residential area a much higher quality and low impact development on the adjacent property. Of course, the City Council, as with any portion of the Comprehensive Plan, is always in a position to undertake a revision to it at such time that it becomes necessary to do so. 1 5. Buffering of the Gene Ouinn Property Located Near the Proposed New Intersection of Hwv. 101 and Hwy. 212 Mr. Quinn currently resides on a parcel of land located in what is now a rural portion of the city. Highway 212 is proposed to run adjacent to the north portion of his property where it will intersect with Hwy. 101, a short distance to the west. Therefore, the Land Use Plan quite reasonably assumes that when the highway is developed, there will be a substantial motivation to develop this area for higher intensity uses. As a result, the parcel to the west of Mr. Quinn's residence is being shown for mixed high density residential or commercial use since it will sit directly on the highway interchange. Consistent with policies developed elsewhere in the plan, there is a 100 foot wide buffer yard shown between the mixed use development and Mr. Quinn's residence. Mr. Quinn has spoken directly to several members of the City Council requesting additional buffering of some sort from the owner of the property, Jim Curry. At the Mayor's request, the two individuals met and Mr. Curry appears willing to actually develop the buffer yard today in advance of any development of the property which will in all likelihood be several years in the future. Staff has no mechanism to ensure that this installation occurs since neither Mr. Curry or 1 1 Comprehensive Plan January 22, 1991 Page 10 ' Mr. Quinn are proposing to develop any portion of their property at this time. Thus, this agreement is one between two individual property owners. Staff supports the premise of working out problems in this manner and encourages the two parties to conclude their discussions amicably. Staff has no recommendations for the City Council in this regard .but we believe that it is being resolved. 6. 1995 Study AreasJFleet Farm Request 1 Representatives of the Fleet Farm continue to request that the City Council revise the 1995 Study Area located at the intersection of ' Hwy. 5 and 41 to include provisions for a large scale commercial development. While no plans have been developed, it is clear that this would be done to accommodate the construction of a Mills Fleet Farm Store and that company has already acquired the site. Staff continues to recommend that no changes be incorporated in this area. We have seen no current plans for the Fleet Farm store, ' but previous plans developed and shown to the Planning Commission showed an extensive array of shopping centers that could conceivably be developed in this area. However, even if it was ' simply limited to a Fleet Farm Store, we are concerned about the impact this could have on downtown Chanhassen. Our central business district has been the beneficiary of years of effort and extensive financial support from the city to ensure that it remains ' a vital and growing provider of services for our residents. Having done this, it would be premature, in our opinion, to invite direct competition that could only result in damage to our current ' business community. It has been staff's and the Planning Commission's recommendation that non - residential uses may be considered on this site but only at such time that the central business district is well on it's way to being completed. We would ' further note that commercial development on this parcel has a strong probability of promoting leap frog development since it is rather far removed from current in place utilities. 1 During discussions of this matter at the January 7th meeting, the City Council directed staff and the Planning Commission to ' undertake concept planning for this study area as soon as the Comprehensive Plan is adopted by the Metropolitan Council. It is believed that in so doing the concept could be recorded on the land use map for ultimate incorporation into the MUSA at such time as ' the city believed this request was reasonable. This does not infer by any means that this corner will automatically become commercial or to support a Fleet Farm, but simply that the Planning Commission will review this area and make recommendations to the City Council on it. Staff indicated that there was no problem with this request since the Planning Commission had already anticipated the need to resolve issues concerning the study areas and it had already Comprehensive Plan 1 January 22, 1991 Page 11 1 committed to undertaking concept planning for them. The .Planning Commission goal in so doing was to ensure that future property owners that move into certain parcels will have foreknowledge what the city anticipates occurring even though that area as of yet remains outside of the MUSA line. Staff is not recommending that the City Council take any action on this since you have already directed the Planning Commission to undertake this work. Inclusion of this work task will be placed in the 1990 Goals Statement being forwarded to the City Council from the Planning Commission. 7. Request From Halla Nursery for Inclusion into the MUSA , On January llth staff received a request from Don Halia that his parcel and the adjacent Bluff Creek Golf Course be included in the current MUSA line request. He indicates a desire to develop his " property with sewer noting that land is being developed approximately I mile west of County Road 17. 1 Staff believes that Mr. Halla's request is premature for a number of reasons. It was not a major consideration during the Planning Commission review of the plan. However, staff believes that if it had been the conclusion would have been it is impossible for the • city to service this area at the present time. The property in question is located well south of Lyman Boulevard which is essentially the current break point between serviced and unserviced land proposed in the draft Land Use Plan. The use of Lyman Boulevard as the dividing line was not arbitrary. It was based upon the engineering constraints involved with provision of sewer service complicated by the need to work with the Metro Council and Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to service portions of the city by the Lake Ann Interceptor that were originally proposed to be serviced by the Bluff Creek Interceptor. There is also a strong desire to present the Metro Council with a reasonable MUSA line request that was based upon a projected ten year growth pattern for the City. If Mr. Halla's property and the Bluff Creek Golf Course were to be included in the MUSA line request, several thousand additional acres would need to be incorporated to avoid leap frog development scenarios. This is well beyond the amount of land that could reasonably be incorporated in the City, while meeting Metro Council guidelines of having a ten year supply plus a five year over. Mr. Halia notes that land west of County Road 17 is being developed with sewer access. He is correct but fails to note that this land is located in Chaska which has access to their own former municipal sewage treatment plant. As the City Council may be aware, staff has been active in initiating discussions with the Cities of Chaska and Eden Prairie, as well as with the Metropolitan Council and 1 ' Comprehensive Plan January 22, 1991 Page 12 1 Metropolitan Waste Control Commission concerning the ultimate provision of services to southern Chanhassen. The MWCC has indicated that it would be undertaking a study of the Chaska Sewage ' Treatment Plant to determine whether or not it should be expanded or eliminated and replaced by a new interceptor line. Chanhassen has obtained their agreement that a study of how to serve southern Chanhassen would be included. The City Council may also recall that provision of services for southern Chanhassen is one of the outstanding issues being discussed relative to Chanhassen's response on the recent request by Eden Prairie to add 317 acres of land into their MUSA system. Staff recommends that the City Council make no change in the plan ' in the area of Mr. Halla's property or the Bluff Creek Golf Course for the reasons outlined above. We have no easy answers to give Mr. Halla as to when utilities may become available, however, we ' are working on the matter and expect to have at least some resolution of how they will be ultimately provided at some point in the next few years. In our opinion, provision of actual services into this area will not occur for a considerable time into the future. We are unwilling to speculate as to a certain date since, as we are aware from other issues surrounding the Land Use Plan, such speculation regarding the city's growth rate is more often ' than not in error. Based upon current projections for the 1991 Land Use Plan, however, it would be reasonable to conclude that service to the area Mr. Halla is interested in is not anticipated for at least 5 to 10 years. 8. Lakeview Hills Apartments - Letter from Craig Mertz ' Staff has been contacted by Craig Mertz, who is acting as the attorney for Lakeview Hills Apartments. In this capacity, he is requesting that the City Council reassess the proposal that would ' have a portion of the current Lakeview Hills site being designated for use as a park area. Lakeview Hills Apartments is something of an oddity in the City in that it is a high density development that was constructed many years ago that is completely inconsistent with surrounding land uses. Much of the surrounding area is either rural or devoted to ' low density residential uses. Be that as it may, the proposed Comprehensive Plan recognizes that Lakeview Hills Apartments is there and essentially maintains the land use designations of the ' 1980 Plan unchanged with one exception. Thus, the Lakeview Hills Apartment site itself and an adjoining property that are currently guided for high density uses will continue to remain so. The one change mentioned above is due to the fact that the Lakeview Hills ' site will be divided by the Hwy. 212 Corridor. The southern portion will contain the existing apartments, while another portion of the site will be severed by the highway and located north of it. 1 1 1 Comprehensive Plan ' January 22, 1991 Page 13 1 The draft Comprehensive Plan recognizes this fact and attempts to take it into account. With the property severed in this manner, the sole means of access will be off of 84th Street /Tigua Lane which means that it would have to come through a single family residential neighborhood. In addition, the site in question contains a beautiful wooded hillside overlooking Rice Marsh Lake. It was staff's and the Planning Commission's desire to see this incorporated into the plan as a future park site. Consequently, this area is designated as future park by the Land Use Plan. Mr. Mertz, in his letter, seems to infer that this is a taking of property. It is my opinion that there is no taking of property in the legal sense. The City Attorney agrees with this interpretation. There is a use designated on the property, it simply represents a change from the guide plan. We note that the area in question is undeveloped and has been so since the day the apartments were built. Therefore, we believe there is no vested right to a high density designation and that the City Council may, based upon current information, change the plan to recognize today's values and needs. However, Mr. Mertz does have a point. The point is that the plan designates this area solely as park. The same designation is listed in expansion areas around Bandimere Park and along the east side of Lake Ann Park. We believe it is appropriate to designate these areas as parks since the plan infers that it is the city's long term goals to develop these areas accordingly. However, the City cannot simply designate a park and have it occur, it must acquire the land through dedication or purchase. If we fail to acquire the land in a timely manner, the city will be required to allow legitimate development to occur. The issue boils down to what is legitimate development on these parcels if plans to develop the parks do not proceed. The same situation occurs with proposal expansions of both Bandimere and Lake Ann Parks as well. Therefore, we are proposing that the Land Use Plan be amended as outlined below to illustrate reasonable alternative land uses should the park acquisitions not be completed. The Lakeview Hills situation is somewhat different then the other two in that the entire site is currently zoned R -12. Under state law, the zoning ordinance takes precedence. Therefore, after adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, staff will be requesting the City Council initiate appropriate rezoning of the parcel located north of the highway. The City Council should consider the establishment of an overlay system for the classification of the future parks identified south of Rice Marsh Lake, east of Lake Ann Park and north of Bandimere Park. Such a system could be implemented by showing the park locations on a map in the Recreation section and showing the 1 1 Comprehensive Plan January 22, 1991 Page 14 underlying land use on the Land Use Plan. If this system is to be implemented, suggested underlying land use patterns include the 1 following: Lake Ann Park The northern 700 feet of the park could 1 be reclassified as medium density residential and the southern 1200 feet of the park could be reclassified as high density residential. These ' classifications would be consistent with the land use categories presently identified east of the park area. The ' Recreation section would continue to show the full expansion of the park area. Bandimere Park The expansion area north of the existing boundary of Bandimere Park could be reclassified as low density residential consistent with surrounding land uses. ' The Recreation section would continue to show the full expansion of the park area. ' Rice Marsh Lake The area south of Rice Marsh Lake and north of proposed TH 212 could be reclassified as low density residential. This classification would be consistent 1 with the land use to the west which would have to provide road access to this area. The Recreation section would continue to 1 show the parcel as a future park site. ' STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the draft Comprehensive Plan and direct staff to forward it to the Metropolitan Council for review and approval. To facilitate the Council's review of the attached material and developing an appropriate motion, the following summary is provided: 1 • Jerome Carlson a. Inclusion of buffer yard b. Inclusion of revised text regarding Lake Ann /Lake Minnewashta trail • Lake Lucy - oev. 1 • Neighborhood status commercial northeast Inclusion f r quadrant ised language of Hwy. 5 and Galpin Boulevard - Should this be included in Plan? 1 1 1 Comprehensive Plan January 22, 1991 Page 15 • Area between Timberwood and Hwy. 5 - Should Plan text be revised to outline high quality non - residential development that could be considered? • Fleet Farm /Study Areas - Direct Planning Commission to conceptually plan area. • Halla Nursery - MUSA Inclusion. • Lakeview Hills Apartments Creation of Rice Marsh Park and expansion of Lake Ann and Bandimere Parks - Changes to Plan and text to outline underlying designations. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LAW OFFICES I WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS 1100 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST 1 A. THOMAS WURST, P.A MINNEAPOLIS, M I N N ESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE CURTIS A. PfiARS0 N, P.A (612) 336-4200 JAMES D LARSON, P.A. THOMAS F UNDERWOOD, P.A FAx NUMBER I CRAIG M. MERTZ (612) 336-2625 ROGER J. FELLOWS II January 7, 1991 BY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION Chanhassen City Councils ` <o ; c/o Jo Ann Olsen 690 Coulter Drive JAN 08 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 I t ! ? vt vr I..,. 1 ,_,_- - Re: Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan II To The Mayor and the members of the City Council: This office represents Lakeview Hills Investment Group, the 1 owners of the Lakeview Hills apartment complex. The complex is located on Lake Riley Boulevard between Rice Marsh Lake on the north and Lake Riley on the south. 1 It is our understanding that at the regular council meeting this evening, the Council will consider the adoption of an updated Comprehensive Plan, the public hearing having been conducted by the I Planning Commission on October 24, 1990. While this evening's meeting is not scheduled as another public hearing, we understand that the Council will be entertaining public comment on the draft I Comprehensive Plan. Accordingly, we ask that this letter be accepted by the Council in lieu of oral comment at this evening's meeting. I The existing zoning of the entire Lakeview Hills complex is R- 12, high density residential. In the proposed Comprehensive Plan, only the southerly one -half of the Lakeview Hills property retains I the high density residential designation. The northerly half of the property is proposed to be designated as park land and Highway 212 corridor. 1 On behalf of the owners of the Lakeview Hills apartment complex, we protest the proposed loss of any of the property's high density residential character. 1 The Lakeview Hills property has been continuously designated as high density residential since the time of the 1963 decision of 1 1 1 WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ Chanhassen City Council c/o Jo Ann Olsen January 7, 1991 Page 2 the Chanhassen Township Board to approve a 525 unit apartment project on the subject property. The present 170 units on the property are part of that original 525 unit approval. On behalf of the owners, I protest any attempt to now diminish their development rights in the Lakeview Hills property. The owners do not wish to become the involuntary de facto owner of a park. We ask that the new Comprehensive Plan retain the high density residential designation on the entire Lakeview Hills tract. Very truly yours, 1 WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ / (12 • Craig M. Mertz CMM:lkg 1 cc: Lakeview Hills Investment Group 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , EP plan to expand devel�pment area p 1 attracts t acts questions from Chanhassen 1 By Mark Weber It was at the request of developers Metro Council to allow an additional EdenPrairie'sproposaltoenlarge that Eden Prairie proposed to move 2,700 acres in that city to be devel- the area of southwestern EP that can the MUSA line west to the border oped prior to 2000. As in Eden Prai- be developed prior to the year 2000 is with Chanhassen and to allow addi- ne, the request requires that Chan- I raising concerns in Chanhassen, which tional land to be served by city utili- hassen's MUSA line be moved. has a similar plan on the drawing ties. A widened Hwy. 5 is expected to Chanhassen has been working board. improve access to the area,' as are approximately two years fo support Added traffic, sewercapacity and proposed extensions of Dell Road its request to change the MUSA line, I surface -water treatment are among and Scenic Heights Road in Eden Krauss said. Of the 2,700 acres Chan - the issues Chanhassen city officials Prairie. hassen would add to its supply of are raising to the Metropolitan Coun- Eden Prairie Director of Planning land able to be developed prior to the cil, which must approve Eden Prai- Chris Enger said he was surprised by year 2000, about 1,600 acres are I Tie's request to add 317 acres to the Chanhassen's objections to the EP usable. The remainder is wetlands, city's bank of land developable be- request, but both sides expressed parks, tracts not expected to be subdi- fore 2000. confidence the differences can be vided, etc. The Eden Prairie land, which is ironed out. Lie Eden Prairie, Chanhassen I located south of Hwy. 5 and north of "We're not talking about a wide has exceeded forecasts made earlier County Road 1 in southwest Eden chasm here," said Chanhassen Di = by the Metro Council. The Council Prairie, is currently outside the city's rector of Planning Paul Krauss. had projected a population of 10,000 Metropolitan Urban Services Area "There's no reason we can't work by 1990 and a work fora of 4,500.1n 1 , (MUSA) line, established by the Metro these things out." reality, the city hit the 12,000 popula- Council to prevent urban sprawl. Among Chanhassen's concerns lion mark and tallied 6,000 jobs last about the Eden Prairie request: year, said Krauss. " Traffic projections used by Eden Dick Thompson, a senior planner . \ Prairie to plan .southwestern Eden with the Metropolitan Council, said 1 f� \�� r Prairie may be too conservative if Friday that a meeting between Metro \_ - , \ they are based on Metro Council Council staff and "officials from : - \- studies, Krauss said. He would like Chanhassen and Eden Prairie will be the 1 ,- *\,Eden Prairie to consider new traffic arranged to discuss Eden Prairie's info rmation developed by a eastern proposal further. \ Carver County cities, including Chan- He said additional information is • being sought from city officials be- s The idea of discharging storm • cause Eden Prairie's application to 1 - .. r water -into Lake Riley, as proposed in extend the MUSA line is incomplete. k f-�- the Eden Prairie plan, ought to be Once the application is complete, the - -.. analyzed further because of new planning agency has 90 days to make . = . - son said. 1 c \- -- e. concerns about RileyRile Y s water q ualit Y a decisio n, Thom p .' and the quality of the Minnesota River Enger said he fears delays that o downstream, according to Krauss. may be caused by issues Eden Prairie .4 Because the Eden Prairie plan is unable to address without help from r \ does not propose sanitary sewer serv- other agencies, such as the quality of 1 tr~ ice to Chanhassen, the Metro Coun- water reaching the Minnesota River. • 4 _ ;"� ' cil ought to confirm how a portion of He said the EP request should not !� southern Chanhassen — "Kind of a be controversial because it does not t black hole down there," Krauss said change land use, development . pat - I \ —ca be served te rns or development standards `.. ' Despite these concerns, Chanhas- The 317 acres proposed to be � \ ; sen is not opposed to the Eden Prairie added are not expected to develop _ mme m quite sure it will 1 , '� least three years down the line, - r te, -_ :;_ of Chanhassen's motivation in ask - be at l y " , ^_- ing the questions, he said, is to ensure Enger said. r that his city gets the same considers- Eden Prairie filed its application 1 lions as Eden Prairie. with the Metro Council on Nov. 26. ''- l� 1 ...or ° - Chanha will soon ask the • - 1 1 1 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. = : : , Attorneys at Law ,,L J i, 1 i 1991 Thomas J. Campbell Roger N. Knutson CI f _Y yr r Thomas M. Scott (612) -456-4 Gary G. Fuchs Fax (612) 456 -9542 James R Walston Elliott B. Knetsch Gregory D. Lewis Dennis J. Unger January 9, 1991 Mr. Paul Krauss 1 Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box. 147 Chanhassen, Minn_e 55317 1 RE: Comprehensive Plan Dear Paul: 1 Enclosed are two letters that Elliott reviewed at the last City Council meeting. Confirming our telephone conversation, I think that rather than having a "black hole" in the land use map that some designation should be given. Very truly yours, 1 CAMPBE1L, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FU4HS, P BO" Roger N. Knutson RNK:srn Enclosures 1 1 1 1 1 Yankee Square Office III • Suite 202 • 3460 Washington Drive • Eagan, MN 55122 I JAMES P LARKIN JOHN A. COTTER• ROBERT L. HOFFMAN LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. BEATRICE A. ROTHWEIL.ER JACK F DALY PAUL B. PLUNKETT I D. KENN LINDGREN ALAN L. KILDOW W ENDE A. ANDERSON ATTORNEY S AT LAW KATHLEEN M. PICOTTE NEWMAN GERALD H. FBIEDELL MICHAEL B. LE BARON ALLAN E. MULLIGAN FRANCIS E. GIBERSON ROBERT J. HENNESSEY AMY DARR GRADY JAMES C. ERICKSON 1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 2000 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER CATHERINE BARNETT WILSON• EDWARD J. DRISCOLL JEFFREY C. ANDERSON GENE N. FULLER 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET DANIEL L. BOWLES I DAVID C• SE J. LLERGRKEENAN EN TODD M. VLATKOVICH RICHARD BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TIMOTHY J. MCMANUS JOHN D. FULLMER GREGORY E. KORSTAD ROBERT E. BOYLE TELEPHONE 16121 835 TELEPHONE 16121 338 LISA A. GRAY FRANK I. HARVEY GARY A. RENNEKE CHARLES S. MODELL FAX 16121 896 FAX (6121 336.9760 THOMAS H. WEAVER CHRISTOPHER J. DIETZ EN _ JOHN R. BEATTIE SHANNON K. MCCAMBRIDGE I DENISE A . VAN NORTON LINDA N. f{SHER GARY A VA CL THOMAS P STOLTMAN NORTH SUBURBAN OFFICE MICHAEL B. BRAMAN STEVEN G. LEVIN GAYLEN 4 KNACK MICHAEL C. JACKMAN 8990 SPRINGBROOK DRIVE, SUITE 250 JULIE A. WRASE JOHN E. DIEHL CHRISTOPHER J. JON S. SWIERIEWSKI COON RAPIDS, MINNESOTA 55433 SHARON L. SRENNA HARRISTHAL THOMAS J. FLYNN P QUINN MARIKAY CANADA LITZAU T ODD 1. FREEMAN TELEPHONE 16121 786 TIMOTHY J. KEANE fTCPNEN B. SOLOMON WILLIAM C. GRIFFITH. JR. PETER K. BECK FAX 16121 786 - 6711 THEODORE A. MONOALE JCROME H. KAHNKE JOHN J. STEFFENHAGEN SHERRILL R. OMAN DANIEL W. VOSS GERALD L SECK MARK A. RURIK JOHN B. LUNDOVIST JOHN R. HILL DAYLE NOLAN• JAMES K. MARTIN I THOMAf B. HUMPHRE JR. Reply t o Bloomington STEVEN P. KATKOV - MICHACI T. MCKIM THOMAS J. SEYMOUR CHARLES R. WEAVER NORMAN L.TALLE VINCENT G. ELLA ANDREW J. MITCHELL OF COUNSEL JOSEPH GITIS RICHARD A. NORDBYE I January 7, 19 91 DAVID J. PEAT y ( .ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN I/ Mayor Don Chmiel and Members of City Council City of Chanhassen 1 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Mills Fleet Farm II Dear Mayor Chmiel and Members of the City Council: I The purpose of this letter is to offer background and comments of Mills Fleet Farm (Mills) regarding the draft Comprehensive Plan Amendments proposed for the City of Chanhassen. Milts first contacted the City of Chanhassen regarding a proposed development of a Mills I Fleet Farm facility on approximately 50 acres at the northeast corner of TH -5 and TH -41 (the Property). Mills representatives met on several occasions with City staff and elected officials throughout ' late 1987 and early 1988 regarding the development a 170,000 square foot Mills retail facility. City staff suggested, and Mills agreed, that rather than petitioning for a comprehensive plan amendment and I re- zoning in 1988, that Milts work with the City and participate in the process to amend and update the City Comprehensive Plan. Mills has participated and commented throughout the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process since that time. 1 Mills has stated previously throughout this planning process that a commercial designation of the Property located at the intersection of 1 two state highways is appropriate. The draft Comprehensive Plan Amendments first presented in June 1990 and subsequently recommended for approval by the Planning Commission in October 1990 designates the Mills' property as "1995 Study Area ". The designation of the "1995 Ip Study Area" results in placing a 4 or 5 year moratorium on the Proper y. n e in Brim, Mills will have no expectation or guidance 1 1 1 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY 8: LINDGREN, LTD. 1 Don Chmeil January 7, 1991 page 2 1 to plan for the future use of the Property. Milts respectively requests that the Property be designated for its ultimate appropriate land use at this time as part of the current Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. Thank you for the opportunity to address this subject. We request that this letter be made a part of the public record in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. Sincerely, Timothy J. Keane, for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN Ltd. cc: Stewart Mills, Mills Fleet Farm Thomas Green, Mills Fleet Farm 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TJK:FJ8s 1 I eu, y , h A 114 O� - �.,. , `; X45 •..,.. p Rti INC. A `N "LANDSCAPE DESIGNERS, CONTRACTORS, GROWERS" g 1 o�! •„,. '.0 10,000 Great Plains Blvd., Chaska, Minnesota 55318 3 Miles South of Chanhassen on Hwy. 101 - Phone 612 - 445.6555 1 January 11, 1991 II City Council City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Street II Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Dear Gentlemen, As you know we have a sub — division approved for our property which is 1 located on Highway 101 and Pioneer Trail. In previous letters we have requested that the MUSA line be moved so as 1 to include our property for future development with availability with sewer. We respectfully request that in your discussions with the Metropolitan Sewer 1 Board and the Metropolitan Council that you request either the serving of our 100 acre property from the sewer system of Chaska or the extension of the MUSA line so as to include our 100 acre area. 1 Land has developed approximately 1/2 mile west of County Road 17 and the 1 owners of Bluff Creek Golf Course, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Burgland would also like to have their areas served for lot development along the bluffs. Please take this into consideration with your various communications regarding the II changes that are forthcoming thru the Metropolitan Council. II ' cerely yours, j . 1 €ice Don E. Halls II 111 ,,N 1 5 19q 111 \ "THE PLACE TO GO FOR PLANTS THAT GROW" YOUR "NATIONAL LANDSCAPE AWARD" WINNING NURSERY FOR DESIGNING & PLANTING SHADE TREES • EVERGREENS • FLOWERING CRABS • FRUIT TREES • FLOWERING SHRUBS • HEDGING • GROUND COVERS • FERTILIZERS LANDSCAPE CONSULTATION • INSECTICIDES • PRUNING • LARGE TREE MOVING • INSURANCE CLAIMS • DESIGNING 1 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 7, 1991 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Workman, Councilwoman Dimler, Councilman Wing and Councilman Mason PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Steve Emmings, Tim Erhart, Annette 1 Ellson, Jim Wildermuth and Brian Batzli STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Elliott Knetsch, Todd Gerhardt, Gary Warren, Paul ' Krauss and Mark Koegler OATH OF OFFICE: Elliott Knetsch presented the Oath of Office to Mayor Don Chmiel, Councilman Richard Wing and Councilman Mike Mason. PRESENTATION OF MAPLE LEAF AWARDS: ' Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to, at this particular time, present an award to the people -who have served on the Planning Commission and some of the reasons behind it, as well as the Council feels, you people have dedicated a lot of time, a lot If of their talents by providing the kind of considerations that have been given over the period of reviewing our'Land Use Plan. Comprehensive Plan was something that took a lot of time, a lot of patience, a lot of understanding and • I feel very strong that I wanted to have them receive an award for this. I'd like to read you what the Maple Leaf Award says. Presented to and in recognition of your efforts in preparing and analysing the City's Comprehensive Plan for the 1990's which represents an examination of our history, our accomplishments and failures in the past and a guide for the next decade. This is signed by each of the Council people as well as myself. Issued to them on January 7th, 1991. What I'd like to do is present each of these awards to each individual separately. The first one I have in my hand is Steve Emmings. Ladd Conrad. Timothy Erhart. Annette Ellson. Joan Ahrens. I don't see Joan here. We'll hold that for her and give that to her later. James Wildermuth. And Brian Batzli. Brian's not here either. Thank you. We really appreciate your time and effort. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Public Present: 1 Name Address Peter Beck 7900 Xerxes Avenue So, Minneapolis 1 Thomas Green Mills Fleet Farm, 1952 Graydon Blvd. Mark Foster 8020 Acorn Lane Bill Miller 9121 Pinewood Circle • Helen Loebl 7197 Frontier Trail Mark Williams 1655 Lake Lucy Road 1 1 1 II City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991 Eric Rivkin 1695 Steller Court 1 Dale Carlson 6900 Utica Lane D.J. Fretland 1606 Black Oak Lane Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd. I Gene Quinn 532 Lyman Blvd. Jim Curry Landowner in Southern Chanhassen Larry VanDeVeire 4980 Co. Rd. 10 E, Chaska Dennis Dirlum 15241 Creekside Court Eden Prairie II Jerome Carlson 8280 Galpin Blvd. I Paul Krauss: Tonight's meeting has been set to give the City Council an opportunity to review the draft Comprehensive Plan that's been prepared for the community. The Planning Commission has been working diligently on the plan for I over 2 years and throughout the process there's been a considerable amount of public input as a result of the large number of open work sessions that were held, neighborhood meetings, public hearings, the volume of written correspondence that we've received and a number of individuals who've come in to I discuss the plan with me personally. The Plan itself has been in the process of continual refinement. It's hoped that if this process hasn't resulted in a plan that everybody fines completely satisfactory, that at least everybody feels that I they've been heard and that changes have been made to move in the directions that they had hoped. The process has been a lengthy one, not - only due to the need to gain public input but also due to the Plan's complexity. It's designed II to replace our original 1980 Comprehensive Plan that frankly became very dated due to our growth and complex new issues that developed in the past 10 years. The plan's designed to manage the City's growth in the coming decade and it's our belief that the 1990's have a very good potential for being an exciting I decade for the city. We find that in addition to our high quality residential - neighborhoods and natural environment, the City now has a large and growing employment base and with a downtown that is finally coming together after a lot 1 of years of effort. We're in the process of gaining excellent access with TH 5 being under construction and TH 212 hopefully under construction in the not too distant future and also our neighboring communities are essentially filling up. I The Planning Commission's challenge has been to develop a plan that builds upon the strengths of the community and allows for reasonable growth while protecting our quality of life. To attain this goal the Plan is far more than a land use plan or land use map which has gotten most of the comment during our 1 discussions. The land use map itself is the guide that directs future growth. It also contains detail, the plan also contains detailed guidelines for protecting the natural environment, insuring provision of adequate I transportation and public facilities, expansion of recreational opportunities and city utilities to meet growing demands and other matters necessary to meet the goals that were established by the Planning Commission. In short the plan II is a vision of what Chanhassen could become by the end of the 1990's. The Land Use Plan has been the focus of much of the Planning Commission's efforts , concerning the comprehensive plan. In a minute I'll ask Mark Koegler who's been our consultant who's worked with us throughout the process, to give you an I overview of the land use plan but before doing do I just wanted to outline the remaining parts of the adoption process. As you're probably aware, the City Council has the ability to approve, deny or modify the plan that's being II reviewed tonight. If it's to be approved, it would have to be approved subject to the Metropolitan Council's approval. After you've acted, the Metropolitan . 2 II II Council will become the primary focus of our attentions since under State law they have the option of also reviewing the plan and requiring changes to Sections that have some metropolitan significance. As you're aware, staff has been working with the Metro Council staff themselves for the past 1 1/2 years and hopefully we've been able to smooth out that adoption process but that's by no means assured. Although their staff amidst a serious failings in their data, the Metro Council has yet to revi their year 2000 projections which contain population employment forecasts for 10 years from now which we exceeded last year. The Metro Council is frankly also a political body with an agenda of it's own so that a diligent work effort on our part is going to be required to assure adoption of the plan as approved by the Council. With that I'd like to pass the meeting over to Mark Koegler to give you a brief overview of the land use plan itself and how it was developed. 1 Mark Koegler: Thanks Paul. I'll pick up Mayor and Council, on Paul's term brief and try to be just that. I think a lot of the faces in the room tonight are people who were at the public hearing and we'll allow plenty of time to respond to questions. I'd like to highlight again that the land use section of the plan is merely one component of the document itself and it bears relationship to all of the other sections of the document. There's transportation, recreation, housing and a number of others. To a certain degree the land use chapter which always, I think gardners the most attention in virtually any community because it's a graphic picture of what's likely to occur. It is driven very much by the demographic information that's in the plan itself and anybody that has a chance to review that will find that early on the Planning Commission went through a process by which they looked at three different sets of projections for population and community growth. One's we labeled kind of a low, a midrange and a high. Their decision was that the midrange projections accurately reflected what Chanhassen was likely to experience. Those projections were done approximately 2 years ago. They called for a 1990 the City to have a household count of about 4,100 with a corresponding population of about 11,105. That compared very favorable to the early census data that came out late last year that showed the City's population at about 11,700 with a household count of about 4,009 so again, very close. That same set of midrange projections, if you carry it onto the year 2000 identifies that the City anticipates a household count of about 6,500 or about a 2,500 increase over the next 10 years and a population count of about 17,700, up from approximately 12,000 at the present time. So again those numbers to a large degree have driven the land use map that's behind me and specifically correspond to the amount of land that's been allocated in the various categories. So with that I will kind of bounce back to the map for a minute and give you a quick overview of that and then touch upon some transportation issues. I don't know what's comfortable for everybody but feel free to shift around so that you can see the best possible. The colors on this map I think are pretty familiar to most of you. The yellows basically are the residential. Yellow going into brown. The red color is commercial. The purple is the office industrial. There's two green colors on here. One corresponds to parks. The other corresponds to public open space. There's a couple of other categories that I'll touch upon in a minute. What I'd like to do is give you a little bit of background as to why the colors are on the map and the way they're configured and then move into some other specific information. This plan is to a large degree a continuation of the plan the city started with in 1980 and at that time the city's predominant residential area was around Lotus Lake, carrying over 3 1 1 City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991 ' into Lake Minnewashta on the north side of the city. Chanhassen Lakes Business Park down in this area was in it's infancy. Downtown was struggling with the beginnings of tax increment beginning to take effect there. This plan then ' basically builds upon what the 1980 plan called for which essentially was kind of a pattern of infill throughout the northern community and kind of working down towards the southwest. That's largely what has happened with the residential. The low density residential which is the yellow color, the ' predominant category of land use on the map. That's a logical extension for the most part of existing residential areas. The industrial that's in the purple color is kind of a continuation again of this original business park. If you ' could see Chaska's land use overlayed on top of this map which would fit down in this portion, you'd see a great deal of this purple color that abuts the community down in the southwestern portion. What we begin to get is a linkage ' between the existing business park kind of following the railroad tracks, coming down towards the City of Chaska. The commercial is identified primarily in the downtown area. This comprehensive plan, much like the last one, places it's emphasize on downtown Chanhassen. It is in a unique position to have a downtown ' ...focus there from a planning perspective the last 10 years or so and they're likely to remain there, at least in according to this plan as it sits right now. I glossed over one category that I want to touch on now. These 1995 study areas and there are two of them. One to the south and one to the west, are kind of ' holding categories. The Planning Commission got into the plan, there were a couple of areas that were determined to be pre - mature for land use designation primarily due to either timing of transportation or the timing of utility ' extensions. Both of those areas have been held in that category. What that means in reality is the plan says literally after it's adopted, begin to focus on those and over the course of the next couple of years when more of the ' transportation and utility information is in, to be able to identify the land - use patterns, particularly for that western...southern one as well. Parks are largely an extension of what is there at the present time. I think that... ' pretty well in effect. The semi - public parcels such as the Arboretum, this plan does not call for any new major areas. Those typically are outside agencies. There were a series of issues that the Planning Commission addressed at their public hearing on October 24th and a number of those issues really were taking ' place right up until that meeting. I guess I want to highlight those very briefly for the Council's benefit and for those that are present this evening. One of them was the Timberwood subdivision which is this lighter color yellow. ' That lighter color yellow is the residential large lot which means there's a minimum 2 1/2 acre lot and in that case, and in most others that were established prior to 1987. This was a subject of considerable discussion. ' Considerable land use alternatives by the commission. Ultimately they agreed upon a pattern that set a residential buffer if you will, kind of around that existing residential area. There was a similar effort that took place to the south with Sunridge Court which is a smaller development here. Again, there ' were some changes made in the plan to allocate some residential that would abut that. Another issue that took place was the Lake Lucy Highlands area which is predominantly this portion of -the community. There were some alternatives 1 looked at to call, I guess you gerrymandered the line around perhaps the MUSA line to service some properties to take some properties out. What I should probably do before I go further is highlight the MUSA line which is this red line on this map. For anybody who somehow has missed that acronym for the last ' 20 years, it's Metropolitan Urban Service Area and it essentially is simply a line between which you can have utility service prior to the year 2000 and which ' 4 1 City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991 by the Metropolitan Council's policies you cannot. It doesn't mean it's there 1 but it means the ability is there to extend it into those areas. Other issues that surfaced. There was a small commercial site in the plan at one time designated down here at TH 5 and Galpin. The commission in some other later deliberations decided to pull that out and put it back into a medium density category. There was a concept derived when part of this plan became labeled as buffer areas. An example is down in this area where you have residential abutting office /industrial type environment. There's a line on this map that identifies that there's a buffer area planned between those uses as well as along the road right -of -way and there a number of other of those scattered throughout the community. Essentially those are intended to be additional open space buffer areas above and beyond what you would normally find under normal zoning setbacks. Berming, landscaping, and those kinds of things in corridors that would be an additional SO to 100 feet in width. The final issue that surfaced was addressed by the commission I think literally at the hearing on the 24th was the proposal by Lundgren Brothers out on the western portion of the community to take a piece of land that formerly was in the 1995 study area and to identify that as low density residential. The commission did review that and after deliberation found that that was probably a valid approach. It has been added then to what is now being identified as the City's year 2000 land use plan. One thing I want to give you is a very quick picture of what all of this means. There is a small red line on here that's probably difficult to see. That's the City's existing MUSA line. If you look at any area between that line and the new MUSA line, that area inbetween becomes the area that's being added to Chanhassen sewer service area by the year 2000. I want to give you just a quick numbers as to how much area is actually represented by this map. Excluding this piece which I would guess is 80 to 90 acres probably in total size, the City's MUSA line expansion proposed by this plan is approximately - 2,700 acres. That's a very large number. I think it's important also to break that number down. Of that 2,700 acres, approximately 550 are in existing developments such as Timberwood and some of the others as well as any existing parks that fall within that expansion area. There, as you well know, in Chanhassen there's a significant amount of wetlands. The wetlands factored out of that number, take out about another 270 acres. There are a couple of parcels in particularly this portion of the community that are owned by private individuals who have expressed a desire and probably have the financial resources to hold that property out of development for a number of years. It is their intent not to develop. Those two parcels alone count for approximately another 150 acres. There's parks in the area that are about 211 acres so what it boils down to is the expansion in terms of a net of approximately 840 acres of residential, single family. 115 acres of multi - family and approximately 540 acres of office /industrial. On this map is also overlayed transportation information. That's the heavier blue lines and the dotted lines and some of the double lines that you can see on the land use exhibit. I want to touch briefly upon the expansions and the new alignments as they come out through the MUSA line area. You'll notice on the north side of TH 5 stretching from CR 17 or Powers out to TH 41, there is a northern frontage road along TH 5. That's consistent with the planning MnDot has been doing for the upgrade of TH 5 for a number of years now. Similarly along the south side there is another leg that somewhat is a detached frontage road that comes across to the west, hits...and then goes on over to TH 41 where it abuts Chaska here on the common border. A couple of other new collector street alignments. One is the extension of Lake Lucy Road westward ultimately to TH 41. Another lies further to the south 5 1 1 City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991 ' of that area. TH 212 is shown on this map in it's configuration that has been officially mapped. MnDot is actually out now doing design for the first segments that will go through Eden Prairie. So the next segment upon completion ' of that is the segment down to Lyman Blvd. and over to Mitchell Road in Eden Prairie so that's becoming a reality. That alignment is shown on this plan. I think that touches upon all of the major application issues. With that ' I'll call on Paul. Paul Krauss: I think I'm done Mayor. It's back to you. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, very good. Thank you. Being just sort of a brief overview, it's well done. Thank you. I'd like to open this meeting up at this particular time for anyone who has any specific comments they'd like to make at this time. I'd like you to please state your name and your address when ' addressing at the podium. So with that, if there's anyone at this particular time that .would like to come forth and indicate some of their concerns, please do so now. ' Peter Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Peter Beck, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South. I'm here tonight on behalf of Mills Fleet Farm. With me I - tonight is Tom Green with Mills Fleet Farm. I have a letter which we have, very short letter, which we have addressed to the Council that I'll ask Tom to take one and pass on. Mills Fleet Farm owns approximately 50 acres in this area ' right here as the Council may know. At the intersection of highways 5 and 41. They acquired that property in 1987 for the purpose of locating a Mills Fleet Farm facility at that intersection of two State highways. After some discussion with city staff and the former mayor and councilmembers, rather than proceed at ' that time with the necessary approvals, they agreed to go along and make their plans or their proposal known and part of the discussion of the overall comprehensive plan review. So they have been working with staff, have been ' participants in the long process that Paul described over the last 2 or 3 years. The concern that they have about the recommendation tonight is that in their case it amounts to another 4 or 5 years of uncertainty if you will. Virtual moratorium on any decision with respect to their facility at that location so the position we have tonight as set forth in the letter is just simply a request that the Council make a decision with respect to this property as part of this comprehensive plan amendment or adoption process. That is, not defer this any ' longer. Or at a minimum ask that the Planning Commission, planning staff, Planning Commission, immediately undertake to address their location in this 1995 study area in the western part of the city within the next few months so ' they are not delayed another 4 -5 years. Certainly this intersection some day would presumably be an appropriate site to consider for a commercial uses at the intersection of two state highways. When that might happen is one thing but having at least some knowledge as to whether it will ever happen is something ' else in terms of having a plan there and having it guided for eventual commercial use. So that is the request. There is no objection to, as your staff has pointed out, the bulk of what you're doing tonight is adopting a very I comprehensive document with a lot of text and we're not here to object to that. Object to the adoption of that. We are here to request that the 1995 study area be addressed in a shorter timeframe at a minimum, if not as part of this very process. Mr. Green and I'd be happy to answer any questions if there are any about that request. 6 1 City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991 1 Mayor Chmiel: Does anyone have any specific questions? I guess not. II Peter Beck: Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? ' Dennis Di -rlum: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Dennis Dirlum. I live at 15241 Creekside Court in Eden Prairie. I'm one of the partners that owns 137 acres on TH 5 that wraps around the Timberwood area and adjoins the McGlynn industrial site to the west. We also have been working with the staff and the Planning Commission since the beginning and are concerned about the guide plan. The way it is and we voiced those concerns in the past but I want to bring them up to you also. You look at the guide plan the way it is now, you look at TH 5 and the commercial and industrial developments all the way along. You see purples or reds all the way along it but when you come to our site it's yellow, single family. As a developer of residential sites, it's very difficult to sell single family homes that back up to a four lane highway and that is our basic objection. That the city has done a good job of protecting the existing single family and I think we need to look to the future and do we want to put a freeway in the backyard or put houses somewhere where there's a freeway in the backyard. We would ask that you consider something other than that and understand that this is a good location for a junior high school and we would concur with that with the possibility of extending the industrial area over to the green space with the second tree which gives it a natural break from the industrial over to the school and the other negatives is the single family with a... So we'd like you to consider that as an option in looking at this tonight. The rest of the plan, the staf has been more than cordial in working with us and the Planning Commission and thank you very much. ' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Does anyone have any questions of Dennis on the Council? Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address this? Larry VanDeVeire: My name is Larry VanDeVeire, 4980 County Road 10 in Chaska. I own the 13 acres at the intersection of Galpin Blvd. and TH 5. Originally in the Comp Plan it was set aside as neighborhood commercial. That was changed at some time this summer. I guess I'd like to have some reconsideration on that being changed back to neighborhood commercial. I guess I felt it met the Comp Plan. Fell into the Comp Plan's specs if you want to call it that. Again, I guess I don't believe that, it's slated for a four lane highway with a lighted intersection there. I guess I just don't feel that that's a place for residential. Mayor Chmiel: Does anyone have any questions of Larry? Councilman Workman: I have a quick one. When did you buy the property? ' Larry VanDeVeire: I think it was 1985. Is that right? 1985. Councilman Workman: And what was it zoned then? ' Larry VanDeVeire: It was zoned ag- residential. R -4. Councilman Workman: And when was it then changed to neighborhood commercial? 7 ' 1 II City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991 II Larry VanDeVeire: Through the process of the comp plan. Councilman Workman: Earlier this year? II Larry VanDeVeire: The first time I'd seen it would have been early this spring. Mayor Chmiel: Mayor Paul can address that. I Paul Krauss: If I could clarify that. There's been a number of draft an t 1 d use plans developed over the last year starting probably I guess it was a year ago II November was the first. Through that process Mark and I at first took a first shot at that and then the Planning Commission started to massage it around and it was changed. One of the earlier drafts I believe had a neighborhood I commercial node on that corner and it was largely untouched for most of this spring and into the summer and then I believe it was when we had the neighborhood meeting, we had the north and the south side neighborhood meetings, it some criticism from people who lived up on Galpin and as a result the II Planning Commission deleted that from consideration. So it's been out of the planning consideration for a good 6 months but it was only on a draft plan. It's i l never been in zoning or anything else. II Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I Larry VanDeVeire: Excuse me. Can I ask a question? How far can a resident live to complain about land use? I guess I'm not aware of who was complaining or how many people were complaining. I'm at a standstill as far as you know why II it was changed. It fits with the comp plan. It was there for quite some time. I guess I just never got the input on why it was changed. To me it made a good neighborhood commercial site. It met all of the guidelines. The buffer zone was there. It was small. It fell right into the wording of the comp plan and I to put residential there to me, I guess we bought it for residential. We bought it to live there and after being there, I planted 1,500 trees out on that property and that was 6 years ago now. 5 or 6 years ago. Spring of 1986 I I think it was. That traffic at that time was too bad. The trees in the background actually act as a buffer to contain the noise from the highway. It's very loud there compared to if it would be up on a hill or somewhere other than the way it's situated and I didn't feel it was suited for residential at that I time and decided to hold onto it for speculation at that time. And right now I guess I couldn't, and I had the opportunity in, was it 1987, to subdivide at the same time Timberwood was. Break it out into 2 1/2 acre parcels and chose not to I because at that time I still couldn't see it fit for residential. Mayor Chmiel: Would you point out your location on that map? 1 Larry VanDeVeire: Right here. I guess I didn't feel it was fit for commercial for me or for anyone else. At the time I could have subdivided it and I still don't feel that way now that it does make good, or excuse me. Did I say II commercial? Good residential property. Mayor Chmiel: I think some of the points that were brought up at that- ' particular time too, if I remember Paul and Larry. One of the factors were that it's so close to downtown that a commercial kind of grocery store or something of that.particular nature wasn't really a good location for that. If I remember II 8 II City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991 that was part of the discussion back then. The revisional changes that went back and kept it as residential was some of the thoughts that were there and come back into that particular zoning. Maybe you can elaborate on that a little bit more Paul. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, it's kind of tough to go back in your mind and figure, you know try to remember exactly why all the changes were made that were made. ' Initially at a staff level when we prepared a draft of the plan, we felt that that was an acceptable neighborhood commercial site. It's limited scope. There's not a lot of acreage there and as you can see, there's a proposal for a frontage road to come across the front of it so that would take some of the ground that already is there. That there probably is going to be some desire at some point to have neighborhood commercial type services prior to turning into your neighborhood area. I don't recall it being a major issue during the consideration but it did receive some attention and some concerns wer raised by residents in the meetings over the summer and it was one of those changes that was made. I don't know what else I can offer unless the Planning Commissioners that are here tonight can add to the rationale to it. Mayor Chmiel: Yes, maybe we can have that. Steve? Steve Emmings: ..recollect the change but I do know that when complaints , plaints were voiced... On a more positive note, we also thought that the intersection of TH 5 and TH 41 was almost certain to develop with some commercial uses that would be the same type that would developer at that corner and we thought that between the downtown and what would exist at TH 41 and TH 5 would probably be adequate to serve the needs of the people in that area. , Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Larry VanDeVeire: Excuse me, if I might add. Even if it wasn't changed back to a neighborhood commercial, I guess the main thing I have is I just don't feel that it's suited for residential. Like I say, I wouldn't live there. I didn't ask anyone else to live there and I'm still not asking that. I drive numerous miles around the metro area and I can't recall any intersection, four lane lighted intersection with housing on the corner. New housing. If there is housing there, it's old housing. If it's very old housing, a lot of that old housing has been turned into a commercial establishment. An Insurance establishment. Stuff like that. If there are any old houses, what the main goal was to have Chanhassen look nice, what I've noticed is that you see privacy fences up on those, you know stockade type fences up if there are older houses there that haven't been converted to commercial use. I guess that's all I have. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else? , Jerome Carlson: Mr. Mayor.. My name is Jerome Carlson. 6950 Chanhassen but if you're going to mail us something you'd better make it Excelsior. It will never get there. But that's a different issue. I would like to start on a positive note and congratulate the Zoning and Planning and the Council and anybody else that has worked hard on this plan. I may or may not agree with it entirely but I do respect the tremendous time and effort that has been put into this sort of thing. Our particular property is right up here. It runs through the north end of Harrison Lake and I think some of you are perhaps familiar with it. I must 9 1 1 City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991 admit this was the first time I noticed the green space, park and open space. ' That would cut us right in half almost. I want to point that out and I must object to that if it were to be something that would be seriously enacted during any time that we live there. If we sold and subdivided or some such thing, I can appreciate at that time the desire to move in the direction of a trail system but the way our property currently lays out, that really does include perhaps at least a quarter of a mile right through the heart of our property and so I must simply go on record and object to that happening while we own the I property or if we were to sell it in bulk. The other thing that I really wanted to comment on was the potential for tax increases. Our concern, when we bought the property originally, very briefly, it was checked with the city and our ' indication was that it would be 2005 or sometime like that before there would be any rezoning which we thought was a good idea and sounded like something we wanted. This of course is happening subsequent to that and I'm not opposed to - the fact that changes occur. They happen in business all the time. What I'm ' concerned about is again while we live there, does the rezoning affect the rate at which our taxes will increase or are they going to decrease Mr. Mayor? You don't have to answer that. ' Mayor Chmiel: I can't. ' Jerome Carlson: The concern is that as a result of rezoning of property that we have no intention of developing at this time, does that affect the rate at which . our taxes will increase or are taxes to be based upon current use? Don Ashworth: They're based upon current use. Jerome Carlson: So if we live there and we have a few horses there and maybe ' even some beef, if that's permissible, we'll check with you. It's based upon that use? Don Ashworth: That's correct. Jerome Carlson: And no matter what color they paint it, it isn't going to presumably affect that? Don Ashworth: You could be influenced by other large lot rural values. If rural values increased, hypothetically you could see some increase. It's really on the use. I think Al, Commissioner Klingelhutz will agree with that point. And Paul, I don't know if you have anything to add. Al Klingelhutz: Actually we had Orin Shafer at one of the hearings and that was ' a big discussion from a lot of the large lot areas. He said anything that was in those areas, because of the rezoning of the entire area would not change the taxes except as values go up in the entire rural area that you can expect to see ' an increase there but overall the idea of the zoning alone would not change that. Paul Krauss: If I could expand on that a little bit. The land use plan is a guide for future development. Your property Jerome, unless you want to make a change or sell it to somebody that does, will remain with it's agricultural designation. Also green acres and whatever other tax provisions you operate ' under are wholly separate of whatever we do here and there would be no 10 • 1 City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991 underminding of that. It should be stressed that this plan is not intended to make anybody develop their property or to force that decision to come earlier of raising property values. We've taken great efforts to try to make sure that it's structured in such a way that those decisions are made by people when they want to make them and that there's no hint of coersion or a schedule or anything else. In fact case in point, Mr. Carlson, property and Prince's property were singled out as two exceptions that we want to tell the Metro Council about specifically. Because of the unique ownership situations of the individuals involved and the large amount of land that you both hold, we want to tell the Metro Council that here are several hundred acres that are going to be within the MUSA line but we don't expect them to develop in the next 10 to 15 years and here's why so we're asking that they be treated special. In fact there's a dialogue to the Metro Council as to how exactly they're going to do that because apparently nobody's ever asked them that before. But we've already made that case to them. Jerome Carlson: We have mentioned the front 13 on TN 41? We've talked about that? Paul Krauss: Yes. Jerome Carlson: Thank you very much. Those were my primary concerns. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Thank you. Just as a quick plug for the Council. We have, as you well know in the past 2 years, lowered taxes for those that were reassessed. I always like to bring that up because it's very difficult to try to keep things down and we have. Also again this year there's going to be a slight reduction but we can't guarantee what either the County might do or the School District but at least we know where we're at. Al Klingelhutz: ...we get too many mandated rules like building a new jail... 1 Mayor Chmiel: You're right and I understand that unfortunately. Gary Warren: Relative to Mr. Carlson's comment on the park area on his property. You might want to address that but that is the Lake Ann Interceptor easement area which the Lake Ann Interceptor was construction in 1987 -88 so that is a permanent easement area on the property. I think the City, maybe Mark wants to address it, is looking to take. Mayor Chmiel: Is that a dual kind of easement? ' Gary Warren: Dual in the fact that we could use it as a trail corridor and such? Paul Krauss: No. Gary Warren: There's a specific use that was for the Interceptor alone. , Jerome Carlson: I guess Mr. Mayor, that was my point. When we were approached about granting that easement, we were careful that it was a single use. We had no idea what might come. We didn't give this any thought at all but there was at that time a snowmobile trail that was utilizing that corridor right through 11 1 1 ' City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991 our property so that was our impetus at that time to make sure that it was defined. That was why we raised the issue now. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else? Dale Carlson: Dale Carlson, 6900 °Utica Lane Chanhassen. I'm representing the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association and I just wanted to point out something that as I was reading the comprehensive plan, as it relates to Lake Lucy. I'm asking some consideration be given to a particular section relating to Lake Lucy. A comment was made earlier that this comprehensive plan is to be used as a guide for the next decade and someone else made a comment that it was more than likely to occur and I'd like to point out that in the recreational section of the comprehensive plan it states that the recommendation is that Lake Lucy . continue to be maintained as a natural environment lake. I believe that ' everyplace I read, not only in the comprehensive plan but also in the Lake Riley restoration project work plan that some of us know so well, that there is very definite difference between an environmental lake and a recreational lake and I request that some consideration be given to including or rewording the plan so Lake Lucy be considered a recreational lake, not an environmental lake. Thank you. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Dale. Do you have any comments on that Paul? Paul Krauss: I'm not sure there's a conflict really in terms of intent. 1 Possibly Mark could get into that a little bit. Mark Koegler: Yeah, I don't think the classification as the City has used, ' natural environment lake in the Comp Plan necessarily is parallel to like the DNR classification of lakes. I think there's text, if I remember correctly that just eludes to the more natural habitat and the fact that that lake contains large wetland areas around it. It's in that context that the term natural ' environment. The term is not meant to be exclusive of recreational usage of the lake itself. We can take a look at that text but I think there's not really a conflict. I think it's a difference of terms. Dale Carlson: Okay but I think that term is...because if we're going to be making decisions later on for example, I noticed in the comprehensive plan under the list natural environment lakes, I see Rice Marsh Lake, Harrison, Lake St. Joe and Silver Lake and over under recreational development lakes I see... In that one section you refer to Lake Lucy as an environmental lake. ' Mark Koegler: I think the plan speaks more to the shoreland development pattern than it does the actual lake or the use of the surface water itself. We can take a look at that. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Dick? Councilman Wing: I was just interested in Mr. Carlson's more specific concerns. You obviously want it to be recreational. Can you define what some of your concerns were? Environmental versus recreational. ' Dale Carlson: Yeah we, you guys might even be able to talk about that more. There's some of you people on the Council that were involved in the Riley- 11 12 1 City Council Meeting January 7, 1991 g Y Purgatory -Bluff Creek watershed district work plan and there was a very definite difference in that work plan between the different levels of lakes. Levels I, II, III and IV. In the Comprehensive Plan that Lake Lucy becomes like a Level IV lake and the kinds of funding that the City may go after. The types of funding that we may be able to obtain and...association can be directly affected by what we classify that lake in. And so that's why I thought that classification was important.' Our goal is a recreational...Lake Lucy as a lake that we can water ski on. That you can swim in. That we can do the kinds of things that we have been doing at least for the last 20 years that I've lived there. 1 Eric Rivkin: I think I can help Richard point to a specific thing. Mayor Chmiel: State your name. , Eric Rivkin: Eric Rivkin. I live on Lake Lucy and also I'm a Co- Chairperson with Dale for the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association. On page 50 of one of the Sections, Recreational Section I believe in the Comp Plan it says, the City should maintain Lake Lucy as a natural environment lake suitable for passive uses and may want to consider the prohibition of motors as has been enacted on Lake Ann. That is what we're concerned about. That is not the same as on page 2 in another Section of the Comp Plan which says, Lake Lucy should be designated as a recreational lake. Recreational lake uses are things that if we want to be able to funding by ourselves or with government funds, whatever, over the long term to improve_the lake, water quality so that swimming, boating, fishing and water skiing are not impaired anymore. That is also commensurate with the goals of the Watershed District and the State who Dale mentioned were in the work plan that is now kind of sitting dead in the water at the Watershed District level. The programs that we've already instated to rehabilitate the •- lake have been that we've engaged ourselves in a program to eliminate purple loosestrife on the lake as a Lake Association and also to put up a temporary carp barrier to prevent carp from swimming upstream to Lake Lucy. That is part of a bigger plan that we have had to restore the lake. Does that help answer your question Dick? Councilman Wing: I guess I wasn't aware that water skiing and power boating going on at that level, that that was really an issue. 1 Eric Rivkin: There is. There is today and we want to continue that. Councilman Wing: I guess I've seen you take such strong environmental stands, I 1 was confused to see you defending that end of it versus maybe keeping it. Eric Rivkin: Well there's very little amount of power boats on the lake. The lake isn't big enough that I think it's a worry for lakeshore owners who want to see it as a quiet lake because in spite of the fact that there are only 2 motorboats on the lake, even if it were fully developed, the lake just isn't big enough to accommodate more than like 2 powerboats anyway so will always just remain just because of it's size and outlay that it just can't handle that many. So the intent of it being a quiet lake I think will still be maintained. Councilman Wing: Except will that meet DNR standards for a public access and if you have power boating from the neighborhoods, can you restrict power boating 13 11 City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991 11 from the public? I mean I've seen it. Eric Rivkin: The way it sits now, there's Greenwood Shores is owned by the City ' and it borders Lake Lucy and Lake Ann both and anybody who wants to portage a canoe from Lake Ann can simply walk over and put it into Lake Lucy so in effect there's a community public access: It does not meet DNR standards because they want a drive in access and that's a whole separate issue. Councilwoman Dimler: Eric would you, it says here for passive uses. Would you explain a little bit what that means to you? It's on page 50, the last paragraph. Eric Rivkin: The City should maintain Lake Lucy as a natural environment lake suitable for passive uses. Well, I didn't come up with that statement so I ' don't know. Councilwoman Dimler: I know but what does it mean to you and are you in 11 agreement with that? Eric Rivkin: Well as a Lake Association representative I guess I'd have to say that passive means no motors. Councilwoman Dimler. Okay. Is that what the intent was Paul do you know or Mark? Mark Koegler: I can't honestly speak to that. That's been in the text probably even in the 1980 plan I would guess and probably didn't get changed this time ' around. There have been at public meetings over the years consideration - discussions about the appropriateness of motors on Lake Lucy and particularly when the Lake Riley study was going on, there was a lot of discussion of the motors and turbitity and everything else. To the best of my knowledge Councilman Wing's comment that if it has boats by private riparian owners, it has the potential to have boats by the public also. It doesn't work to exclude one group or another. So I think the intent was to maintain a low scale ' recreational development pattern on that lake. The City to my knowledge has not had any efforts to put a public access in there that would enhance that but I can't really speak to exactly what was meant and that may be something that you ' want to clarify. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah I do because I know some boat owners on that lake that specifically came forward at that time and said that they would be opposed to having it be a quiet lake. Eric Rivkin: Right, and I'm representative of that. Councilwoman Dimler: So I'm surprised to see that in here. Maybe they weren't aware that that was in there -and since you're representing that homeowners ' association. Eric Rivkin: Right, because we had given the City our lake association restoration objectives which included swimming, boating, fishing and water skiing as to improve and maintain those recreational uses and that should have somehow manifested itself in here. Three other goals of ours was to improve 1 14 1 City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991 biological health of the lake over the long term. Improve the aesthetics of the lake and those are kind of passive things and I should just give you this to make sure that somebody's got something in writing. Should I give it to you? 1 Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Thank ybu.. Eric Rivkin: Is there any more questions or discussion about the Lake Lucy 1 area? Mayor Chmiel: No, I think you can proceed now. 1 Eric Rivkin: Okay, because I've got a couple other comments here. Trails. I think you've got 3 kind of classifications of trails. You've got a map here that shows a large number of trails following what appears to be mostly highways and byways and throughout Chanhassen. Reading why you want to favor trails along streets makes me realize that well you want to keep the cost down of putting these trails in but if all these trails are implemented and put in and 1 installed, I think once you step back and look at the whole thing, I think it looks like a lot of sidewalks rather than trails. I think the purpose of trails as you have indicated in here is to enjoy the natural amenities of the city and I think that trails should be, every effort should be made to recognize that putting them within parks or between lot lines so they don't cut across large tracts of land would be preferred over street locations. I think to mitigate the problems that you, the disadvantages that you've indicated here, that you might have abutting property conflicts or perceived security problems. Additional sidewalk system may be needed and high maintenance. I think those problems can be mitigated pretty easily. You could join the sidewalk system with the trails. You don't necessarily have to have a trail maybe interconnected throughout the entire city but at least meet the goals in the, the wording should be indicated here to meet the goals and to stress that they should be within parks and lot lines rather than along streets because of those reasons. High maintenance, I think instead of recommending paving here, woodchips and gravel, whatever that kind of maintenance could be low. Trails, if they followed the natural features such as drainageways, I think there are a lot more other natural features you could mention here such as existing woodland trails throughout Chanhassen might be consideration. Policies about large lots and the sewer. I appreciate the Planning Commission's efforts to try and get the wording to accommodate the needs and wants of people who have large lots and brand new sewer systems. However, I think there might have been some small point overlooked and for your consideration. It says that at such time as on site systems begin to fail the city will work with residents to install utilities to these subdivisions in a coordinated manner. I don't have any problem with that but there are a lot of lots, particularly around the Lake Lucy area that have very steep slopes, wetlands and so forth that make it impossible to subdivide these 2 1/2 acre or larger properties and I think we need the right to use the alternate site that was designated, required by the city when we built those homes and I think some consideration should be given that we maintain that right. Maybe attach a restriction onto it such as if they perc out for instance because sometimes there may have been overgrowth over the next 20 years on these alternate sites and there may be need to have another one located or if there was activity on these sites they could be, should be perced out at least tested to make sure that they're still viable for a drainfield site. I guess that's all I have. 15 1 1 City - y Council Meeting January 7, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? ' Bill Miller: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. My name is Bill Miller and I live at 8121 Pinewood Circle in Chanhassen. I'd like to make a few comments regarding the comprehensive plan and the Planning Commission efforts in that regard. Then a few other comments regarding something more specific I have an interest in. I think certainly the members of the Planning Commission need to be thanked for their effort. I can appreciate the fact that they've worked many hours and had some very difficult and challenging and frustrating situations to deal with. I've only participated in about 5% of that but it was very frustrating and they had a lot more. But there's something about the Planning Commission I wanted to bring up which is the issue of diversity. I don't even know where the members of the Planning Commission live or what their backgrounds are but Chanhassen is a pretty large community and there are areas of growth, such as where I live, that don't always feel represented on the Planning Commission which has been an instrumental part of what you see here. I think we'd like to be certain that all members, whether they live in one certain area or an outlying area have some representation in the process. As I watched the Planning Commission go through this comprehensive ' planning effort one thing I noticed, there seemed to be a, not just in the Planning Commission's comprehensive plan but also in other things brought up before the Planning Commission. Despite all these difficult issues and challenges, there seemed to be very commonly a unanimity of opinion with regard to the issues at hand and I found that amazing given the difficulty and the complexity of the tasks_and I think perhaps one of the reasons there is that maybe there isn't enough diversity and enough difference in the members there. ' I would hope that perhaps that might be looked at sometime just to make sure that everyone is getting some people from different areas have some representation on that. Another thing I noticed in the planning process was that several of the flash points in the planning process and in the comprehensive plan were difficulties that were created by poor planning in the past and past decisions that I have been told they wish they had never made or 1 people wish they had never made such as large lots was one and sewage problems now because of those large lots, etc.. Timberwood and Sunridge Court. And it's not just landowners and speculators that use this plan as a guide but residents do also. Residents move in and if the plan has been perhaps for large lots are allowed. People move in. Buy a home and then find that well, we wish we'd never done that and because we wish we'd never done that, now we're going to change everything else around you because you're really a problem and you're a mistake. So the residents come to be adversely affected by the poor planning so I hope that everyone here tonight takes it, I know you are, to realize that it's important that we get it right I think so that people such as myself don't end ' up feeling perhaps mistreated to some extent. The final thing regarding the planning process I wanted to say was during this period, myself and several residents some of which spoke tonight, have participated a fair amount over the last few months at some of these meetings in the discussions of this plan and there have been several changes back and forth in various places. In October there was a meeting held where the changes were discussed and then the plan was discussed and the Planning Commission received a lot of praise for the certain changes and what not and at the end of that meeting I felt a little bit betrayed because a member of the Planning Commission stated that yeah, we've made some changes here but you know, we wish we hadn't made them so those of you who think these changes are going to hold, don't think that. You know, things are going 16 1 City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991 to change. And in my opinion that just totally throws the whole idea of planning out the window number one. Number two, I feel a little bit deceived and distressed by the fact that we've made these changes but we're telling you right now that we're doing this for some reason but somewhere down the road you can expect them to be changed. That bothers me a fair amount. Those are my comments regarding the planning process. The final thing is regarding some of the comments that were made to the area of land around the corner of Galpin and TH 5. Myself and many of the residents surrounding that area believe that it is not inevitable that industrial, commercial land has to string TH 5 from one end to the other nor does it have to string TH 212 to the other. Nor does the fact that there's some industrial, purple patches on the map mean that right next to it has to be more purple patches in the same sense that we don't believe that just because there's yellow has to have yellow right next to it. We would prefer that Chanhassen maintain a little bit more residential and more of a country atmosphere. A little more aesthetic and that a little bit more concern be given to the affect on the residents and things such as sight, sound and odor pollution on those residents if all property near residential land is turned into industrial property. The residents that are affected by some of these changes oppose things such as some certain parts of industrial and commercial land. Primarily the things that I've heard when people have stood up here and talked about them have been emotional things related to lifestyle and the way they want to live and why they live in Chanhassen. It's rarely what the value of my land's going to do. On the other hand, there are landowners and other speculators who have bought up pieces of land, probably at pretty good prices, who want to make a lot of money on it and therefore they're arguing the other side and I hope that people will consider that most of these people don't live in Chanhassen nor do they probably care about Chanhassen very much. They want zoning changes which many of which will be at the detriment of residents of this city so they can make some money. I've got nothing against making money but I I/ have something against making money when it's going to hurt someone else. Finally, regarding the intersection of Galpin and TH 5 where we talked about the commercial zone. There were many people that got up at the meeting that discussed that issue and those who live around there right now all felt that we'd rather see a strong downtown. Given that we were told that we probably should expect Highway 41 and 5 to be also a commercial area, we'd prefer that that piece of land also be residential to try to maintain some continuity of residential through that area. Rather than have commercial property at that corner, we all felt that it doesn't bother us one bit to have to drive an extra mile or two for a video or a can of pop and we'd just as soon keep it that way. Thank you very much. Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? Anyone else? If not, I would ask for a motion that we close the public portion of the meeting. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public portion of the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel: Thomas, you look like you're getting pulled together. Councilman Workman: I knew you were going to ask me that so that's why. I have 1 a cold again. I'm reminded of when I was talking to a new councilmember about how important it was at this juncture to be on the City Council, Planning Commission also, and how important these decisions are. I can tell by all the • 17 1 1 City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991 comments and everything I've read and watched and done, that is true. Eric Rivkin brings up, poked a couple of sleeping tigers tonight. Lake Lucy public access issue. Lake plan. That was a lot of fun in the past couple of years and ' then sidewalks, of all things which we've had an awful lot of fun. Late nights right here talking about that stuff, and so I've got a lot of opinions about each individual thing and I will not take time to answer each of them but maybe ' I should suggest to the Mayor if we shouldn't handle it the way the Planning Commission did and discuss individual issues and then have those issues, each issue talked about and then move onto another issue or do you want to get my ' idea... Mayor Chmiel: Well I think Tom what I'd like to see it really boil down to, is get the input from Council. There were a lot of good comments brought forth I this evening and at least in my opinion, I don't think we should come up with a conclusion this evening. I feel some of those and all the things that were brought up tonight be addressed by staff. But yet I think we should have Council input so we know or staff knows at least where we're coming from and then move in that particular direction. Councilman Workman: Well really we didn't have a whole lot of speakers in I - relationship to the amount the Planning Commission had so they took the zing out of a lot of this I think. I think I was just talking to a member of the Planning Commission about how dry their meetings are and what a bunch of stuffed ' shirts they are and everything else but what a great job they really do for us. Whether that's because they're lacking in diversity, I don't know. I think they would argue that and say they're all pretty individualistic and get them in a ' room separately and I think you'd find that out pretty quickly. So I'm going to address it, number one some points that I• had and then some of the quick things that the people who stood up had. I'm concerned, when I look at an overall map like this. When we sit here now and when we make decisions such as in the 1/ previous two years and we realize that the plan can never be perfect. Things change and things change plans so they can't be perfect so we do the best we can. We try to lay it all out and make it look the best we can. When I see large areas like 1995 study area up against areas that are potentially being designated, I get very worried that the Council in 1996 and 1995 is going to have to wrestle with this concept of, we're going to have homes north of the Mills Fleet Farm site. They're going to build. They're going to get it going in the next 5 years presumably and then they're going to be told, much the way Timberwood, that now we're going to look at a Mills Fleet Farm. It seems to me the picture should be painted a little bit clearer on that area because we're kind of leaving things in limbo much the way there have been some complaints that that's the way it is now. That doesn't make it poor planning. I think there was a reason and I think I understand the reason why we want to leave that I but it may be a decision that we should be making so that we can avoid before those people move in, they know. I think Timberwood is a good example, and that didn't have everything to do with us. It had to do with Met Council. That had to do with the Interceptor. That had to do with everything. That had to do ' with the farmer who wanted to get out of town and make some money. So we can only restrict and do things that are within our power. I'd like to address the school site very quickly. We did get together with the school district. We talked about what we could do to obtain school sites for possibly a middle school or intermediate school. I like the idea. The parcel north of Timberwood was selected. My questions earlier this evening to the City Manager were can we 18 City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991 obtain that? Do we have the money? Can we make it happen because if we can't, why tie it up. He tells me we can. I think it's a good idea. I'm getting mixed signals from the school district that maybe they're not ready to do it and they're not so sure when they're going to be able to do it. I'm not sure what's driving that but I think we need to preserve with all this property opening up and potential houses and increased population, we need to be prepared and I 1 don't think we're doing it any too early. I'm not in favor of leaving.the other part of that parcel to industrial but rather for more of a buffer. That has been one of the biggest issues. I think that's getting a little too close to that caliber of a housing development but I do however think and hope that neighborhood thinks a school is somewhat appropriate with some open spaces and some ballfields, etc. that we'd probably use in that area. One of the very simplest of criteria I used when looking at all of this, and I talked to a fellow HRA member tonight and he concurred. How do you make these decisions? I guess I ranked them in this fashion. Number one, what's good for the city as a whole. What's good for the homeowners near there. And what is good for the property owner. Carl Marx might like that, but that is why we were elected I believe to make a decision based on everybody. Not my neck of the woods or anybody else's neck of the woods but look at the whole picture and with that, in 11 our discussion I asked him what is long term? We've put so much money and effort into our downtown to make it the downtown that we want, that we shouldn't allow strip malls or anything anywhere else. I don't prefer strip malls, and I'm speaking specifically to the Galpin /TH 5 northeast corner over there. In that situation, and you take the criteria, what's good for the city. Maybe the city doesn't matter if a strip mall's there. Secondly, what's good for the homeowners. They probably don't care to see that there. Number 3, what is the property owner's speculating and what do they want. I think it creates a dilemma and I don't -know that I want to get into whether or not that parcel can be used any specific way because I think the zoning can be changed. But I do remember when we had the north 5 and south 5 meetings and there were specific discussion on not leaving Timberwood an island or rather bringing a finger of residential down there. However, I don't believe people want to live on TH 5 and so while we've got to mix it all up, and we don't want it all industrial or strip malls, I'm very leery that we're going to be able to get people to build housing here unless somebody can come up with a specific concept for apartment complexes or something else and presumably those people don't care if they live next to a highway or not. We're not going to see quarter million dollar houses on this highway and so somehow we have got, I still don't believe that we've come to that balance and so why we're trying to protect an existing development which to me is a high priority, we're still not making the decision realistically as to how these corners can be used. And economically. Maybe that statement leaves more confusion. As an HRA member myself, I think we do however need to maintain our commitment to the downtown area. I think we spend too much money and we're going to continue to do so in trying to keep it all down there and I don't think there's any turning back on that. Are there commercial retail uses that do not belong in downtown that should be allowed on TH 5? Is a car dealership what we want on TH 5? Is it what we want on the one downtown? Probably not. But my tendency is to lean towards leaving it downtown and allowing for the decision perhaps to have the zoning a little bit later. That's about all of my comments right now. If we're not going to make a decision tonight, then if we are going to make a decision, then I'd probably have some more. 1 19 City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991 ' Mayor Chmiel: Dick? Councilman Wing: Well I'm terribly new and I'm going to be very honest about that, and after listening to Tom now I'm further confused because as everybody 1 talks here, there's just more issues coming up and more questions about this plan. Where I may be dangerous is that my wife's a senior in architecture and right now she's doing urban planning and her class presently redesigning 494 strip. It's generally felt that that was kind of a mistake. Over developed and not very attractive and so her class is redoing Bloomington and Richfield to see if it couldn't have been done better. So to quote my great grandfather, if ' I may. You never hurt a piece of land letting it sit another year but woe be to the person that rushes because then it's gone forever. So I certainly support a comprehensive plan and I would really like to see it get into effect. I think there's an absolute need here in Chanhassen. I'm very appreciative and support ' the time and the studying and planning that the Planning Commission put into this. It wouldn't be done otherwise. I think they're a talented group of people and I think they are diversified. I think they're very honest. I think ' they're very open. I think they're very concerned about the city at large so the diversity comment I felt very comfortable that that had been met. I don't want to delay implementation but also being brand new I'd feel terrible if I made a decision that affected the city and future generations in the long term ' by rushing such a decision. I guess I really Don am going to -need some time to review and just digest the comments from tonight so I'm somewhat pleased to hear that maybe you're thinking about not making a decision tonight and allowing, especially someone as new as I am, to really get serious about looking into what's happening. But more important I see a real need for the City Council to, and I don't mean just get it's act together because I can't say they haven't. As a member of the City Council I see a real need for us to set some concrete goals and directions that along with this comprehensive plan that would help implement it in a very successful way. Kind of our own vision in the long term. Whether TH 5 is commercial or residential, I can't define that right now but I ' could certainly see that TH 5 could be developed commercially all the way out and still be very attractive with enough green space and setbacks and the same with residential. I live on TH 7. Very attractive. All residential. Heavy traffic. I don't go along with the noise and the pollution complaints because as I drive through the city, I just see so much heavy residential going on in existing highways that residential certainly could be maintained. Again it would involve setbacks and greenways and berms and protection for the homes so I guess I see a real need for orderly development. And we've discussed the study area and I don't fully understand why that wasn't given a designation. I realize all the if's and but's that were mentioned tonight but as I listened, to zone that commercial is maybe putting the cart before the horse. We haven't even settled the downtown area yet. The downtown isn't intact and to move then into a major rezoning that far west does bother me. I guess I really favor seeing that study area be set in a moratorium for the near future anyway and get the rest of the city intact before we move out to that particular area. The use of that land I wouldn't comment on but I do know that that particular piece should be in an orderly development and to zone it in the next year or so I think would be out of order prior to getting the downtown established. I think' I'm sensitive to the landowner's rights and the developer's rights but my responsibility here on the Council is certainly to the City and the use of it's land but what really troubles me is the word long term. I think that's my only comments. Thank you. 1 20 1 City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Ursula? 1 Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you. I guess I feel rather overwhelmed with all the reading that we've had to do and all the maps we've had to look at and all the letters we've had to read and to put it all together, but I'm going to try to make an attempt at it. I guess my basic feeling is that yes, we do need a comprehensive plan. I'm not even sure, I think it maybe is mandated by the State is it not? Yeah. So we do have to have one. I do see it as a guide and not something that is intended to be set in concrete. I don't think there's any body, whether it be a Planning Commission or a Council or many bodies even put together can possibly foresee all of the details that any plan that we set into motion could result in and therefore there always has to be room for flexibility and change in the future. I want to point out an example of a speculative landowner and a homeowner for a long time in Chanhassen that have worked together. I'd like to see more of that and I congratulate Mr. Curry and Mr. Gene Quinn for getting together and working out what could have been a potential problem. And as I said, I'd like to see that as an example for future when non - residential landowners will work with the existing neighborhoods because that is one of my concerns. Whether we agree with that neighborhood being there or not, the fact is that it is there and those homeowners need to be protected. On the other hand, there are people that come in with very good and reasonable 11 plans that will extend our tax base, I'm certainly in favor of 'that as well because we do need that and so to me seeing a balance there is what is the task of the Council. More specifically I guess some of the specific concerns that were addressed here tonight. Mr. Peter Beck representing Mills Fleet Farm. I would be ready at this point to move that we direct as a Council, that we direct the Planning Commission to start studying that area right now in 1991 as one of their goals for this year. And that's not to say that they're going to come up with anything prior to 1995 but I think they should start studying that area rather than the one on TH 5, north of TH 5 I mean rather than the one south of TH 5 because the one down there is not really in our hands as far as we don't 11 know when Hwy 212 is going to come. So as one of their goals I'd like to see them start in on that. Then also the gentleman from Eden Prairie. Dennis and I don't remember his last name but as far as his concerns. Paul wrote this letter and did all of you get a copy of it and happen to read this? I do agree with , what's in here and I would be willing to go along with that because that leaves the window open for some high office campus to come in. Something that I don't think the residents of Timberwood, if they actually saw a neat plan, would be necessarily adverse to. It might even be nicer looking than high density or medium density residential. As far as Mr. Carlson's concern, Jerome Carlson, I really don't know how to address that. It would seem rather funny to take your section out and leave the rest in so I think we'd have to restudy that whole area if we're going to have a trail there or something but certainly if you only gave the easement for one particular purpose, I think we'd have to respect that. Then also on the other concern that Dale Carlson had was the wording on Page 50 of the recreation. I think we need to take a look at that. We need to make sure that this plan does not at this time restrict motorboats because I don't think that was the purpose of this and if we're going to do that, then I think we need to have a public hearing. So we should look at some wording. What I wrote real quickly and it doesn't have to be particularly this. It says that the city should maintain Lake Lucy as a recreational lake suitable for uses that compliment it's natural environment and in the future the City may wish to 1 21 , 1 II City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991 II consider prohibition of motors on Lake Lucy but this plan does not intend to do that at this time. Those are my general feelings. II Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Mike? l of new. You know I've been looking 1 Councilman Mason: Speaking ki g at this -plan since before the election and I continue to be amazed at the amount of time and I effort. I'm hearing Council talking about delaying adopting this. Paul, as City Planner and what not and getting this to the Met Council, how does that jive with your feelings on all of this? I mean I'm not putting you on the spot. I I'm trying to see how all this fits together here so maybe I am putting you on the spot. II Paul Krauss: It's certainly the Council's perogative to digest this and make changes before passing it on. The changes that I'm hearing discussed tonight, the additional information, I guess I don't see any of that as radical propositions for changing things. For example the study areas were a concern. 11 Over the summer in the course of the public hearings, the Planning Commission realized that it would behoove the city to have a planning effort underway for those study areas as soon as this effort's wrapped up to get into that so that II people, that wouldn't imply bringing it into the MUSA line right away but at least people moving into the area would know what the City's long range intent . was. Our plan, our existing 1980 plan and this plan sort of draw the line at the MUSA.line. It's very explicit as to what's happening inside but outside is I somewhat of a mystery. That's a valid comment and it was something that the Planning Commission has, in discussing their goals for 1991 has on there and it certainly would be appropriate and consistent with that to request the Planning 1 Commission to do that if you want on a timeframe that fits the Council. In terms of the delay itself, there's no magic date to get it to the Metro Council. I guess you sort of chomp at the bit having been involved with this for such a " II long time that you finally see the light at the end of the tunnel and you'd like to jump for it but also I should point out too that there are a number of individuals who own properties throughout the community who have come to us over the course of the last few years and wanted to do whatever or consider whatever I for their property located outside the MUSA line and we have put them off telling that we don't want the City to deal with piecemeal MUSA line amendments. That we felt the most appropriate way of doing it was this large scale effort II and having done that, I guess I have a desire not to protract that. Additionally, Minnesota is somewhat unique in that we have very limited construction seasons. If a serious enough recession comes, spring coming isn't going to make much difference but the Metro Council has a minimum 90 day review II process. They can request extensions. If we got this to the Metro Council in January, conceiveably, optimistically, this could be in place by May which would allow some people to take actions on some property before the end of the year. II If we bring this up at another Council meeting in January, that's not going to affect that really one way or the other. I Councilman Mason: A couple of quick comments. A lot of concern has been voiced about what's going on out on TH 5 and I'm sensing some of the Council feels that concern too. Maybe that is something that needs to be discussed a little further. I think I'm, even with all the reading I've been doing and studying II I've been doing, quite honestly I'm more in the position to listen and ask II 22 II City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991 1 questions right now than I am to state some personal feelings so at this point I'm going to quit there. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Mike. Councilman Workman: Don? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah Tom. Councilman Workman: Well I think Highway 5 is the issue on this thing and maybe I feel, maybe I'm feeling what the rest of the Council's feeling in that I drive down that thing rather frequently and so you kind of try and imagine in your mind how that's going to look and what are my kids going to say. Did you do that dad? And you know, we're trying to lay out the plan but the plan isn't cast in concrete or anything and we can do some moving around and some changing so maybe we're building this up to be too much. I'm asking you to answer that maybe. I'll pose it as a question. Are we building this up to be too much if in fact we can modify it down the road if we see that we maybe have taken the wrong course here? Paul Krauss: I don't want to sound like I'm obscuring the issue but yeah, you certainly do have the ability to modify this over time to deal with situations that may arise. We're dealing, you know the Metro Council asks you to deal in a 10 year time horizon and then they even carry it an extra 5 years beyond that in terms of land allocations. 15 years is an awfully long time. I mean all you've got to do is look back 15 years ago and see the changes that have occurred. I think it's reasonable to think that the changes that would occur in the next 15 years wouldn't be of such a magnitude as happened the last 15 years. It would be more incremental but the plan itself is a guide. It's a guide that's out there for the public to buy into. It's a guide that's out there for you to buy into and for the Metro Council and for everybody else. The land planning act provides a mechanism whereby you can change that from time to time. It requires a public process to do that of course but you can do that and I would never want to see a Council back themselves into a corner where you were stuck with something that could not be changed and that's certainly not the case. On the other hand, it's a document that's received a lot of public scrutiny. A lot of people have bought into it and if somebody truly has a better idea, the planning process is kind of intended to place it in their court. They're going to have to demonstrate that it's a better idea. You know we don't have to demonstrate that. I think that puts the responsibility where it lies and you don't change it lightly. If somebody comes along and requests a rezoning that's inconsistent with the plan, you're going to have to change the plan. The Metro Council probably won't, if we get this approved generally as it's outlined right now, most of the changes that somebody could come along and request from you in the future are not going to be major guide plan amendments and typically the Metro Council doesn't get intensively involved in minor plan amendments so you do have the latitude to look at that in the future. Councilman Workman: I certainly don't have, I mean let's make some decisions tonight so that next week we can use them as a base point for change. I don't mean that. It used to look like a really long strip from CR 17 to TH 41. It's looking littler and littler and those decisions are all kind of grinding each other. I understand Mills Fleet Farm to be a very nice outfit. I don't like 23 11 11 City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991 what they look like and I don't think anybody, I haven't heard really anybody from Chanhassen say boy, I really like what they look like. Let's put one in. I've heard an awful lot of people from westerly communities say boy, wouldn't it be nice if you guys got a Fleet Farm. Well, thank you but you know so I don't know. It's all. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think I know what you're saying Tom. When you look at ' Mills Fleet Farm, as you're mentioning, there's some pluses for the community I think. Bigger draw. Help the business people within the community. Probably total number of 200 -300 more new people within the city possibility because that's what they employ. The size of building that they have and I went through a calculation real quick. Probably about a $250,000.00 tax base which I think all the residential customers within the community want to see their taxes go down rather than going up and that's what I see too as far as some of these ' other areas. To not have industrial within our community would be a real burden on the residential people within the community taxwise and you just can't look at it from that aspect. We have to look at what's good for the city. You 1 brought that point up and I agree. That's something that we really have to look at. What's the best location. Where things should be and why they should be and the kinds of services we can provide for the community. I guess I feel that one of the reasons that I brought it up at first is the mere fact that being we've had as much discussion again this evening, I'd like to get some responses back before I come up with a conclusion. I'm not one for putting things off. I don't want to put this off much further because I think we're going to get into ' the construction and building phase and May would be a good timeframe. I think maybe by the end of this month we can possibly still look at that and come up with a conclusion. I look at just about everybody's questions and I think Ursula covered it quite well and probably stole some of my thunder but that's okay. But as Paul said, you know we're looking at approximately 2,780 acres and of that maybe we can get 1,571 acres. From there I also see that Met Council will have that chance of reviewal for that 90 days. I think once they have looked at how our people have worked at this to develop what they've got, I'm sure they're going to see that there's a lot of good judgment taken into consideration. But I think that strip malls, I agree with. I'm not too fond of strip malls from one point to another. I think what we have to do, and as Tom indicated, being on the HRA as well, I want to see the downtown succeed and grow because I really want to have truly a downtown Chanhassen. I want it to be done ' in a quality that everybody's happy with and I think we've gone that particular direction at this particular time. The diversity with the Planning Commission that Bill Miller mentioned, I see them being as diverse as they can possibly be by covering what they did within all the particular mode of that comprehensive plan and each of them located in different areas of the community. We have two to the northern portion, one in the northwest and the other in the northeast. We have a few within the main area of the city. We have them to the south and I 1 think from seeing each of them and knowing the city as they do, just going out and reviewing every specific plan that has come in, they know the community well. I guess there's many different things that we still I think are looking at but there's just been a tremendous amount of study put in this. Time, effort as I mentioned before and I just feel that we should probably just table this at this particular time and come up with those conclusions and the answers to the questions that we've had today and get those back to the Council as soon as we ' can to have another meeting. So with that I guess I'd just as soon stop chattering. I 24 1 City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991 Councilwoman Dimler: The one thing that we might act upon is, not adopt the whole plan but could we act upon the moving of the study area? For the Planning Commission to start studying that 1995 study area north of TH 5? Mayor Chmiel: Right. That I believe should be done this year and I think they're in full agreement with that. That they're already looking at that. Councilwoman Dimler: Shall we move that now or do you want to wait? Councilman Workman: Are we talking about, we're not talking about including 11 9 that in the MUSA? Councilwoman Dimler: No. Just that they start their studying. Mayor Chmiel: No, no. That they start reviewing that now. 1 Councilwoman Dimler: At the last meeting they asked us for some, if we had anything that we wanted them to put into their goals and that's just one of the things. Councilman Workman: You didn't think they were serious did you? Councilwoman Dimler: I took them at their word. 1 Councilman Workman: But I guess I'm not sure exactly what that would do then. Are we talking about designating this as something other than ag? 11 Councilwoman Dimler: That's up to them to start studying. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it's for them to look and see. Councilwoman Dimier: I guess there's concern that they don't wait until 1995 to start studying this. Steve Emmings: If it would help, we did at our last meeting discuss our goals for this year and made a list of them that is going to be forwarded to the Council for comment. The 1995 study area that's on the corner of TH 5 and TH 41 was designated as one of the items that should be looked at this year. We thought it would perhaps be appropriate to take it up once the Met Council has approved our plan so we know exactly whether it flies. That's part of our comprehensive plan. We know that by the middle of the year, then we should get after it specifically... Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so you're saying that you already have it as one of your goals to do that? Steve Emmings: And that's going to be forwarded to you for your comments to arrange a priority for us. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess we don't need a motion on that then. 1 Mayor Chmiel: No. What I'd like to do is see if I can get a motion with what I had indicated previously to have Paul review each of those specific questions. 25 1 11 City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991 ' Bring it back to Council for the later part of this month. Councilman Workman: This wouldn't be discussed at our next regular meeting? It would be a separate meeting? Are we telling everybody in the room to come ' back? Mayor Chmiel: Well we can do it one of two ways. Either at the, and I just 1 looked at the agenda for the 14th. If everybody does their homework on the consent agenda, we might be able to get it in there. Don Ashworth: Staff wouldn't be in a position to respond by that time. Mayor Chmiel: Well that would be awfully fast. Maybe by the 28th Council meeting. ' Councilman Workman: I guess my questions are, and with Paul and I know there's some minor things and maybe we spent a little extra time. I guess I'm thinking I on the larger scale of, really are we looking at that much of a modification from what the Planning Commission proposed? And if we aren't, can we narrow it down to whatever exactly it is and maybe we can take care of it. I don't know that we're that far off but that's what I'm trying to get that feeling. We all haven't specifically talked about what the exact rubs are and I keep thinking about 13 acre parcel on the northeast corner of TH 5 and Galpin. What are we going to do with that? School site. Lundgren Brothers. Mills. Trail easements. I don't know. Maybe the list's getting too long and maybe that's why we should table it but are we that far away I guess? Are we that? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think we really are Tom and that's why I want to get the 1 answers back from Paul. It's not going to make that much of a difference in the timeframe if we can get it still done and accomplished this month. Councilman Workman: I'm just thinking so that people don't have to keep coming back. ' Mayor Chmiel: Well I think they're always welcome to. In fact I enjoy seeing the council room full rather than talking to ourselves. Participation is really neat but anyway, no I really do. You can make any kind of motion you'd like but I think that we should. ' Councilman Workman: Well I'll make the motion to table this for further review based on go slow and steady. ' Councilman Wing: Do we have a timeframe to that? Mayor Chmiel: Well I think we're looking at the 28th of this month. Councilman Workman: Will it be open to debate? ' Mayor Chmiel: Sure. I don't know why not. I always try to keep an open meeting to anybody who'd like to say anything, they have that opportunity. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Is that correct, we're asking Paul to address just the concerns that were mentioned here tonight? ' 26 1 City Council Meeting - January 7, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: Just the ones s this evening. Jim Curry: The public hearing part though, that's closed for good? Is that 1 right? You don't reopen that at the next meeting or do you? Mayor Chmiel: Well we're tabling the entirity of the thing right now. This is sort of, this is not really a public hearing. The public hearing has already been held at the Planning Commission level. This is just response from the residents from what's happening now. Is there a second? 1 Councilwoman Dimier. Second. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimier seconded to table action on the Comprehensive Plan until January 28, 1991 for further staff review. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Steve Emmings: I'd like to just say. I don't plan to give my plaque back. I'd 1 like to say to the extent that there's praise or blame to be handed out for the • plan, these two gentlemen up here had the laboring...all the way through the project. 11 Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. I noticed that one more member of the Planning Commission has come in. Even though you're a little late, I'll tell you what I said to them afterwards but I'd like to present this to you Brian. It's the Maple Leaf Award. So with that I'd ask for a motion for adjournment. Councilwoman Dimier moved, Councilman Workman seconded to adjourn the meeting._ All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.. 1 Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 1 • 1 1 27 1 1 1 1111 CIIANHASSEN CITYOF 6 90 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I (612) 937 -1900 • FAX(612)937-5739 ' MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager ' FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director ' DATE: January 2, 1991 • SUBJ: Adoption of the Draft Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Conveyance to the Metropolitan Council ' PURPOSE As you are aware, the Chanhassen Planning Commission has been Ils working on a draft Comprehensive Plan for the City for approximately the past two years. The process was initially considered in 1987 with the approval of the Lake Ann Agreement between the City and the Metropolitan Council. Under the terms of this agreement, the city had committed to undertaking a redraft of it's comprehensive plan should any significant. adjustments in the ' MUSA line be considered. During the time in which the plan has been in development, property owners have been told that the city would not recommend approval of significant adjustments to the MUSA ' line. It was indicated that the City preferred to package all such requests in the new comprehensive plan since we believed that this would be most consistent with the Metro Council agreement and is in the best interests of promoting responsible planning for our ' community. However, this has served to delay the potential development of a number of parcels. ' During the planning process, it became clear that the growth that Chanhassen had been experiencing was of a magnitude that a simple set of revisions to the 1980 Comprehensive Plan would not suffice. ' Much of this growth appeared between 1985 and 1989 and it's impact was not fully understood until this past year. As a result a determination was made to essentially redraft the entire Comprehensive Plan to accommodate the City's development in the ' 1990's. Metropolitan Council policies call for providing sufficient land and facilities for a ten year planning horizon, plus a five year cushion or overage and this was ultimately the ' context in which the plan was developed. At the present time the City has approximately a one year supply of office industrial land and a three year supply of residential land. 1 Draft Comprehensive Plan January 2, 1991 Page 2 The Land Use element of the Comprehensive Plan has received the most discussion in the various public hearings and forums that have been held. Although it is important, this is but one element of a plan that deals comprehensively with a range of issues including transportation, recreation, housing, environmental protection and capital improvement. Much of what is contained in these other elements is of significance as well. For example, the Transportation element relies heavily on the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study to make recommendations for roadway improvements. This is a recent study that was undertaken cooperatively by the City, Carver County and other local governments and we believe offers much more valid data then the Metropolitan Council model. Similarly, the Natural Environment • II element laid out a process of addressing issues pertaining to water quality, wetland preservation and storm water management. Although the plan has not yet been approved, the Natural Resources element served as a blueprint for what has become the Chanhassen Surface Water Management Utility and thus is already on the verge of being implemented. The purpose of this memo is not to summarize the Comprehensive Plan itself or issues that have been raised and discussed throughout its drafting, since it is a highly complex document. However, it should be noted that the Plan envisions expanding the MUSA line by approximately 2780 acres. When existing large lot subdivisions which are essentially already developed are factored out along with recommended expansions of parks and wetland protection areas and two large estates which we do not anticipate developing in the time frame of this plan, effectively 1571 of these acres represent land that is potentially available for new development. We stress the word "potentially available" for new development since the plan in no way recommends or desires placing individuals in a position where they are forced to develop their property. The decision to sell or develop one's property is and should remain entirely a personal one that is not influenced by this document. BACKGROUND ' On October 24, 1990, the Planning Commission held the Official Public Hearing for this Comprehensive Plan at the Chanhassen Elementary School. A list of those present along with minutes of the meeting is attached to this memo. This meeting was the culmination of a series of public informational forums that were designed to solicit as much public input as possible. Throughout the process, there have been individuals who wished to stay informed as to the progress of the Plan. Growing out of _this, a mailing list was prepared and each meeting of the Planning Commission since January, 1990, was made known to them. As a consequence, residents and developers were in attendance at a series of Planning Commission work sessions and at two neighborhood 1 1 1 Draft Comprehensive Plan January 2, 1991 Page 3 ' meetings held last summer as well as at the recent public hearing. Planning staff has attempted to maintain an "open door" policy on ' this plan and has given away copies of the map and offered copies Of plan sections for review as well as spending a great deal of time discussing matters with individuals. Finally, part of our public information process was to ensure that both local newspapers ' provided as much exposure for the plan as is possible. Both papers cooperated extremely well and were a primary information resource on this matter. ' Attached as an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan is the large volume of correspondence that the City has received on the I Comprehensive Plan, as well as staff's response to them where appropriate. In addition, there are copies of articles and various newsletters and petitions that were circulated by individual residents. This information is provided for two reasons. It is ' intended to show good faith to the public that their comments have been heard and reviewed and occasionally changes to the plan have resulted. The second purpose is to document which issues have been reviewed. I am not willing to state that there are no new issues that will be raised to the City Council but on the other hand, I believe that most of the issues that could have been discussed pertaining to the plan have been at least at some point in the ' process. Testimony received at the public hearing falls into this category but two additional changes to the plan text that grew out of the meeting and additional informational received since that 11 time are summarized below. Lastly, additional articles and correspondence received since the October 24th meeting are attached to this memo itself. PROCESS The process for approval of Comprehensive Plans is outlined by ' state statute. We operate under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act which defines the roles of the City and the Metropolitan Council. As you are aware, approval of the Plan by the City Council is not ' the final step in this process. The Plan must be reviewed and approved by the Metropolitan Council before it can be enacted. Staff has been working intensively with Metro Council staff since ' the fall of 1989, to hopefully smooth adoption of the Plan, however, this is by no means assured. The Plan represents a substantial departure from the 1980 Plan and with Metro Council's Year 2000 forecast. The Metro Council is fully aware that their ' forecasts do not even come close to accommodating development that is on the ground today. While they are willing to . recognize this factor, they have not yet indicated that they are fully comfortable ' with our projections either. In addition, the Metro Council is somewhat of a political body and there are regional outlooks that occasionally surface during their deliberations. It is no secret that groups and cities in the northern and eastern suburban areas i 1 Draft Comprehensive Plan 11 January 2, 1991 Page 4 of the Twin Cities have been envious of growth that has occurred in the southern and southwestern area and that some of these people believe that if growth can be constrained in this area, it would actually migrate to their communities. While I do not agree with this theory, this sentiment is something we need to be aware of. In addition, neighboring communities and school districts are given an opportunity to comment upon our Plan. Again, staff has made contacts with all of these groups and anticipates that the City of Eden Prairie may raise some concerns. Staff will attempt to work through this process as quickly as possible and will keep you informed as to progress and issues. The Metro Council has 90 days to review our plan amendment once it is submitted to them. If the Council acts on the Plan on January 7th, I would anticipate submitting it to the Metropolitan Council before the end of the month. There is an application procedure that must be completed prior to it's submittal. In addition, • changes to the plan requested by the Planning Commission and City Council must be incorporated. The Metro Council can ask for extensions to this time frame should they so desire. Under the Land Planning Act, the Metro Council has prerogative to recommend changes to the Plan. As I noted above, I have been attempting to keep their staff informed as to progress on our plan and they do have draft copies of it circulating at a staff level. However, their staff has not indicated what, if any, issues they may have. Once the Metro Council approves the Plan, it would become effective. We believe that at the earliest this could happen in May of this year. At that point, the City would be in a position to review applications for rezoning, subdivision and related requests for the newly expanded MUSA area. It should be stressed that we do not envision there being a land rush. There are three factors contributing to this belief. The first is the national economy which has hit the development community extremely hard and is slowing rates of growth. The second is demographic trends that have indicated a slowing in the rate of new household formation that require housing. The third is that development in the newly ' expanded MUSA area will often be contingent upon city involvement in public improvement projects to extend utilities in the streets. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 1 The Planning Commission is essentially presenting the draft Plan to the City Council for action. At the October 24th meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Plan incorporating two changes. These are described below. The first change had to do with a concept proposal developed by Lundgren Bros. Construction relative to a site that had been located outside the originally recommended MUSA area and in what was labeled in 1995 Study Area. 1 1 1 Draft Comprehensive Plan January 2, 1991 Page 5 A full copy of the Lundgren proposal is attached to this memo. In summary, the Lundgren request was to add approximately 93 acres of ' land into the MUSA line request. The land would be designated for low density residential use and Lundgren had prepared a concept plan illustrating it's development into single family lots consistent with the high quality residential development they have ' undertaken elsewhere in 'the community. Their case was based upon several factors, the first of which was that much of the land that was being brought into the MUSA line would not be readily available ' for development. This was a factor that they encountered in trying to assemble land for development purposes in the 1990's. Staff recognizes that this is true and agrees with this since, as we ' indicated above, we do not anticipate having the expanded MUSA area develop immediately but to become available over a period of time. Lundgren had been able to assemble this parcel which is approximately 93 acres of high quality residential sites. The second reason is that the line delineating the area between the MUSA line expansion and the proposed 1995 Study Area was drawn along property lines and did not adequately take into account ' actual topographic features of the underlying land. The Lundgren proposal points out that this area is bisected by a very large high quality wetland that better delineates the dividing line then does the property line particularly when attempting to layout a high 1 quality development proposal. Staff had an opportunity to review the Lundgren proposal prior to ' the October 24th hearing and generally was in full agreement with the request. We recommended that the Planning Commission act favorably upon incorporating this area into the Comprehensive Plan ' noting that by our projections, the draft Comprehensive Plan as proposed did not provide sufficient land area for residential development for the full 10 plus 5 year time horizon that was envisioned. We also believe that single family residential the concept being illustrated was a high quality one that represented great promise and was consistent with the intent of the draft Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission voted to incorporate ' this area into the Comprehensive Plan. As noted, it totals approximately 93 acres of which approximately 19 acres is wetland, thus only 74 acres of it represent buildable property. Based upon the foregoing discussions, the Planning Commission directed staff to include the revised MUSA line request accommodating the Lundgren proposal in the draft plan 1 recommendation to the City Council. The second plan change that was considered is concerned with City Council policies relative to extension of utilities in unserved areas. Area residents have raised concerns regarding the impact of 1 1 1 Draft Comprehensive Plan January 2, 1991 Page 6 potential assessments oh their property throughout the Comprehensive Plan development process. Staff has indicated that the City Council has historically been responsive to concerns raised by area residents when public improvement projects are considered, however, more specific language incorporated into the had been requested. As a result, on Page 14 of the Goals and Policy Section, the Plan incorporates the following; "Goal - To recognize the often unique circumstances of unserviced lots located both inside and outside the MUSA line located in subdivisions that were platted prior to 1987 under ordinances that allowed down to 21 acre lots. ' Policy - These lots were, for the most part, developed relatively recently and have new on -site sanitary and water services built to high standards. The City will, therefore, seek to ensure that these subdivisions are not unduly burdened by new local utility lines and related assessments. The City Council should seek to adopt sensitive policies for trunk line ' improvements as well. The City will utilize policies listed above to ensure the proper maintenance and function of these systems. Property owners must understand that proper maintenance and upkeep of on -site systems is their responsibility. At such time as on- site systems begin to fail, the City will work residents to install utilities to these subdivisions in a coordinated, comprehensive manner. Since on -site systems tend to fail at different times and at different lots in a subdivisions, residents should be aware that utilities may need to be provided before consensus is achieved from all impacted property owners." , The Planning Commission was comfortable with the goal -and policy described above believing that it represented the City's intent on this issue, however, they became concerned with what they believed to be somewhat contradictory language in the Land Use section on Page 22 and 23. In this section, which is reprinted below, the Planning Commission became concerned that a sentence implied that the City would not ever require an owner of these parcels to pay local utility assessments until such time that utilities were brought into serve them. The Commission believed that it was inappropriate to attempt to direct the actions of future Councils in these matters and that, in any case, they agreed with the City Engineer that it cannot be guaranteed that such assessments would never occur. They asked that this sentence be struck which would, in their view, keep this paragraph consistent with the Goal and Policy outlined above. The paragraph as modified by the Planning 1 1 1 ' Draft Comprehensive Plan January 2, 1991 Page 7 Commission is printed below. "The impact of the MUSA line on large lot residential,developments constructed prior to 1987 is a concern of the City. A number of these subdivisions were platted immediately prior to the adoption ' of ordinance changes eliminating the potential of 2= acre subdivisions in the rural residential area. These developments, which are still being built out at the present time, contain homes ' that are equipped with on -site wells and sewage disposal systems. The on -site sewage disposal systems are built to required standards and an alternate drain field is provided for future use if ' necessary. These systems represent a substantial investment on the part of the homeowner and are currently an environmentally acceptable method of dealing with waste generated from this type of ' development. Three of these developments are located within the proposed MUSA expansion - the Timberwood subdivision was discussed above, Lake Lucy Highlands plat which is located north of Lake Lucy along Lake Lucy Road and Sun Ridge Addition. In light of the factors that were described, it is City policy that these areas be given special consideration when utilities are extended past them to surrounding parcels. It is the City's position that these subdivisions will not be required to hook into City utilities. nor are required to scrvc them. Given the standards employed in the design of these on -site utilities, it is not anticipated that 1 municipal sewer service will be required during the life of this plan and will only be considered in the future if environmental problems become evident." Other issues and concerns which surfaced throughout the public information process were again heard at the public hearing. Among ' others, this included requests that the 137 acre site located north of Timberwood and south of Highway 5 be changed from the proposed residential designation to office /industrial, a request that a small neighborhood shopping center that had previously been shown ' at the northeast corner of the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and Hwy. 5 on earlier plans which had since been dropped be reinstated and a request by Mills Fleet Farm to consider modifying the plan to ' allow them to construct a store at the intersection of Hwy. 5 and Hwy. 41. The Commission discussed these requests and others that were raised and ultimately determined that these had been adequately discussed at previous meetings and that no further ' changes were being recommended. The Planning Commission did, however, indicate some potential for reassessing the parcel in front of the Timberwood subdivision if a developer is in a position ' to present the City with an extraordinarily high quality project in the form of a PUD. In a similar vein, the Planning Commission indicated that the 1995 Study Area along Hwy. 5 in which the Mills • 1 1 1 Draft Comprehensive Plan January 2, 1991 Page 8 Fleet Farm site is contained, may in fact one day contain commercial uses and may in fact sometime in the future contain a Mills Fleet Farm. They indicated that they did not wish to mislead people in the audience that this possibility would be eliminated. Under the guidelines established by the Plan, the 1995 Study Areas will be re- examined in the future when the city is hopefully in a better position to make appropriate determinations as to how these areas should be developed. At the close of the meeting, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the draft plan incorporating the two amendments outlined above and forward it to the Metropolitan Council for their review and approval. Since the October meeting, an informal presentation was made to the Planning Commission by Rod Grams, the owner of a .parcel of land located on Audubon Road. This site was originally designated for office industrial use on an earlier draft of the plan but this had been changed to low density residential use to provide an adequate buffer for homes located on Sun Ridge Court and along Audubon Road. Mr. Grams indicated that he did not object to this change. However, he believed that the northern part of his property could more appropriately be used for office commercial uses. He presented the Planning Commission with information that indicated his belief that the Williams Bros. Pipeline, which bisects his property, would provide a better dividing line between the two uses 1 then the north property line of his parcel which is the current proposal. Staff raised some concerns with changing the plan at this late date without the benefit of having area residents, who participated in this process and discussion, present. Staff also indicated a concern that the pipeline is located south of Mr. Gram's existing home which would, in all likelihood, result in the destruction of one of three Chaska Brick homes remaining in this area. Therefore, we advised against changing the plan at this time. The - Planning Commission discussed the proposal and agreed with staff's recommendations. It was indicated that at some point in the future if Mr. Gram's or a developer is able to present the City with a comprehensive plan developing the southern portion of the site residential uses and the northern portion for high quality office industrial that this may be considered but there is no commitment either written or implied that would ensure that this would be acceptable. RECOMMENDATION The Chanhassen Planning Commission and Planning Staff are recommending that the City Council approve the draft Comprehensive Plan contingent upon it's approval by the Metropolitan Council. If 1 1 1 1 Draft Comprehensive Plan January 2, 1991 Page 9 substantial changes are requested by the Metropolitan Council, these will be brought back to the Planning Commission and City Council for review and approval. 1 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 C t 1 \N TCKA-; • p L961/113 I 6C±. 1 ;:l , 1,1c%A. ot Yy■ ca-41 -6A.0 cm/J- -ctivue-Le' AL2Ax.&46 1 km /wil pc 1 O q cu l ucu,koLQu_ett, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a 1 January 21, 1991 Mayor Chmiel and City Council Members City of Chanhassen Chanhassen, Mn 55317 ' RE: NE Corner of Galpin and Highway 5 Dear Mayor and City Council, ' I am writing this letter so that my concerns about my land's proposed zoning are clear and documented. ' My wife and I talked to Paul Krauss January 18th = about the following concerns which I want to share with you. ' I contacted the Minnesota Department of Transportation and learned that the projected noise level for proposed 4 -lane highway 5, approaches the maximum allowable noise level. This noise issue is only addressed when there is residential ' already in place, and then berms, walls, fences, and trees are some of the solutions to "minimize" the noise problem. However, they encourage local governments to implement a noise compatible land use program in their planning process to prevent future problems in this area. The Minnesota State Planning Guidelines list residential as an incompatible use. I do feel is is very poor planning to "PLAN" residential on that corner. If zoned residential, the City of Chanhassen will more than likely require this noise problem be addressed during the site -plan review. The terrain of the land does not lend itself to any type of buffering that I can think of and infact traps and contains the highway noise. Any suggestions? At the January 7th meeting the council expressed their commit- ment to the downtown. Once again I would like to remind you that the corner is self- containing, small and could not spread ' and sprawl. It would be "Neighborhood Commercial" vs "Regular Commercial ". (I do not have a copy of the Proposed Comp Plan but I remember neighborhood commercial being different from ' the other commercial.) If the Council feels the downtown woulo suffer perhaps attractive professional office buildings could be considered. The land's topography and lighted intersection location are not compatible with high quality residential which Chanhassen appears to want to maintain. 1 Sincerely, JAN 2 4 1� Larry Van De Veire ,. y CF r } 1 JOHN A. COTTER. JAMES P LARKIN LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. BEATRICE A. ROTHWEILER I ROBE L J PAUL B. PLU NKETT JACK F RT DALY .HOF FMAN ALAN L. KILDOW O. KENNETH LINOGREN ATTO R N EY S AT LAW KATHLEEN M. PICOTTE NEWMAN WENDELL R. ANDERSON MICHAEL B. LE BARON GERALD H. FRIEDE LL GREGORY E. KOR STAD ALLAN E. MULLIGAN AMY DARK GRADY ROBERT J. HENNESSEY RICKSO N 1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 2000 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER CATHERINE BARNETT WILSON. JAMES C. ERICKSO JEFFREY C. ANDERSON EDWARD J. DRISCO LL 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET DANIEL L. BOWLES GENE N, FULLER 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH TODD M. VLATKOVICN DAVID C. SELLERGREN BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TIMOTHY J. MCMAN VS LISA A. GRAY RICHARD J. KEENAN JOHN T FU BOYLE 10 GARY A. RENNEKE TELEPHONE (6121 338 - 66 ROBERT E. BOYLE TELEPHONE 1612! 835 THOMAS H. WEAVER FRANK I, HARVEY FAX 16121 336 SHANNON K. MCCAMSRIDGE CHARLES S. MODELL OI ETZEN - FAX 16121 896 GARY A. VAN CLEVE CHRISTOPHER J. DI MICR AEI B. BRAMAN JOHN R. BEATTIE GAYLEN L. KNACK LINDA H. FISHER NORTH SUBURBAN OFFICE JUNE A. WRASE CHRISTOPHER J. HARRISTHAL THOMAS P. STOLTMAN STEVEN G. .1AC 8990 SPRINGBROOK DRIVE SUITE 250 SHARON L.BRENNA JO MICHAEL DIEHL MAN MARIKAY CANAGA LITZAU JOHN E. DIEHL TIMOTHY J. KEANE JON S. S FLYNN wSK1 COON RAPIDS, MINNESOTA 55433 WILLIAM C. GRIFFITH, JR. I THOMAS J. FLYN TELEPHONE (612) 786 gg�KKyy EE THEODORE A. MONDALE JAMES P FREEMAN JOHN J. STEFFENMAGEN QUINN TODD I. FREEMA FAX (6121 786 DANIEL W. VOSS STEPHEN B. SOLOMON MARK A. RURIK PETER K. BECK A JOHN R, HILL SHRRR H. . OMAN N N % g 199 JAMES K. MARTIN GE RALILL R OMAN STEVEN P. KATKOV I JOHN B. LU GERALD L. NOO THOMAS J. SEYMOUR NDOUIST _ DAYLE NOLAN« THOMAS B. HUMPHREY, JR. ` -� Y Reply to Bloo O (. \Nh1ASSENI MICHAEL T. WEAVER ington OF COUNSEL CHARLES R. WEAVER JOSEPH GITIS HERMAN G L. ELLA L RICHARD A. NOROBYE VINCENT ND E W G. ITC DAVID .1. PEAT ANDREW J. MITCHELL I w ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN January 25, 1991 I Mayor Don Chmiel Members of the City Council I City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 I Re: Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan Update , Year 2000 Land Use Plan I Dear Mayor Chmiel and Council Members: This letter is written on behalf of Eckankar, the owner of the 175 I acre church property located at the intersection of Highway 5 and County Road 17. Eckankar requests the Council to consider some modifications to the proposed Year 2000 Land Use Plan (the Plan) and I the Draft Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Plan designates the Eckankar property for a mixture of the following five uses: Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential I High Density Residential Public /Semi - Public Parks /Open Space The Eckankar property is occupied by the recently completed Temple of Eck, pursuant to the terms of the Conditional Use Permit approved by the City Council. The Conditional Use Permit allows only church use I for the entire property. At the time of approval it was recognized that any other use of the Eckankar property would require either rezoning or Conditional Use Permit approval from the City Council. 1 - LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. Mayor Don Chmiel and Members of the City Council January 25, 1991 page 2 Consistent with the Conditional Use Permit, Eckankar requests that all of the Eckankar property be designated "Public /Semi- Public ". Eckankar purchased the entire 175 acre property for its own use. Eckankar intends to retain the entire 175 acres and has no intention of, or any desire in having, any portion of the property divided off for other uses. It has no intention of developing part of the property for multi- housing which may require the expansion of an active park area onto the Eckankar property. Eliminating the Residential and Parks /Open Space designations on the Eckankar property from the Comprehensive Plan will be consistent with the land use intentions of Eckankar. We appreciate your consideration of these comments. We will be available at the meeting of January 28, 1991, to answer any questions. Ver truly yours, Peter K. Beck, for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. kw cc: Dgn Ashworth aul Krauss 1 1 1 GF$s.kw i 1 I 1 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Minnesota Landscape Arboretum I 3675 Arboretum Drive P.O. Box 39 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 (612) 443 -2460 I January 15, 1991 1 TO: Chanhassen Planning Commission I FROM: Peter Olin, Director, Minnesota landsca r return SUBJECT: Proposed Zoning Changes 1 The Arboretum was unable to send a representative to the P ublic meeting on January 7 but we do have a number of concerns in regards 1 to the proposed plan and have listed these below: 1. Disappointment that more effort to preserve the character I of Chanhassen is not demonstrated. There are ways to preserve rural /residential character (farms and residential). I - The rolling landform - hills, wetlands, fields and woods can be preserved through various means. I via 1) mixed land use (planned unit development) 2) performance standards 3) transfer zoning I 4) incentive zoning 5) contract zoning 6) rural land foundations 7) purchase of development rights, etc. 1 2. The Arboretum is particularly concerned about the impact of development along Highway 5 and 41. It appears that 1 the Arboretum will be one of the few green spaces between I -494 to Victoria and beyond. I 3. There needs to be transition between zones, i.e. putting industrial /commercial against a committed open space such as the Arboretum begins to destroy its quality. Instead of industrial /commercial property adjacent to the I Arboretum's eastern boundaries we need low density, low impact development. 1 4. We are concerned about building heights and the impact of development on views from within the Arboretum. This is a special concern in regards to the property at the NW . corner of State Highway 41 and 82nd street. 1 II 1 1 5. The Arboretum is also concerned that large green spaces such as ours become connected through corridors or trails to other open areas, parks, wetland areas, and preserves. In summary, we hope you are able to take another look at some of the areas listed above and possibly try some of the alternatives described. The Landscape Arboretum will continue to be one of the premier locations in the city of Chanhassen but wise land use decisions for areas near our borders and along highway's 5 and 41 will make both the city and the Arboretum the pride of our region. PJO:mh 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - LJ 1 F11F? - _ " , 11 h'. F :u S I 1 - - - 1 EFe: V I C: E S — 01/16.'91 14:25 MN POLLUTION CONTROL PGENCY 002 • 1 111101/ Minnesota Pollution Control kiency T 520 Lafayette Road, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 -3898 - 1 % "056 1 Telephone (612) 296 -6300 MINN • January 16, 1991 Mr. Dennis Palmer Systems Control ' 5275 Edina Industrial, Blvd. Suite 208 Edina, Minnesota 55439 .Dear Mr. Palmeri ' This letter is to re- affirm our position that all inspection facilities are to be constructed uniformly. As you may recatll Section V. of between Systems Control and the Minnesota Pollution Control . Aggenc the contra "All facilities shall be of brick masonry with concrete blockbackupMpCA) reads ' construction and be of uniform design identifiable to the general public." Section V.C.2.a. also states "The architectural design shell be approved b y the Agency." On August 21, 1989, the MA approved the uniform architectural design, blueprints and floor design of the inspection facilities submitted by.• YOU The contract clearly requires that all inspection facilities be of uniform deign. Should you have any questions regarding this letter of my staff at (612)297..5488. ►please contact Dave Kelso Sincerely, (J. David Thornton, Chief ' Program Development & Air Analysis Section All quality Division u JDT:dmh 1 1 1 1 1 II ATTACHMENTS EMISSION CONTROL VEHICLE INSPECTION STATION II BH SITE, CHAN HAVEN PLAZA THIRD ADDITION II i. Planning Commission minutes dated January 2, 1991 and Staff Report. II 2. Memo from Asst. City Engineer dated December 26, 1990. 3. Memo from Park and Recreation Coordinator dated December 19, 1 1990. 4. Memo from Building Official dated December 17, 1990. 1 5. Letter from MnDOT dated December 27, 1990. 6. Traffic Study /Air Quality Analysis. 1 7. Letter from Applicant Regarding Vacation of Easement. II 8. Aerial Photograph of Property. 9. Traffic Analysis. II 10. Site Plan and Final Plat Dated January 23, 1991. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 2, 1991 1 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli, Jeff Farmakes and Joan Ahrens STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner 1; and Charles Folch, Asst. City Engineer ' PUBLIC HEARING: JERRY PERKINS, POPE ASSOCIATES - PROPERTY ZONED BH AND LOCATED NORTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST, EAST OF DAKOTA AVENUE AND SOUTH OF HWY. 5: A. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 4,042 SQUARE FOOT VEHICLE INSPECTION STATION. B. REPLAT OF CHAN HAVEN PLAZA 2ND ADDITION INTO TWO LOTS. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A VEHICLE INSPECTION STATION IN THE BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY DISTRICT. ' Public Present: Name Address Don Hagen 33 -10th Avenue So., Suite 100, Hopkins 55343 Stan Krzywicki 5275 Edina Industrial Blvd., Edina Jerry Perkins, Pope Assoc. 1300 Energy Park Drive, St. Paul ' Dennis Palmer, Systems Control, 5275 Edina Industrial Blvd., Edina Richard Kubik Systems Control Tom Kotsonas 8001 Cheyenne Avenue Alex Krengel 8009 Cheyenne Avenue ' Walter Rockenstein Faegre & Benson, 2200 Norwest Center, 905 7th Street, Minneapolis 55402 -3901 Alan Klugman Westwood Professional Associates Al Iverson PMT Corp Richard Andreson PMT Corp Donald Chmiel City Council ' Richard Wing City Council Tom Workman City Council Ursula Dimler City Council Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. 1 Walter Rockenstein: Chairman, my name is Walter Rockenstein. I'm an attorney with Faegre & Benson. We're the legal counsel for Systems ' Control. I think we'd like to have two parts to our presentation. First one of the major questions that's been asked each time we've been before the Planning Commission is how we're going to handle traffic accessing this site. We have Alan Klugman from Westwood Professional Associates who's going to address that issue and when he's finished addressing the traffic Issue I'd like to come back and go through the conditions that the staff has proposed dealing with each one of those and indicating those that we 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 2 are in agreement with, which is most of those, and the one or two that we have some disagreement with and the reasons for our disagreement. So I'd like to have Mr. Klugman begin the presentation by talking about traffic. Alan Klugman: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of overheads if it would be okay to speak from the projecter there? 1 Conrad: Uh -huh. Alan Klugman: I'd like to talk to 3 issues tonight. First is a brief 1 description of trip generation characteristic of this site. The second issue would be a description of the assignment of site traffic and then finally the third issue would be an assessment of the impact of site traffic both on the surrounding roadway system and the site itself, or I should say the on -site operations. Before I get into the full discussion I'd like to start with a few quick definitions so we're all on the same terms. The first one is vehicle trip. In terms of traffic engineering as an example, if one car arrives at the testing station, completes it's test and leaves, we're calling that 2 vehicle trips or vehicle trip ins. All the numbers that I'll be describing tonight are vehicle trips. The next two terms relate to the different days of the month that we will observe out there. The first one is the average day, or the typical day during the course of the month. The second day is the peak day which reflects basically the last 5 days, the last 5 working days of the month. Based on these programs in other states, there's a surge in inspections towards the end of the month as people rush to get their inspections completed prior toll their expirations of their licenses. Typically in the other states where Systems Control operates, they've observed peaking of about 150% to 160% of the average day at the end of the month and in fact for design purposes, that works out to 156% is what we've used. The final term is the peak hour. For this particular site we're looking at two different peak hours. If I can go to the bottom one, that's the peak hour of the surrounding roadway system which in this area is approximately 4 :30 to 5:30 p.m.. That's when TH 5 and the various cross streets are at their busiest. The site itself, the trip generation characteristics of the site itself show a peaking in the late morning and on into the noon hour. In fact during the typical p.m. peak hour, the roadway system of the site itself is about approximately half of our typical hourly volume for the day. So just to reiterate the peak hour for the site does not coincide with the peak hour II of the roadway system. Approximately the next 3 graphics I have here will be a quick run through of the trip generation characteristics both for this site and for other auto or into land uses. All the graphics I'm showing tonight are the ones that we showed at the neighborhood public meeting a I few weeks ago with the exception of some count data for the McDonald's which we completed after that meeting. If we go to the right two most columns of this chart we see what the typical projected traffic is for the Systems Control site. All the numbers that I'm dealing with in reference to Systems Control represent the year 1998 which is the final year of the 7 year contract that SC has with the State to provide this program and of course in 1998 the vehicle registrations will be a bit higher than they are today. And then also for this site we're looking at two different time periods. The right most column here is the peak at the end of the month. The column one in from that is the typical average day of the month. So ill summary, the site itself is expected to generate 1,260 trips on the busiest 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 3 day of the month. trips on ay onth. Approximately 810 trip a typical day. The other 3 uses that we show here, a gas station, a fast food restaurant and a drive in bank are typical national averages based on data collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. They do not necessarily reflect any one site in Chanhassen but rather their typical national averages so this puts the particular testing site in some type of perspective. Moving from a daily basis to an hourly basis, one of the questions that came up at the neighborhood public meeting was how does the particular McDonald's adjacent tb this site compare versus the typical uses that we talked about and the column on the far right summarizes that. We conducted a traffic count at the McDonald's for both the lunch hour period and for the evening dinner time period and we saw that during the typical one hour period, the McDonalc's site generated at lunch time about 300 trips. For the Systems Control site we're showing 4 different bar charts. I hope it's not too complicated but basically the ones on the left represent the average day and the ones on the right represent the peaking at the end of the month and within those two sets we also have the p.m. peak hour which is on the left and the noon hour which is the higher hour so just to cut to maybe the highest number, the 176 trips is what we estimate in 1998 at the end of the month for the busiest hour of the day which is approximately 11:00 to 12:00. 11:00 in the morning to 12:00 noon. That's the number of trips that this site would generate. During the busiest time of the roadway 1 system, the p.m. peak hour, we're looking at less than half that or the 76 trips for the p.m. peak hour. Now if we look at this number again here, the 76 trips from the p.m. peak hour and then put that in some perspective 1 compared to other typical land uses. Typical auto oriented land uses. Again, we looked at the gas station. A typical fast food restaurant. A typical drive in bank. The two Systems Control numbers both for the average and the peak at the end of the month and then finally the exact count we did at the McDonald's so there's a lot of numbers up here but I guess what we're trying to do is show some perspective that in the busiest hour of the month the testing site is expected to generate about 76 trips 1 during the p.m. peak hour. During that same time period on a typical day, the nearby restaurant generates about 97 trips. ' Conrad: Are those today's numbers or the future numbers? Alan Klugman: The 97 is today's count. The 76 would be the 1998 value so it'd be the highest value. Maybe if I could step back for one moment in terms of where the numbers came for the Systems Control site. In some of the other data that's been submitted to the city, there's a description of the overall metropolitan wide system. Unless there's specific questions we 1 won't go into a great deal about that but in summary there's 11 sites located throughout the metropolitan area. The sites vary in terms of their size and how many vehicles they're expected to service on a typical year. The sites are all located within what we call geocenters of population that each serve different areas and the numbers of inspections is then projected based on the population within that area so this is part of a system wide projection for all 11 sites. Going onto the second phase of my discussion which is the assignment of the site traffic, we worked with David Braslau of David Braslau and Associates who Dr. Braslau also completed the air and noise quality analysis. Working with Dr. Braslau we generated this direction of approach assumption which again is based on the fact that there's 11 sites spread throughout the metropolitan area and the traffic to 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 January 2, 1991 - Page 4 1 any one site would be more or less balanced via the major roadways that serve that site. The nearest proposed sites to this one are one in Minnetonka to the north and to the east will be sites in Savage and in the II Bloomington /Richfield area. But in summary we show that along the major roadways, TH 5 we're looking at approximately 40% from the east, approximately 25% from the west and then some more local movements via TH 101 in the downtown area of about 5 %. As I guess we've discussed previously, with this site we're on Lake Drive south of TH 5 and we have two major access points from TH 5. Of course the closest one is Dakota Avenue and then further to the east we have 184th Avenue or Dell Road and II both of those sites are within the improvement area for TH 5 which I'm sure the Planning Commission is very well aware of. What we have here is a sketch both for the Dakota Avenue intersection and also for the new intersection which will be at 184th Avenue. Dakota Avenue will be a rebuilt, reconfigured intersection to include turn lanes in each direction, median islands, a new signalized intersection and then further to the east II along TH 5 the intersection of Dell Road and 184th would also be very similar in character with median islands and turn lanes. The time table for that shows that this improvement along TH 5 will be occurring in about the next 1 to 2 years out to CR 17 so it does dovetail nicely with when this site will come on line. The roadway pictures that we showed here we received from the MnDot design plans and those are the ones that we and Dr. Braslau used for analysis purposes and I guess real quickly running through' the analysis. Level of service calculations were done for the major intersections for the site generated traffic both for baseline conditions and for the baseline with the site added on top. And for the one year after opening, an analysis of that period shows that for both of the major II intersections at 184th Avenue and at Dakota Avenue along TH 5, the overall level of service at the intersection would not be impacted or would not change with the addition of the site generated traffic in the p.m. peak .hour which is a critical hour for the roadway system. Now the one other intersection that we looked at was the intersection of Lake Drive with Dakota Avenue which of course is a stop sign controlled intersection which ' would serve a majority of the site traffic. Using the stop .sign analysis method with the base line traffic and the addition of a site generated traffic for both the p.m. peak hour, busiest hour of the roadway system and the noon hour, busiest hour of the site, that unsignalized intersection can adequately accommodate the traffic volumes. So I guess in short summary, this one site added to the baseline traffic would cause no impact to the surrounding roadway system. Finally the final point I'd like to make is an analysis of the on site operations which is a question that seems to come up with every site that we look at and that is the ability of the site itself to store and queue the vehicles that need to be served right on site. If I can refer to the first picture that you had up that shows the II site. Thank you. The site itself has approximately 875 feet of stacking in the various lanes to serve this site. We ran an analysis using typical queueing analysis procedures. It's a type of analysis you could use for drive in bank, drive in restaurant, vehicle testing site. Any site that has drive up traffic. Using that analysis and typical queuing methods, we looked at the length of stacking that we have available. We looked at how II many vehicles could stack in that amount and using a conservative value of about 25 feet per stacked vehicle, we can store approximately 35 vehicles on the site. We then ran an analysis where we looked at a probability of what is the busiest flow rate within the busiest hour of the busiest day so 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 5 it's the peak within the peak within the peak and we said at a 1% probability of overflowing the site, how big would the site need to be. ' When we worked out those numbers, we conclude that a site that can store 23 vehicles on it would have a 1 %.chance of backing up with the busiest time in the busiest hour of the busiest day. Okay, so 23 vehicles would give us ' that 1% chance of backing up. This site conservatively can store 35 vehicles which gives us at least a dozen vehicles to safety factor beyond that 1% chance. So we feel that there's definitely adequate space here to store all the vehicles on the site and when I say on site, that's before the public cul -de -sac. I guess if there's no questions, that's hopefully kind of a brief run through of the traffic aspects and if there are no questions, I'll turn it back to Mr. Rockenstein. 1 Walter Rockenstein: I'd like to go briefly down through the conditions that are indicated on pages 17, 18 and 19 and indicate those that we're in ' agreement with an'� those where we have difficulty. We start out with perhaps the biggest difficulty in that we remain in disagreement with the staff over the need for a mansured roof on the facility. These testing stations not surprisingly since it's a metropolitan wide system, have been designed to present as identical a view to customers coming to them as is possible. The information that will be sent out ahead of time on these stations will include photographs of the stations. Will include we hope the maps that indicate the way to approach the station. The hope is that the uniform look of the station will make it easy to find and easy to locate and identify. All of the other cities that we have been in to date ' have approved the design that we have indicated which does not include a mansard roof and Systems Control believes that that design is the one they should use here. Conrad: Do you have a picture of the design at your disposal? Walter Rockenstein: I beg your pardon? Conrad: Do you have a picture of the design? Walter Rockenstein: It's a design much like this building with a straight parapet roof. We would increase the height of that parapet to provide screening higher than it is shown on those plans. That is one of the issues that was'raised was the need to screen the equipment on top and ' we're in agreement that that must be done and would be providing that. If you look at the site itself and the surrounding buildings, you would find that only one of the surrounding buildings has a mansard roof or one that's ' even sloped and that is the McDonald's. The office building which will be' immediately across TH 5 has a flat roof with a parapet. The buildings to the east are all flat roof also with parapet so we don't agree with the staff's conclusion that this is in the heart of the business district where mansard roofs are the norm. That in fact is not the norm at this site. We also find it interesting that the City Hall which is much closer to the heart of the business district is not a mansard or sloped roof but is a ' flat roof, exactly the same as we're proposing. We agree with the need for a sign plan and the need to obtain sign permits as indicated in number 2 but we would indicate that on 2(c) it is MnDot that has to give the final ' approval to signage located in State rights -of -ways so although we can put it on the map and we intend to have it and we hope that the PCA will Planning Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 6 1 support us in achieving that, it's only MnDot that can give that final approval with respect to the State highways and in fact it is only the City that can give approval for the City's rights -of -way. This is in number 3 we're really coming back to the plan that was originally submitted by Systems Control. Systems Control originally submitted a private road without a cul -de -sac. It was the City that requested the shift of the cul -de -sac and if the City wishes to move back to the private road, we'are II happy to do that and we agree that if you use a private road, you will have to have permanent cross easements and you'll have to have the maintenance agreement and we would be providing those. We will, as is required, obtain, the permit from the Watershed District and we do agree that when further development occurs on Chanhassen Haven Plaza, the other site that we would have to extend that sewer piping to the future detention pond. We are in II agreement with number 5 that you have to use Type III erosion control to protect the wetland. The landscaping along the south side of Lake Drive East, Systems Control would like to provide that. I understand that that II land is owned by Mr. Hagan who also owns the remaining land and he would have to be in agreement with that. He's here tonight and can indicate whether he's in agreement but we would want to provide that screening for ' the neighbors to the south. We will also provide the_.detailed cost estimate of landscaping and the additional landscaping on the north side of the trash enclosure. We would expect to construct the sanitary sewer and the watermain improvements and acquire the necessary utility permits from II MnDot and whatever permits might be required from the Pollution Control Agency and the Department of Health, although I haven't located one yet that's required by the Department of Health. It may be that one there's one from the PCA. We do expect to enter into a development contract with the City and provide financial guarantees and the flammable waste s.eparater that's being suggested is already a part of Systems Control's plan. It's a standard feature of all 11 of their testing stations. With respect to the I subdivision, we do expect to pay park and dedication fees. We will provide the (a) thru (d) . (d) of course will depend on the final drainage plan as the site is redesigned for a private road. I can't speak to (e) because the only portion of the plat that's being required is being taken from the II adjoining property, not from that that's being acquired by Systems Control but we assume that the adjoining property owner is in agreement with that. The cross access and utility easements. We are in agreement that those will have to be provided again and we are in agreement that the currently existing drainage easement would not be necessary any longer and could be vacated. With respect to the conditional use permits, we would expect as all part of that to have number 1 be one of the conditions and number 2, the direction maps are subject to MPCA approval. I'm sorry we can't make them subject to your staff's approval. The final approval there is the I Pollution Control Agency. We would be happy to submit our prototypes to your staff for suggestions but the final approval there is the MPCA's. We will maintain a contract with the services for the State of Minnesota. The contract is 7 years in length and we have already agreed previously before II this commission on the other site that we do not intend to perform repairs or to sell gas or parts. The program does not involve the testing of diesels or heavy trucks. We would intend to maintain the site in compliance ' with State and Federal Air and Noise Standards and in fact have submitted data to indicate that we will. We are in agreement that we can provide a compliance report within 6 months after operation to the City. We're concerned I have to say a little bit about the City's unlimited license to II Planning Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 7 ask us at any time to prepare reports. A full blown air quality study or a ' full noise study is an expensive proposition. We would like to suggest that if the first report turns up showing compliance after 6 months on the site, that you consider an alternative that if the city requests the study and the study turns out that we're in compliance, the city would pay for ' it. If it turns out we're not in compliance, we'll pay for it and make the changes that are necessary. We think that's a fair way to proceed. If the City then has reason to believe that we are in violation, they can ask us to supply the report and if we are, we'll pay for it and we'll make the appropriate changes. And the last one I think we simply need to agree with staff on some definition of what constitutes fire lanes, drive aisles, access drive or public rights -of -way. We believe that we have adequate ' stacking space without being in any of those but we think, we hope we are in agreement. We don't precisely know what they mean by drive aisles. We use that term to include the stacking space. I suspect that they're using it in a more narrow fashion and we need to figure that out. We are confident that without being in the way of anybody coming into or leaving the site, including fire trucks, that we have sufficient stacking space. That completes our response to the various conditions and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Conrad: Just for quick clarification on point number 6 under conditional ' use permit. You basically disagree with paying for a study after 6 months? Is that what you said? You led off by saying you didn't want to do a whole series of reports so that got me confused. They're asking, the 1 City staff is asking for one. Walter Rockenstein: We have no problem with demonstrating to you 6 months after we're in operation at our cost that we're in compliance. It's the ' subsequent ones and the expense of them. Conceiveably, although I doubt it, the City could ask us for one of those every month and that would be a several thousand dollar expenditure on a monthly basis to do those reports. 1 Conrad: Anything else from your side? ' Walter Rockenstein: We're available for questions as other people testify. Conrad: I'm sure there will be some. Thanks. Okay, we will open it up for public comments. So if there are any on anything you've heard or ' haven't heard, we'd sure like to hear them. Is there anything? Maybe I could start it off a little bit. I'm curious. There was a neighborhood meeting. What did come out of the neighborhood meeting? What were the concerns of the neighbors? Have they been addressed? Who was there? Walter Rockenstein: Several neighbors are here and I'd really feel more ' comfortable if they spoke for themselves but I'll try to summarize the meeting. We made a presentation which was really a combination of the earlier presentation we made to the Planning Commission where we explained who Systems Control is and made sure of the inspection program. All the ' different requirements that have been placed on us by the PCA. The fact that it was a competitive process to get there and then we went through all of the site diagrams and pictures of this location. Mr. Klugman did his ' analysis without the facts about the McDonald's. One of the questions asked was what is the traffic that McDonald's actually generates and so we 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 January 2, 1991 - Page 8 went out and counted it because we thought that was a legitimate 9 g question that neighbors had a right to know about. A second specific concern which was raised was a concern about headlights as people leave the site in projecting into the homes to the south, and you see the staff recommendation as a result of that. That we try to put berming and foliage in there to alleviate that and we're in agreement with that recommendation.' Questions were raised about traffic afterwards and we continue to try to ask those questions. Some people were concerned about the relative height of the structure and suggested that we lowered it somewhat by lowering the area it was on. It turned out when we got the plans out with Mr. Krzywicki that we had shaved more than 2 feet off the existing height of the site in an effort to level it off a little bit so I thought we had addressed that one but if there are others, we'd be happy to have the neighbors come up I and address them now and we'll continue to try to address them. Conrad: Any comments from the neighbors anybody? ` II Tom Kotsonas: Tom Kotsonas and I live at 8001 Cheyenne and one of the neighbors that attended the other meeting. And the summary that was given is I would say is fairly accurate of our concerns. Basically since we've II been here before dealing with other businesses that have gone into the area, we're concerned with the amount of traffic. We see this bringing in a "huge "•amount of traffic on a continual basis. Their hours are going to be, I forget what time they said they open in the morning but they're goingll to go to 7:00 p.m. in the evening which of course during the summertime and the weather when it's nice, people like to be out in their yards. We're I looking at a large volume of traffic with McDonald's already and thit is going to add since this is the time that people are getting out of work and it's most convenient for them to come in and have their car checked. Saturdays are going to be open from sometime in the morning until approximately 2 :00 p.m. in the afternoon. That's another day that adds to II the large amount of traffic that other types of businesses would not be open at that time necessarily. They refer to all the types of businesses that would go in there would be fast foods, which of course our neighborhood would wish not to see that become a fast food lane. Or traffic bearing another gas station or service station or restaurant type I thing. There are other types of businesses that would go in there that would nowhere near generate the kind of traffic that they're talking about generating. We do feel somewhat better if there's some serious attempt to put in vegetation, trees or various types of things on the south side. Of course we realize that's private land along that stretch. The road has already, the new road that's gone in there, the widening and expanding of it, took out some protection that was there already. And also some things that they're talking about putting in on the north side. Basically it's what we see is a large amount of traffic bordering on a residential neighborhood and we see that as a detriment to the neighborhood. Visual effects, it's hard to tell from pictures exactly. We see this as a glorified gas station I guess is the best way I can put it. It's going to II be all kinds, if it's not trucks but I mean it's all kinds of vehicles coming in there. There's noise that's going to affect us and we're looking' at, when I get done working at 4:00 -5:00 in the afternoon to 7:00 in the evening, this is when we're going to be looking at a fair amount of traffic with the expansion of the highway. With McDonald's and anything else that goes in in addition to this in the future and then we're looking at 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 9 Saturday traffic until I think it was 2:00 p.m. they're talking about on Saturdays that they're going to be open. So I guess that's our concerns on ' that area. Thank you. Conrad: Okay. Thank you for your comments. ' Tom Kotsonas: Oh, one other thing. One of the reasons, and whether or not you agree. One of the reasons the neighborhood is not here in larger numbers is that there is a definite feeling, and this is a negative ' statement but there is a definite feeling that it doesn't really do much good for people to come and speak at these meetings because everything that's happened in the past, there's lip service given to things but nothing ever really takes place as far as we see accommodations. I don't mean to, I guess it is a negative statement and that's the way the neighborhood feels and so there are two of us here and the same thing at the meeting that we attended before. Half a dozen people but it's tough to get the rest of the people out because they feel, well why go. Conrad: Many things take energy and the neighborhoods that stick with ' issues sometimes make changes. And again, I don't want to appear too defensive on your comments because I think there's, anytime you deal with government, you know it's like boy. How do I get control over what they're ' doing? That's probably why some of us are serving here is to feel that it can be sensitive. Yet most of the time when you want it to be sensitive, you've got to get there in advance. It's like you should be talking about the comprehensive plan and is this the right area for highway business use ' which is what that land, this is one development, and there are going to be several more because we've always allocated that space for business. What we call highway business uses. Tom Kotsonas: Not always. When I moved into that neighborhood it was zoned residential and so the people that live along that stretch were not looking at this highway use and it seems that when we appeared in large ' numbers to protest that, it's business highway. When McDonald's moved in, we appeared in large numbers for a considerable length of time and it turned out the same so we put great amounts of effort, time and financial ' dollars into all of those things. The results were the same as if people had stayed home so when you say you have to get out and do your thing, I understand. The squeaky wheel usually gets oiled, we'd like to think. ' Conrad: It gets you involved in government but I know what you're saying. Other comments? Anything else? ' Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Let's start down with you Tim. Erhart: I'd like to point out to that gentleman there, the reason we're here tonight is that citizens opposed the construction of this site in an industrial park and so pressure was brought there not to put it there... and talk against it so I think the fact that you're here tonight underlines the fact that I think the City does listen. One of the reasons... With that little comment, I'll start. Dave what, the pond and you have some Planning Commission Meeting t January 2, 1991 - Page 10 complicated way of getting water off of the site. It sounds like it's not going to work perfectly. Dave, you're responsible for that? Folch: Charles? Erhart: Charles? Where'd I get Dave. Okay, anyway. Why, page 9, can you!' explain under grading and drainage? I didn't quite understand... It was talking about drainage of storm water and water backing up into the parking lot. Folch: Well basically initially it was looked at as trying to create one location to drain the entire vehicle inspection site and that typically looked to be located adjacent to the wetland area. However due to grade limitations it wasn't possible to accomplish that so in an effort to try and develop a satisfying drainage scheme the site was basically broken up into 3 areas for drainage. The northern half of the site which will contain pretty much the area north of the building, which is impervious. That area was designed to drain north to the existing highway ditch. Now most of that area currently does drain that way and so with the grading scheme it seemed to work out well. As our ordinance requires, a site developing has to maintain a predeveloped runoff rate and typically that occurs with ponding. In this particular situation, you'll notice the northern half of the site there's no room to really construct any type of ponding situation so what the applicant proposed to do was restrict the flow rate with a pipe size restriction and thereby during certain peak storm events, there will be some minimal ponding occurring in the pavement area up there. We're talking minimum. Maybe a few inches of water depth for a short period of time in that area. Erhart: Why can't you use the area designated as the swamp? , Folch: Pardon me? Erhart: Why can't you make this, what you desiginate on the drawing as a II swamp. Why can't you make that into a ponding area? Folch: The existing wetland area? ' Erhart: Yeah. Folch: Well typically an area that you have like that we'd normally want II to see some type of pre - treatment of the runoff going to that wetland area. Right now it's mostly impervious area that's draining to it. When you 11 drain parking lot areas which contain gasoline and oils and things like that, you normally don't want to discharge those directly into a wetland and so what we had originally. Erhart: Where's it going to go to on the storm water? Folch: Pardon me? ' Erhart: So it enters the storm water going north right? Folch: Uh -huh. 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 11 Erhart: Okay, where does that go? ' Folch: Well initially it will just discharge into the ditch area on the south side of TH 5. In the future MnDot, the TH 5 improvement project is proposing to construct a storm sewer through there which this system will ' tie directly into. Erhart: Okay, so where does that storm water system go to? ' Folch: I believe that will drain, there's an existing 42 inch that runs north /south along the easterly border of the property and I believe that all drains down south. I believe it is to another wetland area north of Rice Marsh Lake I believe. Erhart: What controls the level of the water in this wetland now? ' Folch: Basically what runs into it. There's no outlet for it. Krauss: There was a fundamental problem with using the wetland. That was ' originally our approach and direction to the applicant: We want to keep enough water in the wetland that it remains viable. The problem with the wetland though Commissioner Erhart is that it's elevated too high. When you're out at the site, you actually see that the wetland's tipped up at the higher edge of the site and the rest of it flows down the other way and it just wasn't physically possible to drain the site into that thing and then have it discharge. To do that you would have had to excavate out the wetland and made a big sump out of it and you would have destroyed the natural feature. Erhart: I don't know how much excavation. Krauss: It was fairly significant. I don't recall exactly how much but it ' was in the realm of 5 or 6 feet. Erhart: ...higher on the north end. Well, anyway you looked at that. ' Krauss: That was our first preference. Erhart: ...try to maintain water on site as much as possible rather than ' directing the storm water. It just seemed to me without looking at the elevations...a missed opportunity to retain more water on the site as well as improve the wetland because it really is., in going out there last summer ' and looking at it, I remember that was a poor quality wetland. Krauss: It was but it's actually made a startling recovery either because of McDonald's putting more water into it or the fact that there was more water last year. It's turned out to be quite attractive and in fact the owner of McDonald's, Gene Borg is quite partial to it these days. He's put a wetland theme into the McDonald's restaurant. ' Erhart: The problem without water control you never know from year to year what they're going to end up with. IF Planning Commission Meeting , January 2, 1991 - Page 12 Krauss: We did ask the developer though to structure this plan so that at II least as much if not a little more water than feeds into that wetland today will continue to do so. They've got the building itself and a portion of II the southern parking lot flowing into the wetlands so it will continue to get water. - Erhart: Well I think the location here is pretty much superior than the II previous location. I empathize with the neighbors. The fact that we have access here from both Dell Road and Dakota makes it a much more viable site than what I said all along was a glorified gas station. It's better than II what we were talking about before. I also agree that I think a cul -de -sac would be a real problem because you really don't have, it's difficult to control...I don't know how you're going to accomplish that. Normally we , kind of like to look at those things as far as site plan review and we won't _be able to do that tonight so I guess without development of the other site, I'm not sure how we're going to, are you going to try to plan that in advance how you would access to the two other parcels or how are you actually going to lay out the internal? Krauss: Well what we were going to do is set up this driveway so that it basically runs straight into this property and then as we envisioned it, well T off future connections to that. Right now Lot 2 is proposed as one lot. It's very conceiveable that it will be divided in half. If that's the case, they will probably have to share a common entrance onto this private II driveway. You'll have an opportunity to review that however when they actually propose development on there. Erhart: So you'd still put a curve in or create...? Krauss: That remains to be seen. However, the reason for the curve is there was a desire to maximize the amount of land on Lot 2 so that the drive, the street got pushed over as far west as possible. Then it needed to curve to enter into the Systems Control site properly so that problem would probably still exist. ' Erhart: The landscaping on the south side. That's just on Lot 1 right? Krauss: Well we believe the plat may be in error there. That there is ' property located south of Lake Drive that's owned by the property owner that we believe is part of this parcel. It's just severed at this point. , It's on the south side of the right -of -way and we're going to see, if the survey is in error, that that should have been included because it is part of the property. We'll have them make that change but we understand that it is owned by Mr. Hagan which was one of the parties that owns the property. Erhart: Okay. Well it sounds like there's some confusion there...going right up the street, I wasn't sure how you were going to deal with that. Krauss: There's basically a 3 tier level of protection if you will for buffering the neighborhood. What we've done is had Systems Control design in a berm and landscaping on the south portion of their site. At this point then down here you have the wetland which is green and open. The landscaping itself that we envisioned would actually be on, you know the II 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 13 street comes through here. It's actually on the other side of the street and would be used to block any direct. Erhart: ...issue that that may be owned by somebody else? 1 Krauss: Well, its apparently owned by the partnership that owns this entire site at this time. ' Erhart: So you think you can resolve that? Krauss: I think so, yes. ' Erhart: Lastly I guess on the roof, it's be nice to have a mansard roof. On the other hand, I think the applicant has got a pretty good point that it's not exactly common in that area. I'm not sure that that requirement should stand so I'll wait for comments from the other commissioners. Other than that, I think this is an improvement. I couldn't quite face going through the whole thing again a second time so I'll let Steve move on it. It looks good. ' Emmings: With regard to the roof, well what is your response? The fact that we don't have them on all buildings in town. We don't have anything. ' that requires them on all buildings in town. Why here? Krauss: Why here? A few reasons. There really has been an architectural theme that's been developed over time in and around downtown Chanhassen. Simply because some buildings were built prior to that or don't incorporate that, I don't believe that's rationale not to do it in the future. - I mean we've often learned that there's better ways of doing things. I understand ' Systems Control's rationale about kind of doing this as a franchise. I mean they all look alike but that's what I hear from every fast food establishment that walks in the door. You know we have to have a bright ' orange building or it has to have arches. Well you find over time that they learn that it doesn't have to. It has to have some architectural symbolism so that people recognize it for what it is but they adapt these ' things to fit into the context that it belongs in. When we look at some of the buildings in this area. Well McDonald's obviously has a mansard roof because it's part of their architectural theme. We have the Hanus building up on a hill across the street. We've talked to that property owner on ' several occasions about addressing, you know they're talking about renovating the site and addressing the architecture of the building since it's just a block building at this point is one of the things that's been raised periodically. I also spoke to the planners over in Minnetonka who have a site being proposed and I don't know if they've carried through on it but they indicated to me that they had a similar concern about the roofline and were probably going to make a similar recommendation. I don't ' know if that's actually been done yet but that's what I was told before Christmas. So the long and the short of it is, I think there is a consistency that we're trying to promote in downtown. Flat roof buildings ' in my view, and it's subjective, are intrinsically unattractive and it's something that's relatively easy to fix and I don't think that they lose that architectural continuity in doing that. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 14 Emmings: I don't really have any other comments. The staff report was really thorough. I thought you did a good job and I guess I support the staff report... Conrad: Annette? 1 Ellson: I have a couple of questions of the applicant. People can use any of the facilities, isn't that correct? I mean if they worked in Richfield ...that facility. Is that why the lunch hour is so busy? Because people go during work? I was really surprised to see that the peak time is the lunch. 1 Dennis Palmer: That's our guess. You can generally tie it in with some other area of surveys... Ellson: So when you have this brochure, it's going to talk about all 11 locations to every household so that people can decide well this is by my II work and this is by my home and things like that? Are all the locations going to have the exact same hours? Dennis Palmer: Yes. 1 Ellson: And is it really peak from that 6:00 to 7:00 or something like that? I.know that this neighborhood is concerned about the later hours. don't know if you really gain a lot by having it open that much more later?1 Dennis Palmer: We're open to 7:00 only two nights a week and 5:30 the other two nights. We stagger the two days...people who can't get there by 1 5:30. Ellson: Okay, so out of the week there's only 2 nights that it will be open until 7:00? Dennis Palmer: Yeah, 2 nights until 7:00 and 2 nights until 5:00... Ellson: You can eat your dinner on the patio for a couple nights anyway. I was concerned, I have a question of staff. The applicant talked about a couple of the conditions that were out of their control like the 2(c) and II number 6 of the site plan review. Basically they said that they don't have control of the signage. That it would have to be MnDot. Is it a problem writing it in? I mean how do we enforce such a thing if they're claiming that they can't control that number (c) is followed through and implemented or they can't control that some landscaping will be done. That there's another landowner involved. How do we make sure that sort of thing gets done? Can we hold them accountable even though they're not under their control? Krauss: Well I think so for a couple of reasons, and I'll modify that a little bit but the idea of signage on TH 5 wasn't initially our idea. It was System Controls and we just thought it was a fine idea and decided that since it was something that they raised and we agreed with, that we would make it a commitment to carry through on. Sharmin has contacted MnDot and why don't you. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 15 Al -Jaff: They said there should be no problems putting up signage on their public right -of -way. If we could just indicate where we would want them and if they don't interfere with traffic, they will provide them. Krauss: So if we wanted to tailor that condition so that it was made specific to MnDot's approval, that's fine because that's where it gets out of their hands but this was originally their proposal. Ellson: What about the landscaping? Krauss: The landscaping, well you know this property, there are 3 interests involved in this review. There's the City and our interest. ' There's the applicant's and their's and then there's the property owners who are selling the property. It's been tough bringing the property owners and the partnership that owns the property. The partnership and Systems ' Control together on this but they're both involved in this application and they both jointly signed the thing and the conditions are jointly applicable to both of them. This plat, if it's approved, is going to have these requirements in there and if they don't fulfill those conditions, the ' thing doesn't get built if you approve it. I think that's something that they need to iron out. Ellson: .In other words, you have to tell them the deal's off unless I can meet all the conditions of the city and things such as that and then that would be the same as 2(e) in the subdivision where they're concerned about the right -of -way as being something that isn't in their control and you're ' saying that's sort of the same thing? Krauss: It's one plat. We're not dealing with one lot of the plat. We're dealing with the entire parcel. Ellson: Okay. As to the roof, I can understand that everybody wants them ' just like the same but I think Chanhassen is better than the rest of the suburbs and I think that we deserve to have the best looking building of all of them. And I don't think that a building with 6 stalls or 4 stalls will be easily misrepresented just because the roofline's a little bit different but I don't think we should short change ourselves and go with a flat roof if we can get it up front to look a little nicer. Those are my concerns and questions. There's one more thing. That drive aisle. He was ' a little concerned about it. I guess maybe we should clarify. What do you mean by drive aisles? Krauss: If we could flip it up and we'd be fully happy, or we'd be agreeable to working with Mr. Rockenstein in getting a document that illustrates it. What we want to maintain on the site is that, it's clear that the public cul -de -sac or the private driveway needs to remain ' unobstructed and the entrance needs to remain unobstructed and the ability of cars to circulate in and around the parking lot needs to remain unobstructed. From this point north and around towards the garage doors, that's all stacking distance. They can stay there to their heart's content. It's the portions of the site that are going to convey traffic exiting and entering that we're most concerned with. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting 9 9 January 2, 1991 - Page 16 Ellson: So long as you both get down what drive aisle means to each other and is agreeable. I like it. I think it's a good example of us bringing out concerns that I know I was concerned about it being in the office park II and I felt this would be a better type of location along the highway anyways so 1-thought this was a good compromise. Conrad: Brian? Batzli: How close to the wetland are we here on this site? , Krauss: The site itself maintains or exceeds the 75 foot setback. The road is closer but that is consistent with the ordinance. • ' Batzli: So we're more than 75 feet away? Krauss: Yes. ' Batzli: Charles, if we were to put some sort of skimmer to help drain the water off of the impervious towards the wetland, would that...water up enough to drain it towards the wetland? Folch: I still think we'd run into a problem basically with grades. We just don't have enough fall to get the, even if we tried to discharge it directly, it wouldn't have enough fall to get a storm sewer in and outletted at the pond. Batzli: I guess I thought the traffic information was interesting. I guess I had a tough time, and maybe your traffic person can clarify this. It seems to me that when you're talking about gas stations and you're talking about banks and fast food facilities, not all of those trips are equivalent to the trips that this facility will see. In my own mind think that this will bring more trips into the community whereas a gas station is sort of something you kind of do on your way home. Fast food, there's enough McDonald's that you're not going to be driving from Minnetonka into II the area to go to McDonald's. Can you address that at all as far as, did you take a look at actually how many trips you're going to be adding that, I or bringing trips from outside the community into the community? Folch: Staffwise we didn't actually do a traffic analysis on this site. That might be a question where you could refer to the applicant's engineer., Traffic engineer. Batzli: Did you look at that? Can you comment? Alan Klugman: If I could put up one overhead and then I'll speak from here. The point you're making in reference to say a gas station or fast II food restaurant or really any retail use is correct. That oftentimes we look at two things. There's the site trip generation and then there's the number of new trips to the roadway system. What it really comes down to • that whatever element you're looking at, say it's an intersection, you merely have to see how many trips are new and how they change their vehicle pattern. If I could explain. If a trip is traveling from the west on TH 5 to the east and he diverts to the McDonald's, on TH 5 he's not an added trip. Either east or west of the intersection. It is a new turn onto the II 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 17 11 highway okay? And so in terms of what you're saying, for an impact or additional traffic to TH 5, you are correct that the fast food or the gas station would not, all the trips generated to those are not new trips. For this site many of them will be but for the actual analysis that we did, we assume that they're all new trips and treated them as new movements at the intersection with TH 5. Based on those percentages, if we take our peak hour movements which are approximately 76 in the p.m. peak hour and you apply the various percentages there and treat them all as new trips, for no individual movement are we adding more than 10 or 20 trips to that particular movement. So we did consider that. Batzli: So your peak hour was how many trips? Alan Klugman: During the peak hour of the site? ' Batzli: Yeah. Alan Klugman: Peak hour of the site is approximately, on the busiest day of the month is approximately 176 trips in the peak hour of the site which is right before the noon hour. Batzli: So if you're bringing 40% of them in on TH 5, you're adding 40% of 176 turning movements into the site? Alan Klugman: Well, let's round the 176 to 180. So 180 trips is 90 into ' the site. Right. Now 40 %, as you're saying 40% of 180 would be, excuse me 40% of 90 would be about 36 trips. Our assumption is that of the 40% coming from the east, approximately half of them would divert at the 184th 11 intersection so approximately 20 trips for any one movement as we approach, you know maximum of 20 trips for any one movement as we approach the site. Batzli: Well, how does that assumption square with I think there might be some representation made and you can dispute this that on the map you're going to try and get people to divert to one intersection rather than equal number to both. Alan Klugman: No. On the map we would show where the site is located in the metropolitan area and what the major approaches are to it. It is our assumption that from the east some would divert to the 184th and some would go to Dakota Avenue. Batzli: So in other words, on the map you're really not intending to show a preference for one of the two intersections at all? Dennis Palmer: We'll work with the City and show which is most favorable ' to the City. The State has to give it's final approval. Batzli: Yeah, I understand that. Dennis Palmer: ...either access. We don't prefer either access. Batzli: I guess I had two more questions for the applicant. Is it intended at all that this facility might be expanded during the contract period with the State? Will it be expanded? 1 Planning ommission Meeting g January 2, 1991 - Page 18 Dennis Palmer: The contract requires that we expandability. We recognize that what we're asking here for is the facility. There is room to expand but we also recognize that we've got to come before this body again to get ' approval. Batzli: Okay. And then how often. ' Dennis Palmer: I might add, it's never happened in any of the programs. It's just a safety valve. There's a 200% plus capacity the average daily II volume. Batzli: That leads me to my next question. How often are you actually running at 100% with your test equipment? Dennis Palmer: At each hour... Batzli: What is your up time for your test equipment though? I mean are you up 95% of the time? Because looking at the stacking measurements, looking at all these things, you're assuming that all your equipment is running at all times and your equipment isn't breaking down so you're operating with for instance one lane. Stan Krzywicki: My name is Stan Krzywicki... Originally hired an ' equipment maintenance manager in the Maryland program and in those facilities...at any one time for any other reason... The individual equipment we had specifically learned in...and that is not unique to the II Maryland program. That is typical in the Illinois program as well as the Washington state program. Actually the equipment is calibrated every hour to make sure it's accurate. ' Batzli: Okay. The last thing I was going to ask about, I guess of the staff or applicant. It doesn't matter. On this berm when you're coming through the inspection facility, wouldn't it make more sense to put evergreens on the berm rather than ash or something that may not be totally blocking for the headlights and things? Krauss: Commissioner Batzli, which berm are we talking about? The new one' that's being proposed south of Lake Drive is coniferous. Batzli: No. The one above the swamp if you will. 1 Krauss: That gets to be a subjective judgment. I think there you're going to want some rnix of vegetation for aesthetic reasons and also so it blocks II a little bit of the building too. The conifers don't typically grow very high. But we'd be happy to listen to any suggestions. Batzli: I guess I'd make the berm double wide and add more permanent green' stuff in there personally. My last comment is that in number 4 I think the drainage plans should be revised and submitted to the City staff for approval. The mansard roof, I think if we want to include that on more buildings, I think we should talk about it and come up with some sort of rationale as to when we would apply it and when we wouldn't. And in condition 9. Does the words, "have 4 stalls or more" add anything to that II condition or can we just put a period after the word, maybe even after the 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 19 1 word building code. ' Al -Jaff: Building code requires any operation that has 4 stalls or more. Batzli: I understand that but I think the applicant said that they would provide it and they're only going to have 3 stalls. Krauss: No, they actually have 4. 1 Batzli: They have 4, okay. ' Krauss: They have the fourth one around the corner. Batzli: That's right. I don't know. I guess I'd delete it just for clarity but that's okay. That's all I have. 1 Conrad: Jeff. Farmakes: I have a question for staff. The property south of the proposed site. It's shown as a very narrow strip on the land use piece. How viable of a piece of property is that to develop once you get done with setbacks? Krauss: We actually have to look into that and we also have the potential of using some of the boulevard area in the right -of -way for some of that so there's a potential it could spill over into the public property as well. But we need to get some better information on that. Farmakes: Right now as I understand it or what I saw was that those are fairly large pine trees that sort of work their way all along Chan Estates ' there. Is that, I looked at it and it looked very narrow and once you got done with setbacks I was wondering how, is it a developable piece of property? Krauss: Well there are no setbacks that are applied to a berm. We can put it wherever it fits. In the given area we may not be able to get one as ' sufficiently high as we'd like. There is an alternative means of doing this if the owners of the homes nearby are amenable. I've been involved with projects where if there wasn't room to do it on the property, that the partnership owns or in conjunction with City right -of -way, that if the 1 owners of the property are amendable to it, that you can plant trees in their back yard up against that property line. ' Farmakes: Right now, as I understand it, there's just trees along the edge and then sort of just flat. I mean it's just sitting there. The other question that I had was, has the owner indicated any use for that property ' at all to you? Krauss: You mean on the far side of the street? Farmakes: Yes. Krauss: No. It's not a developable piece of ground. 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 20 Farmakes: Okay. I guess my comment on this plan would also be to see more evergreen along berm as it comes out there. I know the comment was about lights being, in the evening are shining into the homes that are south of TH 5 but it would certainly help that in the wintertime when it gets dark earlier. I also agree that because of the sensitivity of that issue, we're going to have a very large highway very, very close to single family II residents and I think that the roof issue would certainly help visibility. Tone it down a bit from what I would expect to see in an industrial park I guess is where it with persona non grata. I think that that would soften things down a bit, at least if I was in the neighborhood. It's unfortunate that this has occurred here. I think the problem was a long time ago when this was platted there should have been a buffer there and there was not. II The single family homes are too close to the highway. I think that if the builder could make a concession there it would help. That's all I have to say. 1 Conrad: Joan? Ahrens: I liked this facility on the other site. I know it's not going toll be raised again but I thought it was, I would rather have this impact a few businesses than impact residential areas. There's going to be the Schroer's farm which is just south of the service road right behind the line of businesses. What is that over there? Where CPT used to be. Krauss: DataServ. Ahrens: DataServ. That's all going to be residential back in there too. Krauss: South of DataSery is Eden Prairie and that's residential there. Ahrens: I know. I know it's Eden Prairie but it is going to be, I'm still concerned about them even though they're in Eden Prairie. That's all going" to be residential and I think that this is going to have an impact on Eden Prairie and Chanhassen residential and I liked the other site much better. I'm sorry to see it's moving. I have a question about TH 5 improvements and I don't understand something. How will the improvements impact the landscaping on the north side of the site? Is the highway going to move south or north? Krauss: This parcel, this plan was designed with the foreknowledge of what' those improvements involved. If you see that triangular sliver of land outlined as TH 5, that's a chunk of this existing parcel that under the plat would be dedicated for right -of -way for the highway. So it was designed as I say, with the foreknowledge of how the highway was going to sit and everything being developed from a landscaping standpoint is on their property inside that new property line. 1 Ahrens: I have a question about drainage which I guess I still don't understand. Part of the property is going to be drained into -the wetland" II right? Folch: That's correct. Planning Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 21 Ahrens: And is that g oin to be draining from the impervious area onto the g wetland? Folch: No. That will primarily be, Sharmin if you could put up that site plan again. It's primarily going to be impervious area immediately south of the building and around the wetland area and there will be a portion actually of the site immediately west of the building that will also drain down to the wetland area but primarily it will be impervious area, grassed ' area. Ahrens: So there's no concern about pre- treating whatever's flowing into the wetland? ' Folch: No. Ahrens: As far as the roof goes, I think it's more attractive to not have a flat roof just because I don't like, it's a completely subjective comment but I don't like to drive down the highway and see everything with flat ' roofs. I just don't think it's attractive and I don't think just because we haven't required it in the past doesn't mean we can't do it now so I don't have any problem with that. I think the staff report was very good by the way. I thought it was,very complete. I think the applicant's ' comment on point 6 under the conditional use permit is reasonable. I don't think that, I think we should protect them from any over zealousness in monitoring what they're doing on the property and if it is a concern of the city, that there may be some non- compliance going on. Then if it proves that they are in compliance with whatever laws, then they pay for it. If not, I think that's reasonable. That's it. ' Conrad: Okay, thanks Joan. Tell me about Dell Road. That will be built when? When do we have? Krauss: Next summer. Conrad: Next summer. And it will be signaled? Krauss: Yes. Conrad: Okay. The neighbors are concerned about traffic and the bottom ' line is, there's going to be even more traffic or things are going to go there whether it be this or something else. And obviously this applicant can come in and say there's enough, we can handle the traffic load that they're going to generate. The study, was there a study? There must have been when we started putting in Dell Road and improving, that would justify so many turns and so many, such and such a traffic count for the highway ' business area. Do we have a study that says how many we can handle? Krauss: Mr. Chairman, I'm not certain. Certainly there was a feasibility study done for Lake Drive improvements which we've rebuilt that road over 1 the past summer and it's designed with the foreknowledge that not only are were you going to get commercial development on this site but that the area around DataSery is going to develop with industrial office so it was designed with that capacity in mind. That information was conveyed to MnDot and when they designed Dell Road and redesigned Dakota, they designed 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 22 1 it with that kind of capacity in mind. Conrad: So the next time somebody comes in and wants to put another facility in right next to this property, we're going to feel comfortable that basically the study's been done by MnDot or us on Lake Drive? That still has capacity? How many more developments can go in this particular location? Krauss: On this particular parcel, they're dividing it into two lots right now. I think it's reasonable to think that that Lot 2, depending on what goes there, could be further subdivided in half. Under the BH district you can have fast food establishments. You can have gas stations. Various things like that. If you get an office building, they may take the entire!' property. In talking to the owners, they don't have a buyer for that parcel yet so it's kind of hard to tie them down to what's going to happen. From a traffic standpoint though, frankly I think that that's going to pale in comparison to what's going to be going up down the street on the DataSery property. DataServ, I don't know if it's common knowledge yet but DataSery is now marketing portions of that site for industrial office development. They were initially holding the whole thing for their own growth. They are still holding onto a substantial portion of it but they are going to be marketing it and I understand that there's quite a bit of I interest in it. Now as you get over to the east, more of that traffic's going to be oriented_to Dell Road but some of it's going to approach it from the west. We knew that when Lake Drive was designed and we knew that when we gave information to MnDot on the highway design. Traffic reports II on a case by case basis are real misleading because you'll often find that no one development ever breaks the back of the traffic system unless you're talking about the Metrodome or something like that. You know it's an incremental thing. We believe that we've handled it as best we can. I'll II be the first to admit, Dakota even when it's rebuilt is rebuilt with some compromises in mind. You know it's not built to the standard that you might have wanted because there's a McDonald's sitting in the way on one II side and there's a gas station on the other but they are getting in all the full turn movements that they wanted to get and it is fully signalized and the redesign of TH 101 on the north side over there is going to help quite a bit too. So yeah, the long and the short of it is, we think we have a handle on it, yes. Conrad: So when the next developer comes in on the parcel that's being 1 split off and they have an equivalent type traffic pattern to what we're seeing tonight, we're still going to feel comfortable that the traffic can be handled? Krauss: We should, yes. Conrad: I had some similar concerns about the wetland. I think I hear staff's comments about why it is. I think I feel like Tim. It seems like a missed opportunity. It's like we're doing something that's going to handle it but, there's two sides of things. There's no presettling into II the wetland which we should have if we did it right. Yet on the other hand we had, it looked like we had a chance to improve the wetland and really make it a very nice asset. It's probably going to be an asset in the long II run anyway but it's just sort of one of those things that I do hear the 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 23 staff report. I understand why you designed the drainage patterns the way you did but I don't have a solution to my concern. I guess that's the ' bottom line. I generally like the location. I like the business. I like this in this particular location. I like how it looks. I like the separation that was enforced in there by the wetland and the location that ' the building had to go significantly far enough away from the residential neighborhood where the testing site is. I think there's some nice things about it. Have a few other particular concerns however. The roof. We don't have standards on architectural design. We have building codes but we really don't have design standards do we? We don't brick or better type of standards. We don't regulate architecture. ' Krauss: No we don't but we do have an architectural review component in the site plan and that was reiterated somewhat when we redid the site plan review about a year ago. You're fully capable on good standing to look at building architecture and require some changes. Building architecture is not something to make or break a proposal but it is something that the site plan ordinance does allow you to deal with. Conrad: But you know developers can't stand the City - tampering with architecture. Beauty's in the eye of the beholder so we're just going to, what's the rationale? The rationale is we've started to tamper with ' architectural design and therefore we can continue it and it's defensible? Krauss: I would use some different wording. I fundamentally believe that architectural review is a legitimate extension of what we do when we look at site plans. Conrad: But our standard now is you're telling me is a mansard roof on ' everything. Krauss: I would accept a peaked roof as well. I mean there are lots of design alternatives to a flat roof. When we were, for example when Hardee's was looking at the Hanus site, we told Hardee's that you cannot put a bright orange building in downtown Chanhassen. It just won't fly. The Hanus building we've described, we've attempted to work out some ' solutions for that. It's become a fairly recurrent theme in our community and in others. . Conrad: Well do we need standards? Do we need, you know, I don't want developers thinking that we're willy nilly on this and we're not because I've been here long enough to know that we really don't do a whole lot of ' direction. We do enough to make sure that we have some quality projects out there but do we need some different design standards that guide us or are they there Paul? Krauss: No, specific standards are not there and that was somewhat intentional because I have not seen a good set of specific design guidelines that work in every instance. You know I think Minneapolis and 1 possibly Mr. Rockenstein's more familiar with it than I, you know Minneapolis was reeling from the fiasco of City Center and they're talking about, if they haven't already done it, setting up an architectural review panel. You know sort of an adjunct to a planning function. I don't think we need to go to that extent. In fact we have two people on the Planning 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 24 , Commission who have design backgrounds and some interaction with that. It is a subjective judgment and I wouldn't encourage you to go too far off thell deep end into it but this I don't think is all that significant a change. One other instance where we did exact some improvement in building design was on the Roberts Automatic site plan which was for a factory building. We didn't get a peaked roof there but we got better design features in terms of window mullions and entrances and the Council was very cooperative in backing that up. So this is not the first time we've done it. Conrad: Okay. I'm a little bit uncomfortable. You want low profile roofs so what we've talking about is peaking the roofs. Adding to the profile. What's your feeling? Other than not having it there. ' Tom Kotsonas: Aesthetically I think the roof, a peaked roof would look better than... Conrad: So based on lower profile, we've got it pretty low profile right now from what I can tell seeing some renditions and elevations but if we add a little bit of height, that's not going to bother the neighborhood if II it aesthetically improves it to our? Tom Kotsonas: I think the neighborhood...fact of life that it's going there, then the better it looks, the better off it's...everyday looking at 1 it. If it's flat and looks like "a glorified garage "...gas station, could make it aesthetically look better it helps us in that area. Erhart: Maybe I can help out. I've listened to this now as we've gone around and I took the first position of thinking that we shouldn't" try to require that but as I've heard the commissioners talk, in my mind I've developed a rationale why we should and that is that this building is particularly ugly in the fact that it has overhead doors. Now relative to other kinds of buildings you're going to find in this kind of zoning which will have a lot more glass, this building is unique and I think that in my mind is the rationale that I will change my mind on that point and maybe it sounds like you're looking for. What's different about this building that we would go in and impress upon them an architectural standards that we might not do to another building? Conrad: That's good enough for me. I like Brian's comments on the berm. II I think we should be pursuing the south side of the road too for berming and for light protection from the neighborhood. The directional maps that we don't have control over yet, we want very much. You know I want to II leave that condition in. I don't know what's enforceable in terms of the conditional use permit in the language that we have. I understand it's outside of everybody's control that's in this room right now yet on the other hand I think it's really important that we off load as much onto Dell Road as possible and a map can do that. Signage can do that. I guess I'd like to see that there whether it's enforceable by the City or not. In terms of the 6 month review, why do we wait 6 months? Don't most of the problems occur in 30 days? What happens after 6 months? Krauss: Well a couple things. First of all that was language that we took from the final version of the new ordinance that would make these things a II conditional use. It was a standard that we discussed last fall so we just 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 25 applied it here. Also, I think that when issues were raised about how ' these places oporat= or operate in other states, Sharmin contacted those other states and other property owners around there and it became clear that if, it's like anything else. You know if a new restaurant opens up, you'd rather not try it the week it opens. You want them to figure out how to get organized. It would probably be punitive to do it in the first month and 6 months allows things to settle down and take a more normal course and probably be more representative of what's. 1 Conrad: Of the future you're saying? So rather than helping or mucking up the works in the first 30 days when there's going to be problems, let's make sure it's good for the future after 6 months? Okay. I buy that. I also buy the fact or the logic of the applicant saying hey, they'll pay for the first one. If the City wants to do more, then we should pay if there are any problems. I like that logic. I don't think, the City didn't imply that we were going to do more ,than one and the wording is not there that we are yet from the applicant's standpoint, that's sure an opening and I sure don't mind what the applicant was suggesting in that regard. Those are my 1 comments. Anything else? Erhart: Yeah, I have a question. Sharmin, in item 7 under the Site Plan ' Review where the applicant questioned declaring permits of PCA and Department of Health. Do you know in fact that those are required or are we just throwing those in there? ' Folch: Maybe I can comment on that. Erhart: Charles right? ' Folch: That's correct. Both PCA and Department of Health permits will be required. Department of Health comes involved when anytime you're doing a ' watermain extension or construction and that is proposed on this project. Erhart: Is that proposed or is that a requirement? Folch: Pardon me? Erhart: Is it_a requirement that you get approvals from both those? Folch: It is a requirement. Conrad: Anything else? Is there a motion? Batzli: I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #90 -11 shown on the Site Plan dated December 3, 1990 subject to ' the following conditions. Number 1 as written. Number 2, following 2(c), the word intersection include the parenthetical, (subject to MnDot approval). Number 3 as written except 32 feet will become 36 feet. Number 1 4 as written except at the end of the second sentence add the words, and shall be submitted to city staff for approval. Number 5 as written. Number 6 as written except the end of the second sentence add, and the berm between the facility and the area marked "swamp ". Number 7 as written. Number 8 as written. Number 9, insert a period after the word code and delete the rest of the sentence. 11 Planning Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 26 Conrad: Is there a second? Ellson: I'll second. 1 Batzli moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan REview #90 -11 as shown on the site plan dated December 3, 1990 subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must provide a mansard roof on the proposed building. Plans must be submitted and must be approved by City staff. Plans should also illustrate screening for HVAC equipment. Wood slat screens are unacceptable. 2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Provide a sign plan incorporating the following elements: a. Monument signage incorporating waiting time information. 1 b. On site directional signage as outlined in the report. c. MnDot /Hwy 5 signage to direct westbound traffic from Eden Prairie to enter the site via the Dell Road /Lake Drive intersection, (subject to MnDot approval). 3. Revise plans to eliminate the public street and utilize the private driveway. The driveway shall be designed to incorporate a 36' wide curb and gutter, storm sewer and a 9 ton design. Plans to be approved by the City. A permanent cross easement and maintenance agreement acceptable to the City Attorney shall be drafted and filed against all current and future lots in the Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition plat. 4. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Watershed District and comply with all conditions of the permit. Drainage plans shall be revised as outlined in the report and shall be submitted to city staff II for approval. When the easterly portion of Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition develops in the future, the storm sewer outlet south of the , cul -de -sac shall be extended to the future detention pond and the temporary ditch shall be eliminated. 5. Type III erosion control shall be used along the edge of the Class B II wetland. 6. Landscaping along the south side of Lake Drive East shall be provided to ensure screening and provide privacy to the homeowners located to the south of Lake Drive East. The applicant shall provide additional landscaping along the north side of the trash enclosures and the berm between the facility and the area marked "swamp ". The applicant shall also 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. 1 7. The applicant shall construct the sanitary sewer and watermain and street improvements in accordance with city standard specifications and shall prepare final plans and specifications and submit for city 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 27 approval. The applicant shall acquire a utility construction permit ' from MnDot and acquire the proper permits from the Pollution Control Agency and the Department of Health. 1 8. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required. 9. The applicant shall provide flammable waste separator as required by building code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Conrad: Is there a motion on the subdivision? Elison: I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of ' Subdivision as shown on plat dated December 3, 1990 with the conditions listed in the staff report. Batzli: Second. Conrad: Was there any discussion on item (e)? I think the applicant had a ' concern on (e) didn't he? Elison: But he was saying that was one of those things that he has to work out with the landowner and it's in his rights to do that so that's probably i the best way to do that. Emmings: It applies to the whole property, not just their property. ' Conrad: Are you comfortable with the wordage on (3) then? Batzli: I don't know. We didn't really talk about it much. Conrad: Any other discussion? Elison moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision as shown on the plat dated December 3, 1990 with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees to be assessed at the time building permits are requested. 2. Provide the following easements: a. Standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of all lots. b. Drainage and conservation easement located over the wetland on Lot 1. c. Thirty foot wide utility easements centered on sanitary sewer and watermain located outside of public rights -of -way. Planning Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 28 d. Drainage and utility easements dedicated over Lot 2 to accomplish the temporary drainage ditch and future extension of storm sewer. e. Dedication of required- right -of -way along the Hwy 5 frontage to accommodate the Hwy 5 improvement project. f. Cross access and utility easements located over the proposed 11 private driveway. These easements shall run in favor of Lots 1 and 2 and any future subdivisions thereof and shall be drafted in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. This easement shall also be drafted and filed concurrently with a private maintenance agreement acceptable to the City. g. There is currently a drainage easement running in favor of the City over the northern portion of the property. This easement is no longer required and the applicants have requested that it be II vacated by the city. Staff is recommending that this be approved, however, this action is undertaken by the City Council and does not require Planning Commission consideration. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Conrad: Conditional use permit? ' Erhart: Before we do this one, does staff have any response to the request to remove essentially item 2? The three words, approved by staff. They contended that those maps could not be approved by staff or shouldn't be approved by staff. Any comment on that? Krauss: We'd like the ability to review it before it's send to MnDot. If II that's the best we can do. Erhart: Reviewed? Krauss: Right. Erhart: Okay. With that I'll move approval of conditional use permit ' #90 -5 subject to the following 7 conditions listed except on 2 change the word approved to reviewed. Conrad: Is there a second? Batzli: Second. 1 Ellson: Second. Conrad: Any discussion? , Ahrens: I didn't hear what you said about. Ellson: Instead of the word approved he wants reviewed right? Erhart: I did not change 6 in that I thought the consensus was that we would do the inspection after 6 months. 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 29 Conrad: Right, and Joan was asking about number 2 right? Erhart: I change the word approved to review. Ahrens: I was talking about 6. Ellson: The second line in 6 the applicant was concerned that somebody reading that could mean 2 years down the line, if they believe there's a ' problem, they could ask for it. In the way it's written, maybe it does ask them for that. Ahrens: He talked about the City paying for it. Elison: Right. So maybe it should say something like after the initial compliance report, something about the expenses attached or is this where ' we put it in? Batzli: See I would prefer to delete that sentence in it's entirety rather ' than to commit the City to pay for the test personally. Erhart: Yeah, I agree with Brian. ' Emmings: The City can always decide to do it's own test. Ahrens: I'll go along with that. Erhart: So amend the motion to delete line 2, paragraph 6. Sentence 2, paragraph 6. 11 Batzli: And I'll resecond it. Erhart moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend ' approval of Conditional Use Permit #90 -5 subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval. 2. Provide direction maps reviewed by staff with each notice that vehicle ' testing is due. The maps shall clearly illustrate and promote entering the site from Dell Road rather than Dakota Avenue. 3. Applicant is required to maintain contract to provide services with the ' State of Minnesota. 4. No repairs to be performed or gas or parts sold at the site. ' 5. No testing of diesels or heavy trucks to be performed at the site. 6. Maintain site in compliance with State and Federal air and noise ' standards. After 6 months of operation, a compliance report shall be prepared by the applicant and supplied to the City. 7. All vehicle stacking and parking to be in designated areas. No parking or stacking is allowed in fire lanes, drive aisles, access drives or Planning Commission Meeting January 2, 1991 - Page 30 1 public rights -of -ways. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1 Conrad: These three, this project will, the site plan will go to City Council, the 28th? The 28th of January. Thank you all for coming in. , Appreciate your time. ELECTION OF OFFICE OF CHAIR AND VICE - CHAIR. 1 Conrad: Under new business we have election of office of chair and vice- chair. I'll precede that just a bit. I think the last year I decided to stay as chairman simply because we had comprehensive plan to play around with and many thought that it was a good idea for me to continue on. I think is time to find somebody else amongst the 7 of us, the 6 of you to take over as either chairman or vice - chairman. I think it's real appropriate that different people get experience so I'd really like to takell my name out of the running for that and I think we should offer nominations for chairman and vice - chairman. Erhart: What do you think Jeff? Are you up for it? Farmakes: Am I up for it? I don't even have a plaque yet. ' Erhart: Well I'd nominate Steve Emmings for Chairman. Batzli: I second it. ' Conrad: Is there any discussion? Batzli: I think we've done it by secret ballot. Conrad: Are there any other nominations? So his name is nominated. Are there any other nominations? Tim, do you want to play a role? Erhart: I'll play a role if people want but my nominating speech is, I think he's the senior member here other than yourself Ladd. His attendance" is very high and I think he'll do a good job. Other than that he's an alright guy you know. Emmings: Can I say something on my own behalf? Batzli: He's got to prove to be kindler and gentler though I think. 1 Emmings: Well the only thing I'd like to say on my own support is the money that I sent you in your Christmas card, you get to keep no matter howl you vote. And I don't want you to take into account the fact that I'm dying of a very rare tropical disease and probably won't be able to finish my term. I don't want your sympathy. Erhart: Can I retract my nomination? Emmings: I'm interested in doing it. I think that there isn't anyone here, who would do it as well as Ladd has for so long and I think in a lot of 11 I C ITY O F .C. DATE: 1/2/91 .C. DATE: 1/28/91 y . CHANHASSEN ASE: 90 -11 Site Plan ■-:- Y: Al- Jaff /v 1 1 STAFF REPORT I EROPOSAL: 1) Site Plan Review for a 4,042 Square Foot Office Testing Facility 1 2) Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 5.59 Acres into 2 lots with i .. an area of 1.9 and 3.0 acres. 1 Z 3) Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Vehicle Q Testing Facility in the BH District 0 I 4) Ordinance Amendment to Allow Vehicle Testing Stations in the BH and IOP Districts (considered and acted upon by the a. Planning Commission on October 3, 1990. No action is I currently required.) QIOCATION: South of Hwy. 5, north of Lake Drive East and Chanhassen Estates and east of McDonald's Restaurant 1 1 FPPLICANT: Jerry Perkins Owner: System Control/ Pope Associates, Inc. Stanley J. Krzywicki Suite 300 Suite 208 1 1360 Energy Park Drive 5275 Edina Industrial St. Paul, MN 55108 Edina, MN 55342 EXISTING ZONING: BH, Highway Business I 2CREAGE: 5.6 acres II 2DJACENT ZONING Q AND LAND USE: N - Hwy. 5 S - RSF; Chan Estates and Lake Drive East I E - IOP; DataSery Q ' W - BH; McDonald's EWER AND WATER: Services are available to the site. 11±! EI CHARACTERISTICS: The site contains a Class B wetland located at the 1 (f) southwest corner of the site. The site is undeveloped and vegetated primarily with field grasses. The easterly portion of the site contains li mature trees. II soon LAND USE: ommercial ■ 1 Vehicle Inspection Facility , January 2, 1991 Page 2 BACKGROUND On September 5, 1990, the Planning Commission reviewed an application for Site Plan Review #90 -9 for a vehicle inspection station to be located at the intersection of Park Road and Park Place. Applications for conditional use permit and ordinance amendment allowing vehicle testing stations in the IOP District were reviewed concurrently. At that meeting, the Planning Commission tabled action on the proposal due to concerns raised by several adjoining property owners and by issues raised regarding the applicant's operations in other states. Staff was asked to further research the proposal and to contact cities that had such facilities and to find out what their experience has been (Attachment #1). On October 3, 1990, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and approved the site plan with a vote of 4 to 1. Commissioner Wildermuth was opposed. The same evening, the Planning Commission reviewed an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to amend Section 20- 714 and 20 -814 to allow vehicle testing stations as a conditional use permit in the IOP and BH Districts. The Zoning Ordinance amendment was recommended for approval with a vote of 3 to 2. Commissioner Wildermuth and Erhart were opposed. Several Planning Commissioners indicated a belief that an emission control station is more suitable in a BH District versus the IOP District (Attachment #2). The applicants have located a new site in the BH 11 District and are seeking approval from the Planning Commission. PROPOSAL /SUMMARY 1 On July 1, 1991, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is requiring that all automobiles and light trucks licensed in the metro area be tested annually to monitor the levels of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide that their vehicle produces. The goal of the program is to reduce or eliminate air quality problems stemming from automobile use. The applicant's firm has contracted with the state to provide testing services over a seven year period. The Chanhassen site is one of eleven sites located within the 7 county metro area that are designed and approved by the state to provide adequate coverage for the Twin Cities residents. The emissions testing will be conducted on an annual basis in conjunction with the annual vehicle registration. As noted in the background section, the applicant's originally proposed to locate this facility in the industrial park near the intersection of Park Road and Park Place. This site met with opposition from area businesses as well as from the Planning Commission relative to the site's lack of visibility from Hwy. 5 and concerns about potential impacts on adjoining properties. 1 Vehicle Inspection Facility January 2, 1991 Page 3 Although the original site was recommended for approval, after the meeting it did not appear as though the City Council would accept ' it and consequently a search for an alternative was undertaken. At the same time, several members of the Planning Commission indicated a preference for a site located in the BH District rather than an ' IOP District. The current site is located between Lake Drive East and Hwy. 5 adjacent to the McDonald's Restaurant. It has excellent visibility directly from Hwy. 5 and will have access from Hwy. 5 via two signalized intersections as soon as the Dell Road is ' completed next year. In addition, as a BH designated site, this site is eligible for high intensity uses such as a fast food restaurant. Data submitted to the City indicates that the level of ' impact from the testing station will be considerably less traffic (approximately Z) than the potential fast restaurant on the same site, therefore, represents a lower intensity of development that then is allowed by city ordinances. The site plan is well developed. There are a number of difficult issues pertaining to buffering the site from area residential ' properties and drainage and access concerns that made site planning somewhat difficult. The building is a high quality brick structure that will have a series of service bays. All testing will be done ' inside the building and vehicle stacking for cars waiting to be tested is located on the north side of the structure away from Lake Drive. This location is ideal since it places these areas further away from residences south of Lake Drive and will allow the 11 building itself to provide additional screening. Staff is recommending that the addition of a mansard or sloped roof system be required for this building to make it architecturally consistent ' with other buildings located in and around the Chanhassen Central Business District, but otherwise finds the building to be acceptable. The site will be operated five days per week with the latest hours of operation being 7:00 p.m. It would be closed on Sundays and Mondays. There will be no servicing of vehicles done on site, only air quality testing. Vehicles that require repair work will be serviced off -site at establishments chosen by the car 1 owner. The site landscaping is generally of high quality due to the ' attention that was paid to this issue by staff and the applicant. Additional landscaping and berming is being requested south of Lake Drive across from the entrance to the site so that homes located ' further to the south will not be impacted by vehicle headlights. This concern was one that was voiced by area residents during a neighborhood meeting that was held by the applicant. The wetland located in the southwest corner of the property will separate the ' vehicle testing station from Lake Drive. It will be preserved through the dedication of a conservation and drainage easement and will serve to further buffer the site from the residential neighborhood. 1 Vehicle Inspection Facility January 2, 1991 Page 4 ' Site access has been a major concern of staff's throughout the design of this proposal. Our original thinking was that a public cul -de -sac should be required running north from Lake Drive since there may ultimately be 3 sites accessing Lake Drive via this new connection. The current site plan has been designed accordingly. However, even after continual refinement, staff is concerned that the need to create a cul -de -sac at the end of the street would result in a hazardous traffic situation, whereby traffic entering and leaving up to 3 sites would be cutting across the cul -de -sac in an uncontrolled manner. Therefore, we are recommending that the plans be revised to utilize a commonly owned and maintained private driveway system that will avoid the traffic conflicts outlined above. From a design standpoint, this is a relatively simple change and we believe it does not undermine the effectiveness of the current plan. The proposed private driveway would be built to city standards which would require the full 32' pavement width and a 9 ton design and curb and gutter. Traffic conflicts can be avoided by careful design of internal curb cuts. In an accompanying subdivision request, the site is being divided ' into two lots, one of which will contain the testing station and the second of which will be reserved for future development. It is likely that the second site may be further subdivided into two lots in the future depending upon the buyers preferences. The parcel is zoned BH so that higher intensity commercial uses are likely to be proposed but staff is not aware of any pending developments. The subdivision request is a relatively straightforward action. Conditions proposed for review would result in dedication of all required rights -of -way and easements including right -of -way for the expansion of Hwy. 5. Air quality, noise and traffic issues concerning this proposal are reviewed documentation provided by the applicant and attached to 1 this report. From the documentation that is provided, it is clear that this proposal will have no adverse air quality or noise effects on any residences in the area. Traffic increases will occur, however, this is inevitable with the continuing development that is expected to occur along Lake Drive. The design of the street system will ensure that no traffic is directed onto any residential streets. Conditions of approval require posting signage on Hwy. 5 to direct as much traffic to the site as possible through the Dell Road rather than Dakota intersections to minimize off site impacts. , Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the site plan, without variances, conditional use permit and subdivision requests for this proposal. Since the Planning Commission acted to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment allowing testing stations in the BH District at an 1 Vehicle Inspection Facility January 2, 1991 ' Page 5 earlier meeting, no action from the Commission tonight on this ordinance is required. GENERAL SITE PLAN /ARCHITECTURE 1 The building is situated parallel to Lake Drive East and Hwy. 5. Access is gained off of a proposed cul -de -sac which connects to ' Lake Drive East. Staff will discuss in detail the access aspect later in the report. Staff is recommending that plans be revised to utilize a private driveway be used versus a public cul -de -sac. ' Parking is located to the northeast of the proposed building. Vehicle stacking is also located north of the building so that direct, distant views from residences located south of Lake Drive will be minimized. The nearest home is located 350 feet away from the south edge of the actively used portion of the site. Direct views of the testing bays will be screened by berming and landscaping from both Hwy. 5 and Lake Drive. 1 Materials used on the building will be 4" x 8" face brick accented by 4" x 8" accents. Prefinished metal overhead doors will be used on the west, north and south elevations. The building architecture ' meets the standards of the site plan ordinance requirements, although staff is requesting a mansard roof versus the proposed flat roof. We believe that flat roofs on commercial buildings are ' inconsistent with the Chanhassen CBD architectural style and are generally unattractive. The roof system can also be used to screen roof mounted equipment. The applicant has failed to show a roof ' top equipment screening plan. Such shall be submitted prior to the City Council meeting. The applicant is showing the trash enclosures screened by a metal wall panels painted to match the building accent. The gates to the trash enclosure will be constructed of chain link fencing. Landscaping is proposed on the east and west sides of the trash enclosure. Staff is recommending additional landscaping be provided along the north side of the 1 trash enclosure. ' PARKING /INTERIOR CIRCULATION The City's parking ordinance does not address parking standards for facilities such as the proposed. The most similar operation is vehicle service stations which requires 4 parking stalls per service stall. This use will have 4 bays. Staff and the applicant have spent time refining the internal circulation plan. The ' applicant has a large amount of experience operating similar facilities and staff was inclined to accept the soundness of their site plan. This is a high traffic volume use that is totally devoted to the movement of vehicles, thus great care must be exercised with internal circulation. Modifications were made at 11 Vehicle Inspection Facility January 2, 1991 Page 6 1 staff's request to clean up the traffic movement at the entrance to the site. On site directional signage is required for the safe movement of traffic. At the entrance to the site, the entrance and exit drives should be clearly marked. A stop sign should be posted at the site exit onto the access road. North of the site entrance 11 a sign should be posted to direct cars waiting to be tested to the north away from the parking lot that is designated for use by employees and persons needing additional information. As noted above, the City's Zoning Ordinance does not provide , effective guidance in establishing criteria for vehicle stacking requirements or for parking standards for uses such as the one being proposed. Plans call for providing 12 regular and one handicapped parking stall which we believe will be acceptable. Waiting time for vehicles entering the testing station was the subject of much discussion at previous Planning Commission ' meetings. The applicants maintain that the testing takes no more than 2 minutes per car and that vehicle stacking should be minimized. There is extensive room for stacking of cars on this site, but the applicant feels this is due to their design standards which require significant over design in site facilities. There is sufficient room to stack up to 35 cars on this site waiting to enter the testing station. The applicant's traffic consultant has provided data showing that the maximum stack expected is 23 cars and this would only occur 1% of the time. One of the ways in which the stacking time will be minimized is that the monument sign at the site entrance is to have a digitalized display of estimated waiting time so that drivers can make a decision before entering the site as to whether or not they wish to wait or come back at another time. The provision of such a sign is a condition of approval. Experiences at similar operations around the country by Planning i Commissioners and some of the people that spoke at previous Planning Commission meetings raised questions regarding the operations of these sites, the applicant's estimates of waiting time, and potential impacts of waiting vehicles on adjoining properties. Consequently, staff contacted several cities with operations maintained by this applicant in other states. Staff contacted Skokie, Cicero, Chicago Heights and Wood River, Illinois. All those that were contacted indicated that there were no long term traffic problems in the area. If there had been any problems, it was when the site was first opened but there had been none since , that time. Staff also attempted to contact neighboring businesses next to emission control stations to ascertain if there was any impact. In our admittedly small sample, none of the business owners voiced any complaints whatsoever. On the contrary, one business owner indicated that he does not even know that they are there. The businesses that were contacted were McDonalds in Chicago Heights, Illinois, Ofretter in Bedford Park, Illinois, and 1 1 Vehicle Inspection' Facility Y January 2, 1991 Page 7 Dominic's Finer Foods in Northridge, Illinois. The owners ' maintained that the sites were nicely landscaped and maintained and that there were no noticeable noise impacts from the site. 1 ACCESS The site plan calls for accessing the site via a short public cul- de-sac running north from Lake Drive East. Access to Lake Drive East will be via two signalized intersections, the first is the Dakota intersection located west of McDonald's, the second is the i new Dell Road intersection that is currently being constructed on the Eden Prairie /Chanhassen border. Staff is proposing that the applicant be required to work with MnDOT to install a directional sign located east of the Dell Road intersection on Hwy. 5 so that ' traffic coming from Eden Prairie to the testing station enters Lake Drive via Dell Road and not Dakota Avenue. In addition, the applicant has indicated that they would be responsible for 11 enclosing maps of how to access the site with the annual notification for the inspections. Supplying properly identified maps should also be a condition of the conditional use permit ' approval. Lake Drive has recently been improved by the City and is fully capable of handling the expected traffic. As noted above, the Dell Road intersection is being constructed to current standards and no problems are envisioned in that area either. The ' Dakota Avenue intersection is scheduled to be reconstructed next year along with Hwy. 5 improvements and again, staff envisions no problems accessing the site through this area. As noted above, the plans call for accessing the site via a short cul -de -sac running north from Lake Drive. This cul -de -sac would ' also serve to provide access to an adjacent vacant lot being created with the current subdivision request. This lot could potentially be further subdivided in half and under the BH zoning could contain high intensity uses. In designing the street, staff ' and the applicants considered many alternatives. In reviewing the final design for the cul -de -sac, staff has become concerned that the cul -de -sac bubble itself may present an insurmountable traffic 1 hazard given the high traffic volumes expected on this street. With up to three sites entering onto the cul -de -sac, traffic movements across the bubble will be unrestricted and hazardous. Staff investigated the potential of requiring the construction of an internal traffic island and a one way flow around the cul -de -sac to better direct traffic, however, it did not appear to be possible to incorporate this feature in a manner that would still allow ' trucks maneuvering. Consequently, staff is proposing that the design be revised to incorporate a private drive in place of the cul -de -sac. As envisioned by staff, the private drive would be constructed to normal city street standards with a 32' pavement and to a 9 ton design. However, as a private drive there would be need 1 1 Vehicle Inspection Facility January 2, 1991 Page 8 1 for the cul -de -sac and elimination of right -of -way requirements actually improves design flexibility on the current site and future parcels that may be developed to the east. Staff does not view this as a major design change for the plan and believes it can be accommodated relatively simply between the Planning Commission review and City Council review. The private driveway would need to be covered by a permanent and binding cross access easement running in favor of all lots currently being created or which may be created on this plat. A private maintenance agreement acceptable to our City Attorney is also required to ensure that the street is properly maintained and plowed. The agreement should provide that in the event that maintenance is not conducted in an appropriate manner that the city would have the right to undertake said maintenance, billing the cost back to individual property owners. LANDSCAPING 1 The landscaping plan is very well conceived. Staff worked closely with the applicant to design the landscaping plan. Berming is proposed along the north and south side of the site. The vehicles that will be stacked on site will be totally screened by the berms and landscaping. The applicants conducted a neighborhood meeting with the residential area located south of the site (Chanhassen Estates). The meeting was held on December 20th. After the meeting, staff was contacted by residents from the neighborhood. One of their main concerns was that as vehicles exit the emission control site heading towards Lake Drive East, their headlights would be shining into their living rooms. To solve this dilemma, staff is recommending that a berm be constructed and coniferous landscaping be planted along the south side of Lake Drive East to shield the residences from vehicle headlights and to ensure their privacy. We have also reviewed aerial photos of the area and concluded that the entrance drive is not directly oriented towards homes in Chan Estates but rather falls between two homes, thus making it easier to screen headlights. An appropriate condition has been added. LIGHTING 1 Lighting locations are illustrated on the plans. Only shielded fixtures are allowed and the applicant has demonstrated that there is no more than .5 foot candles of light at the property line which meets the ordinance requirements. 1 1 11 1 Vehicle Inspection Facility January 2, 1991 Page 9 SIGNAGE The applicant has submitted a signage plan. One monument identification sign is proposed at the entrance to the site. The area of monument sign is 35 square feet and is 5 feet in height. ' The ordinance allows an 80 square foot display area and a maximum height of 8 feet. The sign is intended to provide a digitalized display of waiting time that will be useful to minimizing the number of cars waiting to be tested. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the sign on site. One stop sign must be posted on the driveway at the exit point of the emission control site. A sign plan acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a building permit. GRADING /DRAINAGE ' The existing Chan Haven Plaza parcel drains storm water in a number of different directions. The southwest corner of the parcel drains into an existing wetland area located near Lake Drive. The northeast quarter of the parcel drains northeast to the Hwy. 5 ditch, while the eastern half of the parcel drains primarily to the southeast. The proposed drainage plan will allow the northern half of the site, composed primarily of impervious surfaces to drain to a catch basin and storm sewer pipe outlet along the Hwy. 5 ditch to the north. The runoff rate for this portion of the site will be controlled via a pipe restriction which during certain storm events ' will require surface ponding in the paved lane area of the vehicle inspection site. Staff does not normally find this type of ponding to be acceptable, however, it is not feasible to construct a designated retention pond for this portion of the site without significantly revising the site plan. During heavy rainfalls water will back up into the parking and queuing areas to a depth of several inches for short periods of time. This storm sewer segment ' is proposed to be connected to a future storm sewer system to be constructed in conjunction with the Trunk Highway 5 improvements project. While this plan is unusual it will only be used to handle drainage from a small portion of the site. A small portion of the vehicle inspection site is to drain to the wetland area. , wanted to maintain the wetland and thus overland flow f water is required. However, the drainage area into the wetland is small, roughly similar to it's current supply. In spite of extensive design efforts it is not possible to use the wetland for ponding for most of the site due to grades. The remaining 1/3 of the southern half of the vehicle inspection site is comprised primarily of impervious area. This area is 1 Vehicle Inspection Facility January 2, 1991 Page 10 1 proposed to be served by catch basins and a storm sewer system draining to a proposed temporary ditch immediately south of the proposed cul -de -sac. This proposed temporary ditch will function to discharge the runoff to the southeast corner of Lot 2, Chan Haven Plaza Third Addition. The majority of the area to be discharged to the ditch currently drains via overland flow to the southeast corner of the parcel. When Lot 2 of Chan Haven Plaza Third Addition develops, it is anticipated that some sort of retention pond will need to be constructed to serve the area. The most appropriate location for this basin, based on grades, appears to be in the southeast corner. It is recommended that when Lot 2 develops, the applicant will be required to connect to the storm sewer at the discharge point, immediately south of the proposed cul-de-sac, extend the storm sewer down to the future detention pond, and eliminate the temporary ditch section. All of the grading operations proposed at this time are in ' conjunction with the construction of the vehicle inspection station site. Thus, nearly all of the grading operations will take place on the westerly parcel of the replat. Proposed grades will vary from 1% to 3% in paved areas with a maximum of 4:1 slope in boulevard and side slope areas. Berming is proposed along the north side of the site and the southern portion of the site between 1 the drive area and the wetland area. Erosion control is proposed to encompass the grading area of the site, however, it is recommended that Type III erosion control be implemented around the wetland until turf is established. It is speculated that an old farmstead may have been demolished and buried on the vehicle inspection site. Soil borings were taken at various locations on the site. The resulting report did not . indicate that there would be any problems with or special construction measures needed to be taken as a result of this suspected burial of materials. PUBLIC UTILITIES 1 City water is available along Lake Drive East. Sewer is available along the easterly side of the Chan Haven Plaza site. The applicant is proposing to construct a public sanitary sewer line from the existing 21" trunk sewer in Lake Drive. Staff has previously indicated to the applicant that the proposed alignment is unacceptable due to maintenance concerns and excessive length. It is recommended that they be directed to work with staff to develop a more acceptable alignment. The watermain will also be 11 •brought up from the south. These plans are acceptable with minor revisions. Utility easements in favor of the City are required over all lines located outside public right -of -way. 11 1 Vehicle Inspection Facility January 2, 1991 Page 11 COMPLIANCE TABLE - IOP DISTRICT Ordinance Proposed Building Height 2 stories 1 story 1 Building Setback N -20' E -10' N- 170'E -98' S -25' W -10' S- 240'W -28' Parking stalls 12 stalls 13 stalls Parking Setback N -25' E -10' N- 79.2'E -46' ' S -25' W- S -300' W -97.8' Lot Coverage 65% 38% Lot Area 20,000 s.f. 79,720 s.f. Variances Required - none PARK AND TRAIL DEDICATION FEES The City is requiring that park and trails fees be submitted in lieu of park land. Fees are paid at the time building permits are ' requested. SUBDIVISION The subdivision proposal is a relatively simple request that will serve to split the 5.6 acre parcel into two lots. Lot 1, Block 1, ' will have an area of 1.9 acres and be occupied by the emission control testing station. The protected wetland will be located on this lot. Lot 2, Block 1 is vacant and there is no development proposed on this site at this time. This site is large enough that it could be further subdivided in half at some point in the future. Both lots meet or exceed all ordinance requirements. The following easements are either illustrated on the plat or should be acquired: 1. Standard drainage and utility easements around the perimeters of all lots. ' 2. Drainage and conservation easement located over the wetland on Lot 1. ' 3. Thirty foot wide utility easements centered on sanitary sewer and watermain located outside of public rights -of -way. 1 1 1 Vehicle Inspection Facility January 2, 1991 Page 12 1 4. Drainage and utility easement dedicated over Lot 2 to accomplish the temporary drainage ditch and future extension of storm sewer. 5. Dedication of required right -of -way along the Hwy. 5 frontage to accommodate the Hwy. 5 improvement project. 1 6. Cross access and utility easements located over the proposed private driveway. These easements shall run in favor of Lots 1 and 2 and any future subdivisions thereof and shall be drafted in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. This easement shall also be drafted and filed concurrently with a private maintenance agreement acceptable to the City. ' 7. There is currently a drainage easement running in favor of the City over the northern portion of the property. This easement is no longer required and the applicants have requested that it be vacated by the city. Staff is recommending that this be approved, however, this action is undertaken by the City Council and does not require Planning Commission consideration. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ' The review of this request is a little unusual in that it is being reviewed against conditional use permit standards for an ordinance that although has been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission has not yet been adopted by the City Council. In this instance, both the development proposal itself and the ordinance amendment which legitimizes the proposal are being processed concurrently. The following constitutes our review of this proposal against normal conditional use permit standards and with conditional use permit standards provided in the draft ordinance revision pertaining to emission control testing stations. GENERAL ISSUANCE STANDARDS 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or city. 1 FINDING - The applicant has gone to great lengths to provide data concerning potential noise, air quality and traffic impacts of this use on the surrounding area. The data is fairly conclusive that there will be no significant or unexpected impacts from this use and, in fact, in many respects impacts generated by this use are less by a significant factor then would have occurred or could have occurred if more intensive uses allowed by the 1 1 1 Vehicle Inspection Facility January 2, 1991 ' Page 13 Zoning Ordinance were to be developed on the site. 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. ' FINDING - The proposed use would be consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan as currently drafted or as proposed in the draft plan. 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the L essential character of that area. FINDING - The site is located adjacent to a major highway and a collector road. It is in the Chanhassen commercial district and as such a commercial building is fully consistent with this site. Staff has recommended that a mansard or pitched roof system be used to replace the flat roof system to provide continuity with other commercial buildings in our business district. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. FINDING - As noted above, extensive data has been provided to illustrate the fact that there will be no measurable impacts in the areas of noise or air quality on any adjacent or planned neighboring use. 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and ' services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. FINDING - Full city services are available to this site. ' Roads serving the site are currently in the process of being upgraded or in the case of Lake Drive were upgraded in the past year and are fully capable of handling the access needs of this proposal. 6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities ' and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 1 Vehicle Inspection Facility January 2, 1991 • Page 14 FINDING - There are no projected needs for public facilities and services beyond those which are already provided in this area. 7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. ' FINDING - As noted above, there is ample evidence that this site will not create adverse impacts to persons property or the general welfare of the area. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. FINDING - The site is visible from a major highway and is accessible from that highway by 2 signalized intersections and a collector street designed to commercial standards. There will be no direct traffic impacts to any area residential neighborhood. The site plan incorporates several measures to direct traffic into this area in an acceptable manner. One of the site plan requirements includes the posting of a MnDOT highway sign in Eden Prairie directing cars approaching the site from the east to enter Lake Drive at Dell Road rather than Dakota Avenue. In addition, the applicant has indicated that notices being sent out to vehicle owners warning them that an inspection is due, will incorporate a map showing appropriate directions to the site. Staff is proposing as a condition attached to the conditional use permit, that such a map approved by city staff should be required. The map will clearly illustrate that the most favored approach to the site is via Dell Road rather than Dakota Avenue. 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. FINDING - Staff does not believe that there will be any damage or destruction to features outlined above. 1 1 1 Vehicle Inspection Facility January 2, 1991 Page 15 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. FINDING - The site plan is well designed to provide adequate landscaping and buffering from adjoining properties. The building is a high quality brick ' structure and site operations are designed to provide the maximum of off site screening as possible. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. FINDING - The site is being used for a commercial type of operation which is consistent with it's designation. Out of concerns raised during earlier Planning Commission review of an alternate site, staff contacted adjoining property owners in communities in other states where similar operations by this applicant are maintained. We were unable to find any indication of adverse impacts. We have also spoken with the owner of adjacent McDonald's Restaurant. He appears to be excited about the possibility of the site being 11 developed for this purpose due to the additional traffic it will bring to his establishment. 1 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. FINDING - As indicated above, this use is being reviewed against new conditional use permit standards that are incorporated in the draft ordinance that would allow emission control testing stations in the BH 1 and IOP Districts. The following is our review of proposed conditions of approval and appropriate findings: 1 a. The operation is under contract agreement with the State of Minnesota to provide these services. FINDING - System Control is under contract with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to provide emission testing station services for a 7 year period to the Twin Cities metro area. b. No repairs are performed on site. FINDING - There will be no repairs performed on site. c. No gas or parts are sold on site. 1 11 Inspection Facility Vehicle p y January 2, 1991 Page 16 1 FINDING - There will be no gas or parts sold on site. d. No outdoor storage of vehicles or related materials. 11 FINDING - There will be no outdoor storage of vehicles or materials. The only time vehicles will be at the site is during hours of operation. e. There be no diesel testing allowed at the site. 1 FINDING - Testing of diesels and of large trucks is not now incorporated into the Minnesota Testing Program and a specific prohibition is being written into the conditional use permit approval. 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. An update on compliance shall be provided by the applicant after 6 months of operation. FINDING - Data has been supplied indicating that the site 1 should be in compliance. A condition is being added requiring a 6 month update. g. All vehicle stacking shall be provided on site in designated lanes. Vehicle stacking in fire lanes, parking areas and other drive areas shall be prohibited. 1 FINDING - Sufficient stacking is being provided to exceed the highest expectation of need and staff does not envision any problems. A condition is being provided to prohibit parking or stacking in these areas. Based upon the foregoing findings, staff is recommending that the conditional use permit be approved with appropriate conditions. 1 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT The Planning Commission does not need to take action on the zoning ordinance amendment request as they have voted on it at the October 3, 1990 meeting. 1 1 1 1 II Vehicle Inspection Facility January 2, 1991 Page 17 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: 1 I. SITE PLAN REVIEW "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #90 -11 as shown on the site plan dated December 3, 1990, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must provide a mansard roof on the proposed �. building. Plans must be submitted and must be approved by City staff. Plans should also illustrate screening for HVAC equipment. Wood slat screens are unacceptable. 2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. Provide a sign plan incorporating the following elements: a. Monument signage incorporating waiting time information. b. On site directional signage as outlined in the report. c. MnDOT /Hwy. 5 signage to direct westbound traffic from ' Eden Prairie to enter the site via the Dell Road /Lake Drive intersection. 3. Revise plans to eliminate the public street and utilize a private driveway. The driveway shall be designed to incorporate a 32' width curb and gutter, storm sewer and a 9 ton design. Plans to be approved by the City. A permanent ' cross easement and maintenance agreement acceptable to the City Attorney shall be drafted and filed against all current and future lots in the Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition plat. 4. The applicant shall obtain a permit from the Watershed District and comply with all conditions of the permit. Drainage plans shall be revised as outlined in the report. When the easterly portion of Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition develops in the future, the storm sewer outlet south of the cul -de -sac shall be extended to the future detention pond and the temporary ditch shall be eliminated. 5. Type III erosion control shall be used along the edge of the 1 Class B wetland. 6. Landscaping along the south side of Lake Drive East shall be ' provided to ensure screening and provide privacy to the homeowners located to the south of Lake Drive East. The 11 1 Vehicle Inspection Facility January 2, 1991 Page 18 applicant shall provide additional landscaping along the north side of trash enclosure. The applicant shall also 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. 7. The applicant shall construct the sanitary sewer and water 1 main and street improvements in accordance with city standard specifications and shall prepare final plans and specifications and submit for city approval. The applicant shall acquire a utility construction permit from the MnDOT and acquire the proper permits from the Pollution Control Agency and the Department of Health. 1 8. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required. 9. The applicant shall provide flammable waste separator as required by building code for operations have four stalls or more." II. SUBDIVISION 1 "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision as shown on plat dated December 3, 1990, with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees to be assessed at the time building permits are requested. 1 2. Provide the following easements: a. Standard drainage and utility easements around the , perimeters of all lots. b. Drainage and conservation easement located over the 1 wetland on Lot 1. c. Thirty foot wide utility easements centered on sanitary sewer and watermain located outside of public rights -of- way. d. Drainage and utility easement dedicated over Lot 2 to t accomplish the temporary drainage ditch and future extension of storm sewer. e. Dedication of required right -of -way along the Hwy. 5 frontage to accommodate the Hwy. 5 improvement project. 1 1 1 Vehicle Inspection Facility Y January 2, 1991 Page 19 f. Cross access and utility easements located over the proposed private driveway. These easements shall run in favor of Lots 1 and 2 and any future subdivisions thereof and shall be drafted in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. This easement shall also be drafted and filed concurrently with a private maintenance agreement acceptable to the City. ' g. There is currently a drainage easement running in favor of the City over the northern portion of the property. This easement is no longer required and the applicants 11 have requested that it be vacated by the city. Staff is recommending that this be approved, however, this action is undertaken by the City Council and does not require Planning Commission consideration." III. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ' "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 90 -5 subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval. 2. Provide direction maps approved by staff with each notice that vehicle testing is due. The maps shall clearly illustrate and promote entering the site from Dell Road rather than Dakota Avenue. 3. Applicant is required to maintain contract to provide services with the State of Minnesota. 4. No repairs to be performed or gas or parts sold at the site. 5. No testing of diesels or heavy trucks to be performed at the site. 6. Maintain site in compliance with state and federal air and noise standards. If the City believes problems are occurring, the applicant shall be notified and shall be responsible for performing tests to clarify the issue. After 6 months of operation, a compliance report shall be prepared by the applicant and supplied to the City. 7. All vehicle stacking and parking to be in designated areas. No parking or stacking is allowed in fire lanes, drive aisles, access drives or public rights -of- way." 1 1 Vehicle Inspection Facility Y January 2, 1991 Page 20 1 ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission minutes dated September 5, 1990 and staff 1 report. 2. Planning Commission minutes dated October 3, 1990 and staff report. 3. Recommended Zoning Ordinance amendment. 4. Systems Control operation overview. 5. Memo from Asst. City Engineer dated December 26, 1990. 6. Memo from Park and Recreation Coordinator dated December 19, 1990. 7. Memo from Building Official dated December 17, 1990. 8. Letter from MnDOT dated December 27, 1990. 9. Traffic Study /Air Quality Analysis. 10. Letter from applicant regarding vacation of easement. 11. Aerial photograph of property. 12. Site plan and preliminary plat dated December 3, 1990. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITYOF cHANHAssEN 0 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 ' MEMORANDUM TO: Sharrnin Al -Jaff, Planner I FR( : Charles Folch, Assistant City Engineer 1 DATE: December 26, 1990 SUBJ: Review of a Replat of Chan Haven Plaza 2nd Addition into two lots and Site Plan Review for a 4,042 Square Foot Vehicle Inspection Station. Land Use Review File 90 -24 This 5.6 acre parcel is located immediately east of the McDonald's restaurant ' property and is bounded by Trunk Highway 5 to the north and Lake Drive East to the south. The parcel is currently undeveloped and is vegetated primarily with field grasses. The replat proposes to subdivide the existing parcel along a ' north /south line, yielding two parcels unequal in size. The new westerly parcel is proposed to be the location of the future vehicle inspection station. This report will evaluate the replat proposal for Chan Haven Plaza 2nd Addition and 11 the site plan proposal for the vehicle inspection station. GRADING All of the grading operations proposed at this time are in conjunction with the construction of the vehicle inspection station site. Thus, nearly all of the grading operations will take place on the westerly parcel of the replat. Existing topographic grades for this area range fram one -half of a percent to fourteen percent. Proposed grades will vary from one to three percent in paved areas with a maximum four to one slope in boulevard and side slope areas. Berming is proposed along the north side of the site and the southern portion of the site between the drive area and the wetland area. Erosion control silt fence is proposed to encompass the grading area of the site, however, it is recommended that Type III erosion control be implemented and maintained around the wetland until the turf is established. 11 It is speculated that an old farmstead may have been demolished and buried on the vehicle inspection site. Soil borings were taken at various locations on the site. The resulting report did not indicate that there would be any problems with or special construction measures needed to be taken as a result of the suspected burial material. 1 f Sharmin Al -gaff 1 December 26, 1990 Page 2 1 DRAINAGE The existing Chan Haven Plaza 2nd parcel drains storm water a number of different directions. The southwest quarter of the parcel drains to the southwest into an existing wetland area. The northwest quarter of the parcel drains to the northeast into the highway ditch, while the eastern half of the parcel drains primarily to the southeast. It was inititally proposed to drain the vehicle inspection site to the existing 1 wetland area. However, City ordinance does not allow a developing parcel of land to directly discharge into an existing wetland area without first providing pretreatment to reduce the increase in nutrient load. Pretreatment is typically accomplished by implementing a sedimentation pond. Due to the existing qualities of this wetland area and the characteristics of the proposed development plan, enforcement of this ordinance is necessary and appropriate. 1 At staffs' request the applicants' engineer has investigated the possibilty of constructing a sedimentation /detention pond adjacent to the existing wetland area to provide pretreatment of increased nutrient load and maintain the predeveloped run-off rate for the entire vehicle inspection site. However, due to elevation limitations, it was found that it was not feasible to drain the site to a proposed sedimentation /detention pond adjacent to the wetland area. 1 A revised drainage plan has been developed which is generally similar to the existing drainage scheme. The northern half of the site, composed primarily of impervious surface, would be drained to a catch basin and storm sewer pipe outletting along the State Trunk Highway No. 5 ditch to the north. The run -off rate for this portion of the site will be controlled via a pipe restriction, which during certain storm events, will require surface ponding in the paved lane areas of the vehicle inspection site. Since it is not feasible to construct a designated detention pond for this portion of the site, it appears that potential storm ponding in the privately awned area of the site is an acceptable solution to meet run -off requirements. In the future, this storm sewer segment is proposed to be connected to a future storm sewer system to be constructed in conjunction with the Trunk Highway 5 improvement project. The western two - thirds of the southern half of the vehicle inspection site is proposed to drain to the wetland area. This area is comprised primarily of vegetated pervious area. This approach was applied for two primary reasons, first of all this portion of the existing site currently drains to this wetland area and is composed largely of pervious area. Therefore, there is no change in the type of surface area draining and minimal change in the quantity of area draining thus no adverse impacts on this wetland area are anticipated. Secondly, it was felt that sane amount of pervious area should be drained dawn to the wetland area to recharge and maintain the existing qualities and characteristics. The remaining one -third of the southern half of the vehicle inspection site is comprised primarily of impervious surface. This area is proposed to be served by catch basins and a storm sewer system draining to a proposed temporary ditch immediately south of the proposed cul-de -sac. This proposed temporary ditch 1 11 ' Sharmin A1-3aff December 26, 1990 Page 3 1 will function to discharge the run-off via overland flaw to the southeast corner ' of Lot 2 Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition. The majority of the area to be discharged to the ditch currently drains via over -land flaw to this southeast corner of the parcel. ' When Lot 2 of the Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition develops it is anticipated that some sort of detention pond will need to be constructed to control the rate of run -off and maintain downstream water quality. The most appropriate location for this pond based on grades appears to be in the southeast corner of Lot 2. It is recommended that when Lot 2 develops the applicant be required to connect to the storm sewer at the discharge point, immediately south of the proposed cul-de -sac, extend the storm sewer down to the future detention pond, and eliminate the temporary ditch section. The capacity of the future detention pond shall incorporate the flaw quantity from the proposed storm sewer and the southern portion of the vehicle inspection site. One alternative that was posed by the applicant was to connect this storm sewer system directly into the storm sewer along the northern boulevard area of Lake 11 Drive East. After some research it was found that the existing segment of storm sewer along Lake Drive did not have additional capacity for a direct storm sewer connection. However there is sane additional capacity available in this storm line down stream in the vicinity of the southeast corner of Lot 2 Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition. Therefore, it may be possible for a future detention pond overflow structure to connect into the storm sewer near the southeast corner of Lot 2. It should be noted that any portions of the storm sewer that are proposed within public right - of-way or easement shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City standards. STREETS The site plan submitted proposes to construct a small segment of commercial street section and a cul-de -sac in a. public right-of-way to serve the vehicle inspection site and future development of Lot 2 of the Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition. When the commercial street and cul-de -sac idea was first verbalized there were sane reservations by staff however, it was believed to be at least a 1 plausible option to investigate given the site limitations associated with the proposal. A decision based on merits could not be made until the actual plans were submitted. ' The current site plan proposal displays one initial access to be constructed off of the cul-de -sac to serve the vehicle inspection site with the potential for two more access points to be constructed off of the cul-de -sac to serve Lot 2 in the future. At this time it is not known what type of business or businesses will develope on the vacant Lot 2 parcel. However, it is safe to assume that traffic volumes could potentially be high enough to create traffic movement problems in the cul-de -sac as vehicles enter and exit driveway accesses. Given this information, and an evaluation of this design, there are same concerns for traffic safety due to conflicting and unrestricted movements in the cul-de -sac area. 1 Sharmin Al -Jaff 1 December 26, 1990 Page 4 1 In an effort to try and organize the traffic flow and curtail potential traffic movement conflicts, .a cul-de -sac island concept was investigated. This option would have allowed for two lanes of unidirectional traffic flaw around the cul-de -sac. This option appeared to improve the previous concerns however, after careful scrutiny it was found that this option would create additional problems in relation to access for larger vehicles such as buses and semi - trailers. Therefore, it is staffs' recammedation that the applicant redesign an access to Lots 1 and 2 of Chan Haven 3rd Addition in the form of a private commercial street, intersecting perpendicularly to Lake Drive East, from which the vehicle inspection site would take access and Lot 2 would take one access. This street would be privately owned and maintained and,a cross access easement in favor of all the Chan Haven 3rd Addition parcels would be required. It is recanmended that the applicant work with staff to determine a suitable private commercial street access. _ 1 The parking lot area and drive aisle scheme for the vehicle inspection station is a fairly will contrived design given the site area limitation. The design has incorporated adequate access by City Fire Protection vehicles. Additional signage recammendations have been made on the review plan set. It is anticipated that the applicant will work with staff and incorporate these minor 1/ changes on the signage plan. UTILITIES 1 The plan submitted proposes to construct a sanitary sewer line from the existing 1 21 inch trunk sewer line along the easterly property line of Chan Haven Plaza 3rd and extend southwest toward the Lake Drive East boulevard area, then extend west toward that street access and finally extend north into the cul-de -sac area. During a previous plan revision step, the applicant was notified by staff that this alignment of the sanitary sewer was not desireable if it was proposed to became City owned and maintained in the future. 1 The majority of the proposed sanitary sewer will be constructed outside of City right -of -way. Thus, a utility easement will need to be dedicated. However, the greater concerns for this alignment relate to City maintenance of the sanitary sewer in the future. In addition to having a surplus amount of pipe footage, and an extra manhole structure, the alignment is located in an area where boulevard trees and future landscaping are anticipated which may potentiate future access problems. Extra pipe footage equates into extra joints which in turn provide increased locations for joint infiltration and maintenance responsibilities. It is believed that a more direct alignment could decrease the pipe footages by more than 200 lineal feet and eliminate one manhole structure. It is recamnended that the applicant work with staff to develop a more suitable sanitary sewer alignment. 1 1 Sharmin Al -Jaff ' December 26, 1990 Page 5 • Water service for the site is proposed to be provided be removing a hydrant form the north boulevard of Lake Drive East, connecting into the existing six inch lead and extending the six inch watermain to the north. The alignment of this ' watermain extends along the westerly portion of the proposed drive area. At this time, it is recommended that the applicant also extend a six inch lead to the west property line of Lot 2 and which upon development of Lot 2, will be 1 required to loop into the existing 10" watermain in the vicinity of the easterly property line. This watermain is also proposed to became owned and maintained by the City following its construction. Therefore the sanitary sewer and watermain shall be designed and constructed according to City standards, final plans and specifications for construction shall be submitted for City Council approval and utility easements for the sanitary sewer and watermain will be required. 1 EASEMENT'S 30' wide utility easements centered on the sanitary sewer and watermain shall be dedicated on the plat. In addition, a drainage and utility easement will need to be dedicated through Lot 2 of the Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition to encompass the temporary drainage ditch and future extension of the storm sewer. The plat shall also dedicate the proper right- of-way needed along the northern boundary of the site in accordance with the Mn -DOT Trunk Highway 5 improvement project. There is an existing surface drainage easement shown on the Chan Haven 2nd plat (ref. Carver County Book 170 page 436) located in the northwest quarter of the ' Lot 2. This temporary, non - exclusive appurtenant easement for surface drainage purposes was acquired for the benefit of the McDonalds property. Due to the recent improvements to the McDonalds property, it appears that this easement is no longer needed and may therefore be released by the City. PERMITS The applicant shall acquire a Mn-DOT utility construction permit for the installation of_the storm sewer discharging into the Trunk Highway 5 ditch. In addition the applicant shall acquire permits fran the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Department of Health. Recommended conditions for replat approval: 1. The applicant shall coordinate with and dedicate the proper 1 right - of-way in accordance with Mn -DOT and the Trunk Highway 5 improvement project. 2. The applicant shall dedicate 30' wide utility easements centered on the 1 alignment of the sanitary sewer and watermain. 3. The applicant shall dedicate a drainage and utility easement across the easterly parcel of the plat to provide for the temporary drainage ditch and future extension of the storm sewer.. 1 1 Sharmin Al -Taff December 26, 1990 Page 6 4. The street alignment and design shall be revised to eliminate the cul-de -sac. The applicant shall work with staff in redesigning the commercial drive which is to be privately owned and maintained and allow for an access to the vehicle inspection site and one access for Lot 2. 5. A cross access easement along the private drive shall be granted in 1 favor of all parcels in the Chan Haven 3rd Addition. 6. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security required. Recommended conditions for site plan approval: 1. The applicant shall work with staff to determine a suitable sanitary sewer alignment and shall extend a 6 inch watermain to the west property line of Lot 2. Which, upon development of Lot 2, will be required to connect into the existing 10" watermain in the vicinity of the easterly property line. 2. The applicant shall acquire a utility construction permit fran the 1 Minnesota Department of Transportation and acquire the proper permits from the Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek - Watershed District, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Department of Health. I/ 3. When the easterly portion of the Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition developes in the future, the proposed storm sewer outlet shall be extended to the future detention pond and the temporary ditch shall be eliminated. Capacity of the future detention pond shall incorporate the flow quantity from the proposed storm sewer and southern portion of the vehicle inspection site. 4. The applicant shall prepare plans and specifications for the design and construction of the sanitary sewer, and watermain and submit for City , Council approval. If any storm sewers are constructed within a public right - of-way or easement it shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City standards. ' 5. Applicant shall install and maintain Type III erosion control around the wetland area until turf is established. lap c: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician I 1 1 CITYOF CHANHASSEN 11 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 ' MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al - Jaff, Planner I FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator 7//- DATE: December 19, 1990 1 SUBJ: Planning Case 90 -11 Site Plan In reviewing the site plan for the replat of Chan Haven Plaza 2nd Addition, it is my recommendation to accept park and trail fees in lieu of land dedication, trail construction or the acquisi- tion of trail easements. At present, the sidewalk along the north side of Lake Drive East parallels the entire southerly border of the subject property. In the area of park land acquisi- tion, this site is not designated as park deficient nor would the 1 development of a park on site be desirable. AS there is no scheduled Park and Recreation Commission meeting prior to the review of this site plan on January 2, 1991, these recommendations are being made consistent with prior action taken by the commission. Should you have any additional questions, please contact me. cc: Don Ashworth, City Manager 1 1 1 1 i C1TYOF 1 cHANHAssEN iii ..0 . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 MEMORANDUM II TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official k 1 DATE: December 17, 1990 I SUBJ: Planning Case 90 -11 Site Plan (vehicle inspection station) 1. The handicap sign shown on the plans, #R7 -8A, is not the sign 1 approved by the Building Codes and Standards Division and is not acceptable. The approved sign is shown on the accompanying handout. 2. Building must be a sprinklered. 1 1 1 1 1 1 /t 1 1 1 A C ITYOF I r .1 1 cHANHAssEN • ', r, "= 690 COULTER DRIVE • PO BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 c„ (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 • 1 November 7, 1990 II Minnesota Statute 169.396 Subd. 2 was amended to require new information on existing and future signs identifying 1 parking stalls for the disabled. Effective date of this new law is November 15, 1990. I Signs crust be worded as shown below with white charactoxs and a blue field. 1 Steve A. Kirchran Building Official 1 II • 1 1 1 I ( ........... A... 1 • DISABLED 1 PARKING STATE PERMIT REQUIRED i VIOLATERS FINED • UP TO $200.00 1 4r� Minnesota Department of Transportation 1 y ° Metropolitan District z � • ?� a Transportation Building �`� St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 - 7990 OF TO Oakdale Office, 3485 Hadley Avenue North, Oakdale, Minnesota 55128 Golden Valley Office, 2055 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 ' Reply to December 27, 1990 Telephone No. 593 -8523 , Ms. Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I City of Chanhassen • 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 1 C.S. 1002 TH 5 SW Quadrant TH 5 & Dakota Ave. Chanhassen Replat of Chan Haven Plaza 2nd Addition Dear Ms. Al -Jaff: We are in receipt of the above referenced plat for our review in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03 Plats and Surveys. We find the plat acceptable for further development with consideration of the following comments: - No direct access to TH 5 will be permitted. - Maintain current drainage patterns and rate of runoff. - No permits have been issued or applied for. 1 - In your December 14, 1990 letter you asked us to clarify condition #1 of our November 28, 1990 letter. We offer the following in order to clarify this condition: - The wa right of shown on the plans appears to match the needs of the TH 5 g Y P PP project. - Access control was originally acquired from this parcel (the entire parcel) to TH 5. The State will be acquiring access control to correspond to the new right of way line. r • e 1 MINNESOTA 1990 An Equal Opportunity Employer 1 1 Ms. Sharmin Al -Jaff ' December 27, 1990 Page Two If you have any questions in regard to our review of the plat please call me. ' Sincerely, 1 Rick Dalton, P.E. Project Manager cc: Steve Keefe, Metropolitan Council Roger Gustafson, Carver County 1 Ted Kemna, Carver County Surveyor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TRAFFIC STUDY 11 and 1 AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS 1 VEHICLE INSPECTION STATION Lake Drive at Dakota Avenue Chanhassen, Minnesota 1 1 Prepared for Systems Control Inc. by 1 David Braslau Associates, Inc. 1 19 December 1990 1 1 1 1 1 CONTENTS ' a e 1. Introduction and Summary 1 2. Vehicle Inspection Station and Study Area 2 3. Baseline Traffic Conditions (1992) 5 4. Projected Site Traffic 10 ' 5. Traffic Impacts 11 6. Air Quality Impacts 12 7. Noise Impacts 17 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LIST OF FIGURES 1 Page 2.1 General Site Location 3 1 2.2 Layout of the Proposed Site 4' 3.1 Hourly Traffic on Lake Drive 6 3.2 New TH 5/Dakota Avenue Intersection Layout 7 3.3 New TH 5/Dell Avenue Intersection Layout 8 6.1 Carbon Monoxide Receptor Sites 13 1 7.1 Dynamometer Noise Contours 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 11 1. Introduction and Summary This traffic impact and air quality report has been prepared for the proposed Vehicle Inspection Station to be located on Lake Drive just east of Dakota Avenue in Chanhassen, Minnesota. This report has been prepared in response to requirements by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to ensure ' that air quality problems are not encountered at or near the site. This is the second site to be evaluated in the City of Chanhassen. The previous site, located on Park Road between County Road 17 and Audubon Road, was dropped from consideration. Traffic data from 1986 and 1989 have been adjusted to 1992 using an an- nual growth rate of 3% per year to account for potential growth in the study ' area. For the year 1992 (one year after operation of the station) an analysis has been prepared for both the baseline scenario (without the station) and for the baseline + station scenario. 1 Traffic has been analyzed at the following two intersections through which the majority of traffic will pass travelling to and from the site: Trunk Highway 5 /Dakota Avenue Dakota Avenue /Lake Drive It is assumed that at least 20% of the traffic accessing the site will pass through the TH 5 /Dell Avenue intersection which lies approximately one- half mile east of the site. There are four air quality receptors within several hundred feet of these two intersections. This report identifies these receptors and discusses I potential air quality impacts at these locations. The potential for noise im- pacts on adjacent land uses is also addressed. The results of the traffic and air quality analysis show that: Traffic generated by the inspection facility has minimal impact on the TH 5 /Dakota Avenue intersection during the PM Peak Hour. Traffic generated by the inspection facility has a larger impact on the Dakota Avenue /Lake Drive intersection during the Noon Hour, but no major problems are anticipated. Of the four air quality receptor sites located near the two critical in- !! tersections, the Sinclair Service Station is projected to have the highest 1 -hour and 8 -hour CO levels, although these are well below the corresponding standards. Noise created by traffic travelling to and from the site is expected to be less than mainline noise from TH 5. The noise contours associated with dynamometer operation are expected to lie within the property or the adjacent ' wetland. II 1 - 1 • 2. Vehicle Inspection Station and Study Area The proposed development is one of eleven vehicle inspection stations in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area which are required under Minnesota law and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to meet ambient air quality standards for Carbon Monoxide (CO). The Chanhassen site will be the the western most site of the eleven. A site in Minnetonka will be to the northeast and a site in Savage to the southeast. Each gasoline powered automobile and light truck licensed in Minnesota will be required to pass an exhaust emissions test at one of these stations before the license can be renewed. The test normally requires approximately two minutes. The general location of the site is shown in Figure 2.1. A detailed layout of the proposed inspection station is shown in Figure 2.2. Planned access to the site will be from a cul -de -sac off of Lake Drive just east of Dakota Avenue. Trip distribution to and from the site is dis- cussed in Section 4.0. • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 - 2 - 1 — I i M M , gin C..[RRT t tm - .. — , i Q 1 CaK11DE GCM . ` p to 1 % 1? N � co P s = I R w g. 2 SHASTA CAR E Q O C < 1' C . R yA c ' s '► i 4..1 ! `� i s < g e (�� 6[ Q uSt 1 ii 40 '^ O -. �� t r .s . D Q 4 OLYMPIC CM ( lv 'As m �° 'A : E ANCHt6t[R wR 3 Z. F . � 5 CUM sum e7 A. i e4tt �, s" . - _ ' ' ONCORD MAL LA1 8 d ' 'y S f V 4 t io " A. 7 PIEDMONT CT e. O 6 visit( OOC[ ;me I V y IAA( , 41. 1 ` k . YI R r+ r J f 1... • A , ' r l. o u 8 D3RORUPI° � '�� >: � ?e` -Ir � t • ��,�4 62 . !r - ' " Of: uhf � -.t - PT - -,. —, �r ^^y��w ....III . . G75T . . ;~ 62 1 HOLLY L . W 0 € PASS 7 C 116 - PENNMCTON An tt 4 I A° W 1LLOW 1„A.asMty 4 $ . Milk ° 'l _ = O CREEK A N< I1, COVt C *� ? �y ' r, K rp ®� MAY KtA3 Y YIEw saw MN MAT y 4M��R:Jit��MRp .t. 34. N. C T 1 !F' 1iV ,S' PA 711 • y 'll M s1 °* y O' ©]M � A".." y6t pp 1 - ' A` J Q pf f B i s � w w CI Cr a' < _ LA l � °. MAi Q r1` hr CC RDA DMOCAt DR - - Da RD L 0 OR. �- L. E ` A OR , , � > 3 ; rostAa pp O � � R «ARROeatE 6600 Or ! _W �r DR C� 1 O S � CNR O IA r O g. Q . MIA [ j F E u VO M < e� vs O ` W0 . t: I I • 7 ? _ �' & IMry 1Di1AL 1O, #i"4"7' W O it z (it, UTICA LA 4t [O i "10 !11...A CMp tae . ~ t 1o. t i t 4 C 0 .0 Lotus c1R 101 i t g 'c �7 LN Q AI X11 coo. i fjft r �LA CLE RO L 0 ~ V 0 t T` W ' MtA O ) '1 "La: V ,: = r' ° " T Ot M �L.L sow, ' ► i ' 1!' fP • 4 l `� +, Dw• „OOE RD onus VIEW - ui . i' ill �+ i 1 . C CI M R it RRU R1 1 PIMUCOu C i , jam rLA LSM R ®' �t1 l.nac LA el �REtA10Ri4 UTICA LA PAC e R DR +`01. 2C1R, u � t i SNOREuR o 1 7A PONT 4,0..1 COMtit ` RAUOR VIM eon 3 \ ,,,,w, 1NT Ch LL 01 � �l a, t r1 wt Gd J S wn1 ��� � .4. p Lake r r . u : , n D ` t ° • uwuMaR cI a J 1 fJ 1 a � C 3 g ' �P ri �'. SA cio C1, J 1 ^ C , .40 --- —1 GO w S ; U © . X CIR. "EASANT 0 f 1 4 ,d" n A 1 7 S. D AMMO OR DEER I[LO TR. (I } eNRPita e f O 4 CRWIROM CM a V : S co' * RAT O i K 6 eM R �. ` J �i = ` * iR d1 0 " M 0 J a� °, E NR .l D �1 _, 1 m f' . . viRA D , _,�c1 } , At + L LL•777 tt + 7wA g ! tom' _ 1 W CMAMNASSE71 EL .SCM:= coil 1 1 1• ' , r �t� ig [ I T 7 f = � t • �. 1 40LE RIOO( MALL _ .� 2 siicooeIR I 1., � 77a M ' 1 � P �� k II 7 TH:T w v/ 3 RIVIN[ CM r 5 O iii 0 78TH T. W, I 0 R RICHA DR, E 1 8TH ST s` © .. I CA O At 4 RD o E' tx *i1 t t AR e D.A D.. t 2.1.m..,..„,....,ig I D RE rUM BLVD- a t 1 I 101 Al 4 4. 4 r i 08 i _ _ I CT WEST LAKE I --i% {OMEN g • --- 8200 1 W. 82ND S' SUS ` \5 on �V = p CMlOTA 4 . , Lake ee ` / 3 S usan 4 '1 itt 1 0 v QvP • .. * • 1 FIGURE 2.1 I General Site Location II — 3 — 1 0. • .4... • e c u 4 • r . 4 7 $4 4%.4. e • i a .� . .�• R y ''Ireeme i. �1 .'1 . "1 S 1 e � .,19.i lea ,I' - C S .4 t d;� , 4. Z tae 16 • _ '•d $fie. t ed b°. b'3�—.,v.e s h M 1 \„.... C. 1 y .z .� �I I Y J~ .$ V t • , 1-,, 1 VEHICLE N �'� 41'' f , ! 1 Y. Mk� R .). ....ii l b i• ��:,� • l4'•1 . • • . kit t ti ..\ KcuR. b L0 1 l■a ' �D 11:0 O • 1 *-1.41t. ee ♦ uwri era /07 -'''''...". : b r —~ 0 • ...4 A • 1 W' 60.0 F . / � -H'F- • 1 FIGURE 2.2 1 Layout of the Proposed Site 111 •- 4 - 1. 11 ' 3. Baseline Traffic Conditions (1992) Hourly traffic counts on Lake Drive between Dakota Avenue and the McDonald's access have been obtained for 1989. Hourly turning movements at the TH 5 /Dakota Avenue intersection have been obtained from the Minnesota Department of Transportation for AM and PM peak periods in 1986. These have been increased at 3% per year to 1992 to yield baseline traffic for the I analysis. Hourly variations in traffic on Lake Drive in 1989 are shown in Figure 3.1. Also shown in the figure is the expected traffic generated by the inspec- tion station (ultimate 1998 levels are shown in the figure). The sharp peak during the noon hour indicates the importance of traffic associated with the McDonald's restaurant at this location. It can be seen that the inspection ' station traffic is small relative to the current traffic at this location. Assumed 1992 baseline PM Peak Hour traffic at TH 5 and Dakota Avenue and Dakota Avenue and Lake Drive are shown in Table 3.1. Also shown in Table 3.1 are the assumed 1992 baseline volumes during the noon hour at the Dakota Avenue /Lake Drive intersection. The PM Peak Hour is most critical at the TH 5 /Dakota Avenue intersection, while the Noon Hour is most critical at the Dakota Avenue /Lake Drive intersection. The assumed approach lane configuration used in the traffic analysis for ' the TH'5 /Dakota Avenue intersection is shown in Figure 3.2. At the Dakota Avenue /Lake Drive intersection, there is only one approach lane in each direc- tion. Figure 3.3, showing the new intersection at TH 5 /Dell Road, is included here to show that the intersection should encounter no capacity problems in handling the 20% of traffic assumed to access the facility through this inter- section. I The TH 5 /Dakota Avenue intersection has been analyzed using the HCS in- tersection capacity program for signalized intersections. The results of the run are contained in Appendix A. The results of this analysis for the baseline period indicates a LOS C for the intersection and an overall intersec- tion delay of 17.7 seconds. The Dakota Avenue /Lake Drive intersection has been analyzed using the HCS intersection capacity program for unsignalized intersections. The results of this run for the PM Peak Hour are also contained in Appendix A. The inter- section is estimated to be at LOS A for all movements under baseline condi- ' tions in 1992. - 5 - II 1 1 1 LAKE DRIVE TRAFFIC 1 TWO —WAY TRAFFIC — DAKOTA /MCDONALDS 600 n 1 500 1 400 D 0 300 1 O 200 1 \l 4 t1 1 00 1 Y ` 0 T. I I 1 I 1 I I II I 1 l I l ► t t l 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 HOUR ENDING 1 O OBSERVED 1989 + IN SP STATION 1998 1 1 1 1 FIGURE 3.1 1 Hourly Traffic on Lake Drive 1 - 6 - 1 1 1 LAYOUT NORTH 1 1 1 1 1 V .............___ ___,---- ------------------- 7 -- 1 1 1 ,,----- 1, e. 1 x Source: m 1 Westwood Professional Services. 1 1 FIGURE 3.2 New TH 5 /Dakota Avenue Intersection Layout 1 11 - 7 - 1 INTERSECTION LAYOUT NORTH 1 1 I Q CC 1 -4 1 w 0 • 1 TRUNK HIGHWAY 5 1 W s 1 a 1 Source: a' Westwood Professional Services FIGURE 3.3 New TH 5 /Dell Avenue Intersection Layout 1 - 8 - 1 1 TABLE 3.1 II ASSUMED TURNING MOVEMENTS - 1992 1 TB 5 /DAKOTA AVENUE DAKOTA AVENUE /LAKE DRIVE DAKOTA AVENUE /LAKE DRIVE II PM PEAK HOUR (BASELINE 1992) PM PEAK SOUR (BASELINE 1992) NOON HOUR (BASELINE 1992) EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB El WB NB SB II LT 7 63 27 185 L? 30 13 5 78 LT 63 27 11 164 TH 431 747 44 42 TB 17 40 33 45 2H 36 84 69 95 RT 19 350 55 11 RT 8 115 17 30 RT 17 242 36 21 II RR 6 299 24 5 RR 0 0 0 0 RR 0 0 0 0 SCI TRAFFIC (60 IN /60 OUT) SCI TRAFFIC (60 IN /60 OUT) SCI TRAFFIC ( 90 IN /90 OUT) I EB WB NB SB EB WB NS SB EB WB NB SB LT 0 12 21 0 LT 0 0 0 48 LT 0 0 0 72 I TN 0 0 15 15 TH 0 0 0 0 TB 0 0 0 0 RT 21 0 12 0 RT 0 48 0 0 RT 0 72 0 0 RR 0 0 0 0 RR 0 0 0 0 RR 0 0 0 0 II PM PEAK HOUR (W /STATION 1992) PM PEAR SOUR (W /STATION 1992) NOON SOUR W STAi ( / ION 1992) 1 EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB NB SB LT 7 75 48 185 LT 30 13 5 126 LT 63 27 11 236 TH 431 747 59 57 TH 17 40 33 45 TB 96 84 69 95 I RT 40 350 67 11 RT 8 163 17 10 RT RR 17 314 36 21 RR 6 299 24 5 RR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I CHIITRAF.WK1 90017 -06 1 1 1 1 II - 9 - 1 4. Projected Site Traffic A. Site generated traffic The site traffic assumed here is 156% of the average daily trip generation in 1998. It is expected to occur during the last five working days of the months between March and December due to a surge in inspections as the end of the month is approached. This information is derived from experience by Systems Control Inc. at sites in other states. 1 Peak day two -way traffic for the project has been estimated by Westwood Professional Services to be 1,260 ADT in 1998. This compares with an estimated 2,260 ADT for the adjacent McDonald's restaurant. For purposes of the impact analysis in this report, the following number of inspections are assumed for 1992: 1 PM Peak Hour: 60 inspections per hour Noon Hour: 90 inspections per hour B. Distribution by approach and roadway ' The station has been located at the current site to serve the vehicle population in this portion of the Metropolitan Area. 1 The following trip distribution for the site has been assumed: 101 North 20% 1 101 South 10% TH5 West 25% 78th St.West 5% TH5 East 40% Of the 40% arriving from the east, it is assumed that 20% (or half) of these will access the site via Dell Avenue (184th Avenue West). With the reconstruction of TH5, the Dakota Avenue and the Dell Avenue inter- sections will be improved. Islands will be added on Dakota Avenue south of TH5, which will provide for improved traffic flow. A left turn lane is an- ticipated for westbound traffic on TH5 at Dell Avenue which will enhance this movement. 1 Turning movements associated with the assumed inspection traffic are shown in Table 3.1. ' C. "Pass -by" trip assumptions It is assumed that all trips to the station are new trips, even though a small number (5% or less) may already be travelling on TH 5 past Dakota Avenue. 1 - 10 - 1 1 5. Traffic Impacts 1 A. Traffic volumes with the proposed project 1 PM Peak Hour traffic volumes with the project are also presented in Table 3.1 The HCS signalized intersection program was applied to the TH 5/ 1 Dakota Avenue intersection with baseline + inspection station traffic. The results of this run are contained in Appendix A. No change in LOS and overall intersection delay time is indicated. The only noticeable change occurs in 1 the V/C - ratio, which increases from 0.468 to 0.483 (a 38 increase). Therefore, no significant impacts on the TH 5 /Dakota Avenue inter- section are expected because of the vehicle inspection station. The Dakota Avenue /Lake Drive intersection is treated as an unsig- nalized intersection controlled by a stop sign for east and west bound traf- fic. It is assumed that only one approach lane in each direction will be provided. The analysis is performed for both the PM Peak Hour and the Noon Hour, which represents the worst case for this intersection with both 1 McDonalds and inspection station traffic peaking during this period. An analysis of the Dakota Avenue /Lake Drive .intersection during the PM Peak Hour indicates a Level of Service A for baseline traffic in 1992. With the inspection station, the Eastbound left turn movement is LOS B, which is a minimal impact. 11 During the noon hour, when the McDonald's traffic and the inspec- tion station traffic is greatest, the Eastbound left movement (estimated to be only 70 vph) is an LOS E and the Westbound left movement (only 30 vph) is an 1 LOS C. Otherwise all movements are LOS A. Therefore, even during the peak period of the station and McDonalds, the intersection will function without any problems. No problems are anticipated at the access to McDonalds because of station traffic, since total traffic flow on Lake Drive is low. 1 B. Ingress /egress issues 1 Ingress to and egress from the site will be from the cul -"de -sac off of Lake Drive. The service roadway will bring vehicles to the north side of the site (just south of TH 5) where they will enter the inspection station. 1 C. On -site circulation The station is located on the northerly portion of the property and the service road will bring vehicles to and from the inspection area. There is adequate queuing for vehicles in the vicinity of the station and no problems with queuing along the access road are anticipated. 1 1 -11- 1 1 6. Air Quality Impacts 6.1 Baseline Carbon Monoxide Levels Baseline carbon monoxide levels are the projected levels in 1992, including background, without the vehicle inspection station. CO background levels have been developed in cooperation with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency staff. The source and date of CO background levels for the Chanhassen site is identified in Table 6.1. 1 TABLE 6.1 SOURCE OF CO BACKGROUND DATA 1 SOURCE LOCATION DATE DISTANCE 1 -HR 8 -HR 1 TH 212 EIS Chaska High School 1988 2 miles 1.3 ppm 1.2 ppm The time adjusted background levels used in the 1992 analysis are presented in Table 6.2. 1 TABLE 6.2 1 ASSUMED CO BACKGROUND LEVELS 1 -HOUR 8 -HOUR 1.0 ppm 0.9 ppm The receptor sites located near the two critical intersections are shown in Figure 6.1. Four receptor sites are located adjacent to these intersec- tions: (1) Home NE of the TH5 /Dakota intersection (north of 78th St. as well) (2) Home southwest of the Dakota /Lake Drive intersection (3) McDonalds (east of Dakota between TH5 and Lake Drive) (4) Sinclair Service Station (NW of Dakota /Lake Drive intersection) Baseline concentrations have been predicted for both 1 -hour and 8 -hour time periods for which MPCA ambient air quality standards have been es- tablished. To estimate 8 -hour concentrations, average 8 -hour volumes on TH 5 have been assumed to be 67% of PM Peak Hour volumes. On Dakota Avenue and Lake Drive, average 8 -hour traffic is assumed to be the same as PM Peak Hour traffic because of the large noon peak associated with McDonalds and the noon maximum associated with the inspection station. 1 - 12 - , 1 .. I j•• . P.• %: % /••••• • •I • i I --. — ../ • ••••••,. •■•• ( / . Y ' r:::tel. 1/4- -:-.... 0 i ) -.. , - • -- -- - - i 6 s ' ) 1 4 .. • I A I ' t r ; - I. i..s.r . 7; i C. a ...`.. / 1 ; : • • to . •••■ • • .■ 0 •.• --• . ' ,I ' --. • - . . .., • i at •Hil 1.., t • 1 . • : • L - „.• C./ ■ • ' • •-•,.., ,.............-^. . r I,. • , i ..,-, ,-... • .: ,.; ... • ..- • • tk. -11 . '''''' -----. -- - .- - • - IF osp A .,,...,-....", , „,. ..: .6.• 2. a •-• :. te ' • I •erai TER MAIN ... s •••., ' - .1 \'. joi - • .. ..! 1.: .. r.. •t i • %AT. ... .. . . . ifjZ ., ..........., INT .. • X .... :,.. r: .v•Vir: •-- _...._:„.4.. 1 . ET • — :' - : . P' . "- -- .: N• ''''''' lt• 4... - ' - 7 : - '''''''` ' - - . Kw. ,- - ''--- p . E ) ,. • ii I ' .7.:kt ''''' •.: - t , • ; . (1 • 2 AP if .. i . i t • • •''" - ii• to.. :4 . ' 1 3 74' ......- . .• - .. 7 - '. • 1 I 1 . . . - . . . . i , ; , 1 1 1 , ) k \ k \\ . . . i i .." I I F.-::: • • .... i.. .• . .. ...... - I „.-Y ...t---'" I r. .. / cj* • ' • tl ...... ,.. . 1 ‘140 6 . -----v-___.-Jr■ '‘\\\V?,:::::..;:,;_...(2...1-1---- , C) - --26„ .. . r• =.....in ...>‘ ... , . ,.... . , NB AKO A AVE, • 0. ,... ,, , j , O GUt% . d.r... i;• • '''' .• - ....../ ‘ %of , 1 RE ERE CE LINE ../.• ...... . ‘ 7 ..: I .••,c1-:.'''''...-... t , .........._ 1 A AVE 1 11 ' ‘a-1"1* %. v „, s1 -.. , % ...„.. ...„."*".--." i . • - \ 7 ....• \ 4 . .,,-'' ...0 , ....1,r5P Powe R L. INE ..,..' ... C.f? \ ' ••••••••••• ,... \ 1 . 1 1, DAKOT 0. I , ...•-• ....- . • Cin i ; s . ) rs1 ,.,. • REFERENCE LINE . Im '•,.'i ) 11' GPI „• 91 U ' I ' WET REFERENCE LINE • ( • INCL./. I . .. • •• t •• ,,,.1 ',4 ..., s ... t . s. -S-10 . "....1; :. : • . : . •,:i; '1 : .• * q It rTi' ' - '' . . ' j."' • .. ... -;-:-!..- ---.\------ . I --.-----.--- LAKE DRIVE . • , . 4 : . ..- o c• ::. ,•, t. ,.. i : 1 4 r • .• ■ r ....) 2 . t • II • /=. 4 ...-- • 10 • % • I r P ....•„,. 11.-!.:,., • r- . •• ,• d • ' (.- • • o . \II f Y '....• • - 1 - ' • m* r . . ,...-:.- ... 1 • I 100 DN. I I In 1 IODO 18 , i , tow° • n , 1 :._. ; ,..,;... 1 f- P ..1.:, 1 I . • , • t ..-- - i il • • I • ' "...) 4 . • • • - - • . • .-..... ....:::::—: .......-r■ r.....n. s-%. , --c --.-c s•I I • Cs • 0 -,- - * •, ' L.1 "-• 1 1 V):K t, I V ..- --......0..i ! ......e 1 1 . • . 1 • ' .„..,..... 1 I.. ...... 0 ---- -- r -I- THEIR UTILITI HOWN ES A RE S ' 6.....f ) •••'• tn yrri-..,.......,%.. °WC' AT HEIR APPROXIMATE CATIO IDN. S • I f I. 1 )•• • ...... • • • 1 •• i•■• LpIttl CONTROL POINT /tA / BENCHMARK Kt I SEE SHEET/yet I 1 s )....,.. • . . • - 7 - 4. -* 771 .. •: P... ' (E■ci8) MONT OF WAY / EASEMENT POINT 'SEE SHEET AP ■••• • .. • .-.- - Ti — __T.' 1.-- ' . ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION " ---- 1 J. • sj I t • 7r ------ •■• .: • \ 4 A . ., ... %. . . I • t CI , ' .. 1 0 f • • • r am - •----. EXISTING AM .... .. 1• 1 --- PROPOSED R/W . .,.••1 1 I ! I .• ......1 la : ow/ 1 •• , I 8: s . 43 — --•-• TEMPORARY EASEMENT ... (I \ CI 1 J .1: 0 1 • I • • If ' ,------= 0 XS SI RR DO .. . . 1 1 FIGURE 6.1 Carbon Monoxide Receptor Sites 1 1 - 13 - Roadway concentrations have been computed using the MOBILE 4 emis- sions model from the US EPA and the CALINE 3 dispersion model from California which is approved by the US EPA and the MPCA. It is assumed that 20% of the vehicles are in the cold start mode. An average speed of 45 mph is assumed on TH 5 with 25 mph on all other roadways. A wind speed of 1 meter per second blowing from a direction to yield the highest concentration at each receptor site is assumed. The existing roadway geometry has been assumed in the air quality analysis and no improvements are assumed. The new intersection layout will provide two left turn lanes from EB to NB which does not directly serve inspection station traffic. The baseline 1 -hour and 8 -hour CO concentrations (i.e. predicted 1 1992 concentrations without the station) for the receptor sites under the baseline scenario are presented in Table 6.3. The maximum 1 -hour baseline concentration of 5.1 ppm is projected at the Sinclair Service Station. The maximum 8 -hour concentration of 2.7 ppm is projected for the same receptor site. , 6.2 Carbon Monoxide Impacts CO concentrations which include the impact of station- related traf- 1 fic are presented in Table 6.4. The maximum 1 -hour Carbon Monoxide concentration projected for the PM Peak Hour in 1992 with the inspection station is 5.2 ppm at the Sinclair station which is a 0.1 ppm increase over the 5.1 ppm baseline level. This com- pares with the 1 -hour standard of 30 ppm. The maximum 8 -hour CO concentration is projected at the same receptor and is 2.7 ppm with and without the inspec- tion station. This compares with the 8 -hour standard of 9 ppm. The highest 1 -hour CO concentration at the home SW of the 1 Dakota /Lake Drive intersection is projected to be 1.8 ppm with the inspection station, compared with 1.7 ppm without it. 6.3 Conclusions While the project will cause a small increase in traffic at the TH 5 /Dakota Avenue intersection and at the Dakota Avenue /Lake Drive intersection, air quality impacts are estimated to be small. The highest predicted 8 -hour CO concentration is only 2.7 ppm, which is below the 9 ppm standard. The maximum 1 -hour concentration is 5.2 ppm, well below the 30 ppm 1 -hour standard. Thus, no significant adverse air quality impacts are predicted for this site. .II 1 1 1 - 14 - I/ II II II TABLE 6.3 Predicted Baseline CO Concentrations 1 Chanhassen Site - 1992 Traffic CO (ppm) Background (ppm) Totals (ppm) Wind Receptor Site Dir 1 Hour 8 Hour 8 Hour* 1 Hour 8 Hour 1 Hour 8 Hour ** I TH 5 /Dakota Avenue Home N. of TH 5 250 2.2 1.4 1.0 1.0 0.9 3.2 1.9 I MacDonalds 330 1.8 1.2 0.8 1.0 0.9 2.8 1.7 Sinclair Station 40 4.1 2.5 1.8 1.0 0.9 5.1 2.7 I Dakota Ave /Lake Drive MacDonalds 230 0.8 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.9 1.8 1.5 I Home SW quadrant 50 0.7 0.7 0.5 1.0 0.9 1.7 1.4 Sinclair Station 130 0.8 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.9 1.8 1.5 II MPCA Standard 1 ( 30.0 9.0 1 * 8 -hour adjusted using a 0.70 meteorological persistence factor ** 8 -hour total is adjusted 8 -hour level plus background II II II II II II II - 15 - II 1 1 II ° TABLE 6.4 Predicted Baseline + Station CO Concentrations II Chanhassen Site - 1992 Traffic CO (ppm) Background (ppm) Totals (ppm) II Wind Receptor Site Dir 1 Hour 8 Hour 8 Hour* 1 Hour 8 Hour 1 Hour 8 Hour ** II TH 5 /Dakota Avenue Home N. of TH 5 250 2.2 1.4 1.0 1.0 0.9 3.2 1.9 MacDonalds 330 2.2 1.5 1.1 1.0 0.9 3.2 2.0 II Sinclair Station 40 4.2 2.6 1.8 1.0 0.9 5.2 2.7 1 Dakota Ave /Lake Drive MacDonalds 230 1.1 1.1 0.8 1.0 0.9 2.1 1.7 Home SW quadrant 50 0.8 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.9 1.8 1.5 II Sinclair Station 130 0.9 0.9 0.6 1.0 0.9 1.9 1.5 II MPCA Standard f 30.0 9.0 II * 8 -hour adjusted using a 0.70 meteorological persistence factor ** 8 -hour total is adjusted 8 -hour level plus background II 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 - 16 - 1 ' 7. Noise Impacts - ' 7.1 Vehicles entering and leaving the facility Traffic moving through the Dakota /Lake Drive intersection will be ' travelling at relatively low speeds. Little heavy commercial traffic cur- rently uses the intersection and no heavy commercial vehicles will be using the vehicle inspection station. Therefore, traffic noise levels are expected to be dominated by traffic along TH5 which lies only 300 feet north of this ' intersection. Noise contributed by traffic on Lake Drive is estimated to increase less than 1 dBA because of the additional traffic to and from the inspection sta- tion. 7.2 Vehicles waiting in queue at the facility Vehicles waiting in the queue will be idling. It is unlikely that a vehicle with an obviously bad muffler would come for inspection since the vehicle would be automatically rejected. Therefore, noise from idling vehicles will be at or below the already existing ambient`level in the area caused primary by traffic flow on TH 5. ' 7.3 Operational Noise Levels Dynamometers are used to bring vehicles that fail the initial test up to normal operating conditions. The dynamometer is operated 30 seconds for each of the 20% of vehicles that fail the initial test. Thus, when a lane is operating at capacity (35 vehicles per hour) an average of 7 vehicles per dour ' would require use of the dynamometer. At 30 seconds per vehicle, this yields 3.5 minutes per hour during which the dynamometer will be operating. In order to estimate the total operating time of the dynamometer during capacity operation of the station, a random time was assigned to each of seven vehicles in each of the three test lanes. The following results were obtained: ' Minutes During the Capacity Hour ' When at least one dynamometer is running: 6.8 When two dynamometers are running simultaneously: 2.9 ' When three dynamometers are running simultaneously: 0.7 The dynamometers are located approximately 15 feet inside the ' entrance. Sound level readings have been taken by Systems Control for a vehicle with all- weather tires on a dynamometer. While these are higher than would be expected for normal tires, these levels have been used to provide es- timates of worst case levels. These readings have been used to generate sound contours at the Chanhassen site. Two contours are shown in Exhibit 7.1. The closest contour is 65 ' dBA (corresponding to the L10 standard). The second contour is 60 dBA (corresponding to the L50 standard). Because of the north /south orientation 1 - 17 - 1 • of the station, noise generated by the dynamometers in the inspection lanes themselves will be contained entirely within the site or the wetlands south of the site. 7.4 Summary of Noise Impacts Based upon this evaluation of noise emissions from the proposed vehicle inspection station, no significant noise impacts on surrounding land uses can be expected from either traffic accessing the site or facility opera- tion. While some sounds from the facility may be heard periodically during the day, the average energy level of these noise emissions will be well below state standards for adjacent land uses. These levels will generally be below already existing levels caused by traffic on TH 5. 1 1 1 1 chiitaq.rep 90017 -06 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 18 - 1 1 1 if .., .: , ... - - % ,-••• _ . ./ 1/4._ . • )!••• ' r.:.:926: --:--.. C 11 , ; / ,./- s ..:.....z. .. . ?••. ‘ ..s..c . • 1 .,,,I 0(1 .`. t I ; ; a• o sir. i . .... 1 .:` • 1 ... . •% 0 ...'"" • ) e 36 X BY• RCP •■01 4, .,.: 10P :qell . 6 •• • i • i . .I•i ,,,,,I. . . CI c, I. \ .r. ;•ck - L...„ r . i g • I i , . ) _ 0 -- - • •. — -- P"riir • "TCR Wan . .,.,........." t./. .,t .n. .,. . . ,..,:s r.III • t .K:0 • ./ • • .1 '6 ..11,1uF.L.—•_—.... . ''+ ....a: .... .,,:. .. • t4t.f. ..r.e.r....,:rx•• -' 1 • • ..• • • . • • - - c a .. - 7 7 7: 1 • ...,......: 1 . :.%; . Ite VIT. : . 1. . .....,:..r,rri4i T r,01 h . ........ e,. . . . E j • El ,.,J_ .... .C.. :: ,.....'''. • • ftF ••:•.` 4......'..w.7..-.1r 0..;;e Yr.' ''.. . i '') 1 • '...) ,' - . 1 ...' (IA :: a MI . 1 ..,....s • • •t•••••• 1......,............... • k. fl 1...! 1 • •••■.._ . - - - ... 1 . • I ... • ? ,..- a ::. .. ...... .. . .- . E i: ... .....4._;.... 1 - -- ,...- . '. '. - .0 ' le s r i b\\ . .df& -- ai. _:> -- ova. .....•■•■ •••• I .;,...,,.. .. ., .....s. , • • 4' 1 , ..;"' • v ,. -• .. - I ; - . 0 ‘ • .- ..,,...-.... NEI •AKO'A AVE. . :: Mit 1" ;(ill I PR p - 5111• _._ . . I ,kNov4"'"( i REFELCE LINE • 0 41----../ ./ " ••• • ..\ 15 mg 1 : , .... ,.,.....7.(...... ty . ...,..., .„... i 1 1 1 A 1 .‘C t S ‘•• t. .....1% .,. ........... . • , ' ./. ' • • \ 5, 1 • . \ - -- I - • - ` :...• -- V -.71-1. i 1 ,.,, , , .... J ....,...--- ‘ 4 FACILITY I t., 4 ,.'"5„01 POWERLINE ....., Tri or tfeir.4,1.1p, • . . on _ \ % 0,` , • •"...---- ' ;SO DAKOTA AVE‘ C, .1v. 1 .::••••••'/"... . / 0 '.. • Cr: l i , • REFERENCE LINE l '4 : Ir III 1412 1 .. (••,) f) ) . . wEr RFERENcE LINE . • I‘ ) •• 'IV ..:.'," ' . I I) ••• . ' \ - E ..i .1910 V, ( SifIC . . . 1 . I .• ... 1 • •• t eztt i . , PX.."•.:: ; 5-" „ •-.1 „ i •'•..?:;; 1 2 . .- • • . , . • • • , • 1 re .: •••• - --.•, 1 I ‘ • ...,..... • .; _. . .. 1 1 LAKE DRIVE ..............-...---,...*................-........ ...„ ... . .... 1 . • , H . ' k • ' _ . . ,, • „.... ,,-......:.....-.- • I ? . • ' r C:/ 4 ■... •,. . r • t . 4 4...: ?..• '..* 1 I . : v I \ -, e,.,• 44., , ,. .r: • , t = •., 'ffi l ;•. n . .1 • ... • *. ' 1 :` - *1'4 1 . r. . • r- PI - 1 - 4 41 I .--71 . .. V. 1 • . G - • \e i ,... . , • (,,, . • . .:... • _--- ...• . . 1 t,„,. UN' ro , ij ft•fi Iii00 rot ei.t.0 C. 1 . ... • . . . . . i 0 (--, 1 -.9 ,:,;:-....) • 0 1 1 Y (,::::::=th' ., I 1, ' , ) !i . • ,f• • • — - • -;:": " 7-7. "** '''''' .,. 1 .0 1 ! 1 1 y.),:- I • . •"'-'• • MqTE: r1417121RRerPPROT::41.1f/in ISEArAtt! ---- -- r - 1 L0— ', ' 1 -.,1 _-) ... : ;•-. si 1 i' • •,. --- . • . - , - -.,- •.•"*„..- ' u t ••" ) A; OA CONTROL POINT /.1 / BENCHMARK Kci (SEE SHEET LB 1 Xi --' •• CI 6 % I ••• • • N.. 1 ' • • .1 (CO) RIGHT OF WAY / EASEMENT KOINT (SCE SHEET GIB I ... . , 0 ,* ''.. ti'''.•C - ' -- 0_:L I: •.. _:•.J I • ('• • - -- - IlL.:1 . .r • 1 i 1 " ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION 1 " y ...,• .....:: .... 0 . -- c... • -- EXISTING R/W • rv- \ ■ .. -•\ 41,, • 1 i . . . pl. '. I ..... ..................-- PnOPOSED R/W • $ • I 'CY I ' 0. WW1: • ; "'I • 1,13 ......-.---- TEMPORARY EASEMENT 1 . •.. •.1 11. • °I I ° I j •11: .1 • = 1 1 \ • I. A. • I 1 I • .. : ....=■■•. 0 r/ 941 140 00 . 1 — 1 FIGURE 7.1 Dynamometer Noise Contours 1 - 19 - 1 APPENDIX A 1 1 HCS COMPUTER PRINTOUTS 1 1 (1) TH 5 at Dakota Avenue - PM Peak Hour (Baseline) (2) TH 5 at Dakota Avenue - PM Peak Hour (Baseline +station) 1 (3) Dakota Avenue at Lake Drive - PM Peak Hour (Baseline) (4) Dakota Avenue at Lake Drive - PM Peak Hour (Baseline + station) (5) Dakota Avenue at Lake Drive - Noon Hour (Baseline + station) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT II ******************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** INTERSECTION TH 5 /DAKOTA AREA TYPE OTHER ANALYST DB II DATE 12 -12 -1990 TIME PM PEAK HOUR 1992 COMMENT BASELINE ONLY II VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 7 63 27 185 : L 12.0 L 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 1 TH 431 747 44 42 : T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 19 350 55 11 : T 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 6 299 24 5 : R 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 12.0 • 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS 1 GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE ( %) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 25.8 3 I WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 25.8 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 31.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 31.8 3 II SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH - 99.0 PH -1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4 PH -1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4 EB LT X NB LT X I TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD 1 WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD II GREEN 40.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 II LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.023 0.202 24.1 C 15.4 C 1 T 0.349 0.404 15.6 C R 0.013 0.707 3.3 A WB L 0.205 0.202 25.0 D 17.9 C T 0.605 0.404 18.2 C II R 0.053 0.707 3.4 A NB L 0.065 0.303 18.6 C 18.7 C TR 0.086 0.303 18.8 C 1 SB L 0.461 0.303 21.8 C 21.1 C TR 0.052 0.303 18.6 C INTERSECTION: Delay - 17.7 (sec /veh) V/C - 0.468 LOS - C 1 II 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS II SUMMARY REPORT ******************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** II INTERSECTION TH 5 /DAKOTA AREA TYPE OTHER . ANALYST DB DATE 12 -12 -1990 II TIME PM PEAK HOUR 1992 COMMENT BASELINE + STATION VOLUMES GEOMETRY II EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 7 75 48 185 : L 12.0 L 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 TH 431 747 59 57 : T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 II RT 40 350 67 11 : T 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 6 299 24 5 : R 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 • II ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE II ( %) ( %) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 25.8 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 25.8 3 II NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 31.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 31.8 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH - 99.0 1 PH -1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4 PH -1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X 1 RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X SB LT X II TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 40.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 II YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE II LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.023 0.202 24.1 C 14.9 B T 0.349 0.404 15.6 C II R 0.035 0.707 3.3 A WB L 0.244 0.202 25.3 D 18.0 C T 0.605 0.404 18.2 C R 0.053 0.707 3.4 A , NB L 0.118 0.303 19.0 C 19.0 C TR 0.117 0.303 19.0 C - SB L 0.479 0.303 22.0 C 21.2 C II TR 0.069 0.303 18.7 C INTERSECTION: Delay - 17.7 (sec /veh) V/C - 0.483 LOS - C 1 II 1 1 ' 1 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 ************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 1 AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 30 II PEAK HOUR FACTOR .9 AREA POPULATION 50000 II NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET LAKE DRIVE II NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET DAKOTA AVENUE NAME OF THE ANALYST DB II DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) 12 -13 -1990 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ' PM PEAK HOUR 1992 1 OTHER INFORMATION.... BASELINE ONLY II INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: 4 -LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH /SOUTH II CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN II TRAFFIC VOLUMES II EB WB NB SB - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- 1 LEFT 30 13 5 78 THRU 17 40 33 45 II RIGHT 8 115 17 10 1 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE II EB WB NB SB LANES 1 1 1 1 II II II ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE II GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N II WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N II NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N II VEHICLE COMPOSITION II % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES II EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 1 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 1 CRITICAL GAPS II TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP 1 MINOR RIGHTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 II MAJOR LEFTS SB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 II NB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 II WB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 MINOR LEFTS 1 EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION II NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET LAKE DRIVE II NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET DAKOTA AVENUE DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 12 -13 -1990 ; PM PEAK HOUR 1992 OTHER INFORMATION.... BASELINE ONLY II II 1 II CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE Page -3 1 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c — c - v LOS II p M SH R SH I MINOR STREET EB LEFT 37 578 475 > 475 > 438 > A THROUGH 21 792 744 > 585 744 > 517 723 >A A II RIGHT 10 997 997 > 997 > 987 > A MINOR STREET II WB LEFT 16 697 640 > 640 > 625 > A THROUGH 49 796 747 > 888 747 > 683 698 >A A RIGHT 141 998 998 > 998 > 857 > A II MAJOR STREET I SB LEFT 95 1000 1000 1000 905 A NB LEFT 6 1000 1000 1000 994 A 1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION II NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET LAKE DRIVE • NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET DAKOTA AVENUE I DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 12 -13 -1990 PM PEAK HOUR 1992 OTHER INFORMATION.... BASELINE ONLY 12- 1 • 1 1 1 1 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 1 ************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ,9 AREA POPULATION 50000 1 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET LAKE DRIVE NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET DAKOTA AVENUE ' NAME OF THE ANALYST DB DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) 12 -13 -1990 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED PM PEAK HOUR 1992 1 OTHER INFORMATION.... BASELINE + STATION INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ' INTERSECTION TYPE: 4 -LEG 1 MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH /SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN , CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1 EB WB NB SB LEFT 30 13 5 126 , THRU 17 40 33 45 RIGHT 8 163 17 10 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE , EB WB NB SB , LANES 1 1 1 1 II II ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 II PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS 1 EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N I WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N 1 SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION II % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION II AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 0 0 II WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 II SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL II (Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS I EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS I SB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 NB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 I MINOR THROUGHS EB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 WB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 II MINOR LEFTS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 II IDENTIFYING INFORMATION I NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET LAKE DRIVE NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET DAKOTA AVENUE DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 12 -13 -1990 ; PM PEAK HOUR 1992 OTHER INFORMATION.... BASELINE + STATION II II . 1 CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE Page -3 II POTEN- ACTUAL II FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c — c - v LOS p M SH R SH 1 MINOR STREET 1 EB LEFT 37 505 373 > 373 > 336 > B THROUGH 21 747 667 > 482 667 > 415 647 >A A II RIGHT 10 997 997 > 997 > 987 > A MINOR STREET WB LEFT 16 652 569 > 569 > 553 > A II THROUGH 49 750 670 > 878 670 > 614 621 >A A RIGHT 199 998 998 > 998 > 798 > A 1 MAJOR STREET SB LEFT 154 1000 1000 1000 846 A II NB LEFT 6 1000 1000 1000 994 A II IDENTIFYING INFORMATION II NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET LAKE DRIVE NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET DAKOTA AVENUE DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 12 -13 -1990 ; PM PEAK HOUR 1992 II OTHER INFORMATION....•BASELINE + STATION II II II II II 11 II 1 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page -1 1 ************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** IDENTIFYING INFORMATION II AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET 30 II PEAK HOUR FACTOR , 9 AREA POPULATION 50000 II NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET LAKE DRIVE NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET DAKOTA AVENUE 1 NAME OF THE ANALYST DB 1 DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm /dd /yy) 12 -13 -1990 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED NOON HOUR II OTHER INFORMATION.... BASELINE + STATION INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL 1 INTERSECTION TYPE: 4 -LEG 1 MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: NORTH /SOUTH CONTROL TYPE EASTBOUND: STOP SIGN 1 CONTROL TYPE WESTBOUND: STOP SIGN II TRAFFIC VOLUMES. II - EB - - WB - NB SB LEFT 63 27 11 236 1 THRU 36 84 69 95 II RIGHT 17 314 36 21 II NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE EB WB NB SB 1 LANES 1 1 1 1 1 II II ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page -2 II PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS 1 EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 , N II NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION II % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES II EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 II NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 1 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 . CRITICAL GAPS 1 TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL II (Table 10 -2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS II EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS II SB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 NB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 MINOR THROUGHS 1 EB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 WB 6.00 6.00 0.00 6.00 II MINOR LEFTS EB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 WB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET LAKE DRIVE 1 NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET DAKOTA AVENUE DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS 12 -13 -1990 ; NOON HOUR OTHER INFORMATION.... BASELINE + STATION II 11 1 1 CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE Page -3 1 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY 1 MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c — c - v LOS p M SH R SH II MINOR STREET EB LEFT 77 250 115 > 115 > 38 > E 1 THROUGH 44 544 421 > 179 421 > 37 377 >E B RIGHT 21 977 977 > 977 > 956 > A 1 MINOR STREET WB LEFT 33 453 329 > 329 > 296 > C II THROUGH 103 550 426 > 715 426 > 195 323 >D B RIGHT 384 995 995 > 995 > 611 > A MAJOR STREET 1 SB LEFT 288 998 998 998 709 A , NB LEFT 13 996 996 996 982 A 1 II IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET LAKE DRIVE 1 NAME OF THE NORTH /SOUTH STREET DAKOTA AVENUE DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS.., 12 -13 -1990 ; NOON HOUR OTHER INFORMATION.... BASELINE + STATION 1 • 1 1 1 1 • II 1 1 1 1 SUPPLEMENTAL TRIP GENERATION and 1 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 1 VEHICLE INSPECTION STATION 1 Lake Drive at Dakota Avenue Chanhassen, Minnesota 1 1 1 Prepared for 1 Systems Control, Inc. 1 by i Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 1 December 27, 1990 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SUMMARY This memorandum serves as a supplement to the December 19, 1990, report prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc., on the traffic, air quality and noise quality impacts of the vehicle emission testing station proposed to be 1 located on Lake Drive in Chanhassen, Minnesota. This memorandum summarizes the trip generation characteristics of the site and compares those to the characteristics of other auto - oriented uses. This memorandum also reports the results of an on -site traffic count conducted at the existing McDonald's restaurant at Lake Drive and Dakota Avenue. (At the December 13, 1990, public meeting on the testing station, a question was raised regarding the trip generation characteristics of this specific restaurant. In response, a count was conducted at the McDonald's from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and from 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 19, 1990.) This memorandum concludes with an analysis of the on -site operations and queueing accommodations. ' All data and graphics contained in this memorandum, with the exception of the McDonald's count data, are the same as presented at the December 13, 1990, neighborhood public meeting held at Chanhassen City Hall. Approximately 12 residents attended that meeting. The Braslau Associates traffic analyses found that the traffic generated by the vehicle testing site would cause no adverse impacts to the surrounding roadway system. Furthermore, there will be no perceptable change in the roadway levels of service in the surrounding area due to this site development. The traffic analyses conducted by Braslau Associates, as well as the air and noise quality analyses, used the traffic data presented in this memorandum as input elements. The detailed Braslau traffic analyses are not repeated in this memorandum; the reader is referred instead to the original Braslau report. TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS /COMPARISON Three charts (Figures 3, 4 and 5) are presented to summarize the trip generation characteristics of the proposed vehicle emission testing station and other auto - oriented land uses. The terms used on the charts are listed on Figure 2. All of the numbers shown on the charts represent vehicle trips. For example, if ten vehicles arrive at the testing station for inspections and then leave the station afterwards, this represents 20 vehicle trips. The average day is the typical day of the month at the station, whereas the peak day represents the last five working days of the month when there is a surge in the volume of inspections prior to end -of- the -month expirations. The final ' terms on Figure 2 relate to two different peak hours. The peak hour of the testing station site occurs in the late morning, whereas the peak hour of the surrounding major roadway system, including TH 5, occurs at approximately 4:30 ' p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Figure 3 summarizes daily trip generation volumes for a number of uses. As noted at the December 13, 1990, public meeting, the volumes shown for the gas station /mini- market, fast food restaurant and drive -in bank represent typical average rates and counts observed throughout the United States. The source for these data is the most recent edition of the Trip Generation Report, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 1 1 i Two traffic volumes are shown for the testing station on Figure 3, the typical average day of the month and the end of the month peak volume. Systems Control's records from their facilities in other states show that these last five days tend to be about 150% to 160% of the typical day with an actual average peak of 156 %. The 156% factor is reflected in this analysis. The volumes shown are for 1998, the final year of the seven -year testing contract that Systems Control has with the State of Minnesota. That year repesents the highest expected vehicle registrations, and therefore inspections, during the contract period. The overall volume level at the Chanhassen site was determined from the Metropolitan -wide system modeling of demand. This modeling resulted in a system of 11 testing stations. (The modeling was based on projected 1998 population and vehicle registration patterns and does include the growth occuring in the western suburban area.) Figures 4 and 5 both depict hourly volume levels. Figure 4 summarizes two time periods for the testing station site. One is the roadway system p.m. peak hour (4:30 to 5:30), the other is the station site peak hour (approximately 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon). For both periods, data are shown for the average day of the month and the end of the month peak days. The results of the count conducted at the existing McDonald's restaurant at Lake Drive and Dakota Avenue is also shown on Figure 4. In summary, the McDonald's restaurant presently generates 300 vehicle trips during a one -hour period at lunchtime on a typical weekday. The proposed testing station is expected to generate 176 trips in a one -hour period during the five busiest days of the month in 1998. Furthermore, Figure 4 shows that when the overall roadway system is at its peak volume levels (4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.), the testing site is not at its peak level. Figure 5 is another comparison of hourly volumes, this one for the p.m. peak hour, 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. The p.m. peak hour projections for the gas station /mini- market, restaurant and drive -in bank (left -most three columns) represent typical national averages. The count conducted at the existing McDonald's shows that in the p.m. peak hour this site presently generates about one -half the average national traffic volume for a fast food restaurant (184 expected trips versus 97 counted). Comparison to Figure 4 shows that both the existing McDonald's restaurant and the testing station have their peak traffic volumes in the mid -day time period, not during the p.m. peak hour of the area roadway system. ROADWAY SYSTEM /TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT • 1 Westwood Professional Services, Inc., received roadway design plans from the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the segment of TH 5 in the vicinity of the testing station. The current timetable calls for TH 5 in this area to be fully upgraded to a four -lane divided facility in the next year. The site will be principally served by two signalized, major intersections on TH 5. One of these intersections is the rebuilt Dakota Avenue intersection shown on Figure 6. The second major access point for the site is the new Dell Road /184th Avenue intersection on TH 5, shown on Figure 7. These roadway sketches were shown at the December 13, 1990, public meeting and were made available to David Braslau Associates, Inc., for their roadway assignment and analyses calculations. For the detailed calculations, the reader is referred to the Braslau report. In summary, that report found that the vehicle testing 1 1 station would cause no noticeable impact to the traffic levels of service on the public roadway system surrounding the site. ON -SITE OPERATIONS The major element in the analysis of on -site operations is the provision for vehicles to properly queue on the property during times of heaviest usage at the end of the month. The proposed site layout has over 875 lane -feet of ' storage. At a conservative value of 25 feet per stored vehicle, 875 feet will accommodate 35 vehicles on the site itself. The results of a queueing analysis indicate that during the busiest days at the end of the month, there is a 1% chance that 23 or more vehicles would queue up during the peak instant within the peak hour. With 35 vehicle spaces of storage available it is very unlikely that a queue would ever extend off the site. (The queueing computations are summarized on a calculation sheet which follows the figures at the back of this memorandum.) 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • LOCATION 1 MAP 1 NORTH 1 1 r 1 0 1 1 78TH STREET WEST ARBORETUM BLVD pi 11 '411111010 ui Q SITE LAKE DRIVE 1 ui Q 1 t- 0 p < Qv Y r z 1 r LAKE SUSAN 45 0 O Q ¢ Q 0 1 f- 0 O U i LYMAN BLVD 1 1 1 1 FIGURE 1 1 1 1 1 DEFINITIONS 1 VEHICLE TRIP 1 1 AVERAGE DAY I PEAK DAY 1 PEAK HOUR -SITE 1 - ROADWAY SYSTEM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 FIGURE 2 1 1 DAILY TRIP 1 1,260 GENERATION SYSTEMS ' CONTROL 1,200 - SITE 1,140 CHANHASSEN, MN 1 900- 1 810 1 730 1 600- - 1 1 ii 1 � 300- 1 I 1 1 f1l II (_ ........ 1 1991 1998 1991 1998 AVERAGE DAY PEAK PERIOD DAY 1 1 1 1 FIGURE 3 1 • 1 3,640 „... • DAILY TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON 3,000 — 2,260 1 2,000 — 1,260 • 1,090 090 - -•-r. • 1,000 — • 1 •.• 810 '.. • .: < Z uJ < o z az O O c 0 0 0 < cc cc ex a� }<< a' 4'm am ZW Z� I I-- 1-- OC7 OQ Q� �¢ Lai ' CC N Cl) a W WQ W 1 N N 1 FIGURE 4 1 300- 300 , w ONAINANN HOURLY TRIP GENERATION ^ . 250- COMPARISONS .^ solietilW ., sWignWil miNOWNP 200 - 176 ,, w r • ,, iewwww IOWA/ 150- rww I w w I 112 100 - __ __ I IPIONIO WWWW 76 - -tr;.. w 50- 48 W I • WrinsPol fiiiiil • w .w J= J Q .J CC ..1 CC 2NQ OM OM OM OM W I I-= I-= I- = I- = N J Q = o o OQ OQ = Va V V � VW ZQCa Z I N W (l) Na CA C. =2 J W Q w W W 0 W be V N Nn' NQ NW u)4 y �W c 1 a FIGURE 5 I 1 1 300- • , 1 266 P.M. PEAK HOUR . • TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON I 250- .- •••• ••• .•.•.•.•..•.•.• • •:•-•:::::::•:: . ........ 1 .....::•.::::•::. .:::.::•.•:•:•: .•::::.:::::.:. •:;:i:::::: 1 •.....• •.•.•.. .............. 200 - •:,:::::•:•-:: 1 18 :•:•.::::::::•:• ...•...• • ...•.• .•.•. ... . 4 .:•:.:•:•:::::•: 178 ::::::::::::::.: •••••••••••••••••• 1 :•:•:•:.:::::•.: . ••••:•:•:•:•:•:•:•: ............... ......... ., • ........• • •••••• ••••:•••:•:::•.• : "" : * :"•-: • ..........• .••.•..•.•. 1 150 - • • • • • ....... ...• .::::::•::•• . ......... • ..... ............ .:••••:::•:::::•:* ••••••...y....... :.:.:••:••:.:••:•:.:•• ..•.•.•..•....• ....•.•..•.•.• :;:::•::.;:::..::;:.:::; 1 •••• •••.....••• .::::::::.•::.::: ::::::::......... •••:::::,...:::::.... . ...... ••:::;:.:.:.:••:.:.: ..•:.:.::::.:••:.:.:. :•:•:•:•.::::•::. ............•..... .•:•:•:).::::...: ;.:.:.:••:.:.:.:••:. - • 100- ::•:•.:::::.::::. • .:::::::::::...: ::::::::::::::::.: :::::::::::::::: 97 --,, .•kA-,,k,A—„- :•:•:•:•••••:•:•:•:. %mow. :::.•:•::::::::: •:•:•:•:•:•:•,....:•:. .~.„,„.0%, ..•••:::::•••••: ::;:;:::::•:•:•:•: 76 4.,A.w. I •:......::::•• :.•:•:•:•:•-•:. • • • • • .•.••.•..•... •:•:•:•:•::::::::: •:::::•:•:•:•:•:•:. •• - ,.:.•:•:•........:•:•:. ,„0„.0.0.04. ....„.„ ...,..~„, ..•:1,..• •-: .0.040,04. . ....... ,:.::::::•:•:•:•:•: t ....„• ::• .„,•,,e,„,-.0. :•:•:•:•.•:•:. • . :.:.••: ii•,..„, ........• • .. .....:•:•:•:•:•:•:•: •.......•....• ;:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:. ,................. , %mow. 1 50- 48 ,............. , :::•:•:•:•••:::•. .:.:.:.:.:.:.:•:.: ::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. .................. ,..-„,:.•.-:•,,.. www4. •:•:•:•:.•••••••••• ..• :.; :.•••• :::„.....:.:.:.:.: ....., .... „ .„, wi,...~. . .•...•.•.•.• •:•::::::::::::::: 1111111E1 .•.•...•...•.•... . .•.•.........•.•. i mom :....;.:.: r ■= _ ................ • •:•.•:•:•:•:•:•:. ...•.••• • •.• • • • • • • . . ... ... . ::•:•:::.:::::::: NOM•I .I....•::-.:: wines innino., .;,:::::::::::::.:. mow ::•...... *•,,„ • ~w% ......, ...: =1 •••••••••••••••••• :::::::::::::::::: MUNI .•.•...-.•...•... .•.........-.•.•. :.:•:.:.:.:.:•:•:. mumm ...:;•;-:... wwwiel. ......•... .....:.:.:.:•:.:.:.: %view, I . ... • . • . • . • .... • . • . • . .. • . • . • . • . * : - : .. :.' • '• • :.:.:....x.:.:.:. IRE E I :::::::::::iii: aunm .., • . • .. • • . • • . • • • • • • • • 11110111Wis VON/Wa IsineWs J ,,••••• 1... ...I 1:1 1••• -I .J� .11 CO Z in • 4W .a. Lu 0 x E P cc a 0 z (-) 0 < C E IL. fr et Z C.) ilt E co 0 0) cc 0 1- i- %.• ch cc ch 1- '' la a A _i (1) 4 z ILI Z el t Z 00 04 Fr 0 I I CA Z < 2 0 1C U) 1,11. la ILI > CC 0 la 0 I'L AcC Cl o CC I 2 O CC 2 > 2 0 0 la < w I -• i-- 1 >._ va fn > u) 111 FIGURE 6 INTERSECTION 1 NORTH LAYOUT 1 1 1 1 4 \ ' t\\ , 1 1 P � y � 9 � ' ��� 1 �tA � X09 1 Z 1 1 1 FIGURE 7 1 1 INTERSECTION 1 NORTH LAYOUT 1 1 a 0 J W 1 4Ik E TRUNK HIGHWAY 5 � Q tt uj W Q 1 FIGURE 8 . 1 On Site ueuein Analysis Q g Y Systems Control, Chanhassen Site , Assume Poisson Arrival Rate Input Data Q = 35 /Hour (Service Rate per Lane) N = 3 (Number of Lanes) ' q = 88 /Hour (Peak Hourly Demand Rate) Computations , Utilization Factor = q /(N *Q) = 88/(3 *35) = 0.8381 1 Qm = 0.7120 (Look up from Table 8 -11, p. 231, "Transportation and Land Development ", ITE, 1988) ' Solution • Determine the on site storage amount, such that there is at , most a 1% probabilty that this number will be exceeded once in the peak hour. X =((ln 0.01 - In 0.7120)/in 0.8381) - 1 = 23 vehicles Conclusion , There is a 1% chance that 23 or more vehicles will store on the site one time during the peak hour. The site provides stacking distance that will accomodate 35 vehicles. 11 1 . FA E G R E $ BENSON 2200 NORWEST CENTER 90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-3901 612/336 -3000 ' SUITE 1150, 8400 TOWER FACSIMILE 336 -3026 2500 REPUBLIC PLAZA 6400 NORMANOALE LAKE BOULEVARD 370 SEVENTEENTH STREET BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 56437 -1076 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 -4004 612 /621 -2200 303/592 -5900 FACSIMILE 921 -2244 FACSIMILE 592 -5693 ' SUITE 600 10 EASTCHEAP 1140 CONNECTICUT AVENUE N.W LONDON EC3M IET, ENGLAND WASHINGTON, D. C.20038 -4001 071/623 -6163 202/728 -0952 FACSIMILE 623 -3227 1 FACSIMILE 726 -0957 November 5, 1990 1 Mr. Paul Krauss ' City Planner City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Systems Control'S Clean Air Facility And Drainage Easement ' Dear Paul: ' Enclosed please find a copy of the Declaration Of Surface Drainage Easement which affects the property being purchased by Systems Control, Inc. You will note in Paragraph ' 2 that this easement is to continue until the City of Chanhassen determines that the surface water drainage easement is no longer needed. Since McDonalds has reconfigured its parking lot subsequent to the granting of this easement, could ' you have the City Engineer determine whether this easement is still required? If it is not, Systems Control will request a City determination of "no need" as part of the approval process 1 for its clean air facility on this property. Sincerely yours, -Ze#4 Walter H. Rockenstein II 1 WHR /cjs Enclosures 1 cc: Dennis Palmer 9401w ar L'�s ' NOV 199C Ut' t)(? J�l I VI �_ r t ov— •2 -943 FR I 1 r 543 FORSON SUS I N SER'v' ICES' P 02 _ t is �, • ..a.� : �.�� • , / r.�' • t• �ti • • i • • • • • �/00 4 "/Li 3 : • 1 r _� DECLARATION OF SURFACE DRAINAGE: EASEMENT THIS DECLARATION is made this 4th day of December II 1982, by CHANHASSEN HOLDING COMPANY, a co partncrehip, consisting of Donald F. • Hagen and Carol A. Hagen, husband and wife, Herbert A. Mason and Marian II 8. Mason, husband and wife, Robert H. Mason and Jean M. Mason, husband • and wife and the Estate of Eugene F. Reilly (Declarant) whose address • : _ i s 14201 Excelsior Boulevard, Minnetonka, Minnesota 55434. II PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF FACTS Declarant is the owner of two parcels of real ed II •1 in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, d esign a ted .! as "Parcel One" and "Parcel Two on Exhibit A attached hereto ' . and incorporated herein by reference. Declarant desires to i establish for the use and benefit of Parcel One a temporary, II non- exclusive appurtenant easement for surface drainage purposes a ever and across a portion of Parcel Two all as hereinafter described. NOW, THEREFORE: II L. • 1.) Declaration of Easement - Declarant hereby declares tho existence � of a temporary, non - exclusive easement for the benefit of Parcel One over f• ,. '^ that part of Parcel Two legally described on Exhibit 8 attached hereto . ii : (the Easement Parcel), for the purpose of surface drainage of any and all II �: 1 • storm water runoff from Parcel One, from any after - acquired property used :o in . conjunction with Parcel One and from improvements which may, from time . i to be constructed, altered, modified and maintained thereon. Until s-•.' _. ;r;. expiration of the temporary easement described herein, Declarant will not II 1 . utE, make any changes or alterations to the Easement Parcel and in particular '' •�wili'not change the grade, elevation or contours thereof or perform any Pr- 1 "excavat #on thereon. y.,,�"''„a �. . .► w `. i•.• �ti,2.� Release'of Eascmont - The Easement shall continue in existence ,: ; • , u n i>, the �tY of Chan hassen determines that this surface water drainage II "YI is no longer ne Within sixty (60) days after expiration of , J.Ithis Easement, the owner of Parcel One, if an individual, or . :, corporation other than Declarant, shall, if necessary, maintain and iim- II t. prove Parcel One so that no surface water drains from Parcel One onto t Two. ;,$t 4,112':'' . ' ,i• ' ' ` o !Y 3.) Bindin on Successors • • II ;: This Declaration b e'beno� a t A successors and assigns ofDeclarantand the covenants r.. . :contained herein shall be deemed to bo and shall be continuing covenants .' with Parcel One and Parcel Two. . M ; 4.1.1'. 7r 1r,!.?' . i ,% = "' , '` ;: M ;. t 436 . -, t r e c, .' .,-44 •It .,:sio. . AAA 01 ' ra r . � . . ., : ' ; 1 :. .. . -. - - 1 1 • { �. - ! •S . t C -1 . • • , t ■ t . - -it.; • sti..1 -. .: z • I NO'v'— 2 -00 FR Z 1 - 51 FORSON B US I NE SERVICES P-0 — . ' ..... . - .•_ 1'47' . • • . • 1 I 4•) Effective Date - This Ease s recording in the office o f th Carve County Recordar.o upon I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Declarant has executed this DeeZaratlon Chia 4th day of D ecorabor 1982. ■ 1 Mc DONALD 'S CORPORA7ZOQ CHANHASSEN HOLDING COMPANY rtY V 9e President B yt �•� �� / Donal F. Hagen I n rTl 91 t 40./.• Le. ff`` tot tor of ltealT ateArgal Dyt Ca .11 "1 - Hag �. en .i a A. , • Sys , Q or ert • Maso ��j a r a. Marion 1 Hy: o �. (10111141a---er7 oerg!i.In -- By I n M. Mason --- Estate of Eugene F. Reilly . 1 ! ' BY �rtt.-4,,� / M rg• of .' - o 4 - r+ I Its: Personal Reyres ' ta b us S ATrr OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF Hennepin ) as. a , I The roreyoi ir,$trt nt wa s acknowledged b efore m e this 4th of en and Carol A. Hag n December , 1982 by Don 8 F . He en husi, e, , , d and wi fn, on partners of C HOLDING COMPANY a co - partnership on thy hn1f of the co- part.n�rshi N -tary Pe- c Y ' /' -.-- II wq �J . asth e p pyorfi •3i� ! •R.•4 a t Nowt ow, • 44,4, '�Jr !,' r .r 1.0 ; ,,. ."Y - -. + i 1 •. : x •3 - . ` • [ 3 [ - ..� '� �. •r .. • - ..• =--,-:.•-....a.,.14.*. r. i .x • , ,,,, -,� 3�� CEs ' "• _ t r :._ " s , g ,•. I y �" . s r• .� a ' ' .* - t '9.t' Nov-- 2 — `30 FR I 1.7.. :S. FORSON SUS I NE S SERV ICES P . 04 • • i. ;f, i STATE OF MINNESOTA} • ) j sS. _ . COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was aeknowledgtd before me this 4th day of December. - ' 1982 by Herbert A. Mason and Marian 8. Mason, husband and wife, Robert H. Mason 1 and Jean M. Mason, husband and wife and Margaret J. Reilly as personal representative ` II of the Estate of Eugene F. Reilly. OS partners of CHANHASSEN HOLDING COMPANY, " • • • a co- partnership, on behalf of the co- partnership. " l ,at1lan G, G or!! 0 � ry UP bl is U 111•44010 Luva It i C f h.e..mwu4 )) 4 .I 1 • 1 a STATE OF ILLINOIS t COUNTY OP COOK SS. %. 1, Mary Mn Kucik, a Notary Public in and for the county and state V y ,, I r aforesaid, DO HERESY CERTIFY that Seymour Greenman, Vice President, and • .t Michael J. Siec, Director of Real Estate /Legal Department, of McDonald's `4'• eA. • Corporation. a Dclavare corporation, who are peraenally known to me to ...-,• •� be the same to the foregoing instrument task'. 1 persons whose names are subscribed +1 as such Seymour Creennan, Vida President std Michael J. Sias, Director of IV. :" .e• Real Estate /Ed Department, respectively, appeared before me this day in ` person and ncknowledged that they signed, sealed and delivered the eaid '. " ti instrument no their free and voluntary act and as such Vice Provident and - Director of Real, Estate /Legal Department, rtapoctively, and as the free �'! c 1 and voluntary act of said corporation for the trees and purposes therein '. •�: -. set forth. 'r' Given under my hand and notarial seal this l of 3� .,ff ,.., ' / ...� •19 r 1 Mart' Ann ail( NM... Publ A e , ? ,, • Hy Commission Expl.rt. I' 9 it 7I t$. `',4,, :; 7`../A• . • • ` . ' � DRr�t�t n &r' " AS' , • ' 1 r Ot•nALA'S ec�ki�o 11;7r . • . • ,;,,;x,4;16• - . • tWS i Lt2A . _ 1 O AK )QOOk •-L. k+C1ra1 ` • : ,.•:. » A t• ` ..`„ ' ' Lt Kt Tt ..fr27;4 1t - . ..& S•.1- ,ti , y. [.. t a lg y ' • �i rl p, t. • r d• \, . ' :. • . 1. , � � r7 —„4 ,-.-4.-----'.--.,- � i • � Mme- _ , t1- , ...p.: j1' ,•Fr, _ - - ` ; :w . - -- ,.'''- .- s • _ _ —..1 • • NOV— 2 -90 FRI 15 _53 FORSON BUSINE S SERVICES P. 05 Vi .. a..-".•••••-";-. ,e • ' • • - • _,., • - 1 • 1 . . EXHIBIT A t orcr1 C • Lot 1, Block 1, Chan Haven Plaza, according to the duly 1 recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Carver County Recorder, Minnesota. Par c• Two: -; 1 Lot 2, Block 1, Chan ltavcn Plaza, according to the duly recrrdcd plat thereof on file and of record in the office of tho Carver County Recorder, Minnesota. - 1 -: 1 i -: 1 • 1 1, • • . i • 1 1 • 1 43 7 Y 1 y . r � � :- n: + % I • ti • s -' ' �- + r t � '� ' • ' � Y ea' �� i `"'►•' ; :::; �•".� s- d • 1: • " • 'i .� 1 � � '�>R » . " Yz _ il�' ` a � i � y ? ' � �J /-,,,,,,y47; z�� t t - d y ,e,-..,_`4.-... ' .,r ; 4' 4._- - i • �` ' __. - z + a -. : . .. �« n .. r � t J r *�'w' sr^* v°" �.>.rr r f � "` � -' / �� = a� - -1" ' ..--C.- A >'. f' "°l ^ fi x -• k " 4Y 4' -... - .• ' 1' . 1.- :' aft ".^ ... , ,. 3r." `-■ 4 I -, - • ' a -a - s rk T `4 tK ti "R- 7S t; -. ._ • _ , :` ;y i _ a t y 7r �.. ;f f - 4, ik' s ..,,t' - - "or ` • ,rt ., $ -s !! _ . u.. -lb a " -14.. s. re- w4 : t + • 4 • L _ r, ° . . °' - - � f( ti .- • � ' , - . fi r ,' -�' _ • --/ ..3 -- -� _ . +lif k::'. ,• _ ''' + y ;,. '' • x'-14. »y , 4, -,-tA et a ..yr '^`d.. > - • rf i ,,,. - �: `"' ,mow' •$_. f . q' - " :� R + -T:7 J :' ._ - w'-f - -, i• ` } - � - `_. •'�I . 'F- ._r�_a r_�c_.r?_. 3'Y.' i�• �, " - ' p+-._ • Ng -3 • **R. p �" � _ . •' ,y' P , fix " _ ` , ' g ., _.,._ . ,......!, , , .- 4 % . z , . .. - ..t. . - 1,...... ,..., - 4 - . . .. •i 1 'r arm- -- 9 .+, � . -` - -. `: . ,.....< la.: — -.-4,i ' r • - h`: Y > , - °irf £r - , 1-2 '"`'`�I• F r - - r _ •.F�.. : , axi. Th Ir. - . 1.- ,. e, , - .', 4 1,4. - 1.,' ; ' . : ; . -- tk, - _ . .... .r:,,, N . u .t., t .." 7.1 *. 'ff 0 7-7 , .. , _. :•:.;---...,.' ; ,, , ,.-7 , • ",..,...... • --- -• . 4 .. ~ s J 3 �, s` d'1 a f '• ��,r 3 iiiiik i. F te y .� �7 7R. , ...1 ' - f , . - , _? -. ' ‘ . ...,- , - - - - - Vvev • t - — 7 4 6 ,4 u4411 1: 1 ;;3/4 . 1 ."'. ...i 4 . .,....- .... 1, ...... ,..........__.„...., • , 7 • , .,..., . : ...„....•,_ .., ....„...,:, 7.. • , f .„ 7 -,.. .,. s 444) — i ..., ' - - _ . - 4 " . , .1 - ; • .i," ... .. 14 ....„ r t. , 4 • is - 'a. . - a r.4114 - - . - _ . _ . '., " It.. ' ,.may •R , ii - _ t > . _ 4itt tr fit .14 fir fo t:‘,..t '.., Ti• 1 • r '-T , • 1 ` 5 „ $C y: - 3� ', y may, _ 4 c Jr ... - •- _ , f. ,, . _ tit tT } - . ' ,, __ — as � f 111. 1 1 1 1 SUPPLEMENTAL TRIP GENERATION 1 and TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 1 ' VEHICLE INSPECTION STATION Lake Drive at Dakota Avenue 1 Chanhassen, Minnesota 1 1 1 Prepared for Systems Control, Inc. by 1 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 1 1 December 27, 1990 1 1 - 1 1 II SUMMARY This memorandum serves as a supplement to the December 19, 1990, report II prepared by David Braslau Associates, Inc., on the traffic, air quality and noise quality impacts of the vehicle emission testing station proposed to be located on Lake Drive in Chanhassen, Minnesota. This memorandum summarizes II the trip generation characteristics of the site and compares those to the characteristics of other auto - oriented uses. This memorandum also reports the results of an on -site traffic count conducted at the existing McDonald's II restaurant at Lake Drive and Dakota Avenue. (At the December 13, 1990, public meeting on the testing station, a question was raised regarding the trip generation characteristics of this specific restaurant. In response, a count II was conducted at the McDonald's from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and from 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 19, 1990.) This memorandum concludes with an analysis of the on -site operations and queueing accommodations. All data and graphics contained in this memorandum, with the exception of the II McDonald's count data, are the same as presented at the December 13, 1990, neighborhood public meeting held at Chanhassen City Hall. Approximately 12 II residents attended that meeting. The Braslau Associates traffic analyses found that the traffic generated by the vehicle testing site would cause no adverse impacts to the surrounding II roadway system. Furthermore, there will be no perceptable change in the roadway levels of service in the surrounding area due to this site development. The traffic analyses conducted by Braslau Associates, as well as II the air and noise quality analyses, used the traffic data p in this memorandum as input elements. The detailed Braslau traffic analyses are not repeated in this memorandum; the reader is referred instead to the original II Braslau report. TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS /COMPARISON Three charts (Figures 3, 4 and 5) are presented to summarize the trip II generation characteristics of the proposed vehicle emission testing station and other auto - oriented land uses. The terms used on the charts are listed on II Figure 2. All of the numbers shown on the charts represent vehicle trips. For example, if ten vehicles arrive at the testing station for inspections and then leave the station afterwards, this represents 20 vehicle trips. The average day is the typical day of the month at the station, whereas the peak II day represents the last five working days of the month when there is a surge in the volume of inspections prior to end -of -the -month expirations. The final terms on Figure 2 relate to two different peak hours. The peak hour of the II testing station site occurs in the late morning, whereas the peak hour of the surrounding major roadway system, including TH 5, occurs at approximately 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. II Figure 3 summarizes daily trip generation volumes for a number of uses. As noted at the December 13, 1990, public meeting, the volumes shown for the gas station /mini- market, fast food restaurant and drive -in bank represent typical II average rates and counts observed throughout the United States. The source for these data is the most recent edition of the Trip Generation Report, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. II II 1 1 Two traffic volumes are shown for the testing station on Figure 3, the typical average day of the month and the end of the month peak volume. Systems Control's records from their facilities in other states show that these last 1 five days tend to be about 150% to 160% of the typical day with an actual average peak of 156%. The 156% factor is reflected in this analysis. The volumes shown are for 1998, the final year of the seven -year testing contract ' that Systems Control has with the State of Minnesota. That year repesents the highest expected vehicle registrations, and therefore inspections, during the contract period. The overall volume level at the Chanhassen site was determined from the Metropolitan -wide system modeling of demand. This modeling resulted in a system of 11 testing stations. (The modeling was based on projected 1998 population and vehicle registration patterns and does include the growth occuring in the western suburban area.) Figures 4 and 5 both depict hourly volume levels. Figure 4 summarizes two time periods for the testing station site. One is the roadway system p.m. ' peak hour (4:30 to 5:30), the other is the station site peak hour (approximately 11 :00 a.m. to 12:00 noon). For both periods, data are shown for the average day of the month and the end of the month peak days. The ' results of the count conducted at the existing McDonald's restaurant at Lake Drive and Dakota Avenue is also shown on Figure 4. In summary, the McDonald's restaurant presently generates 300 vehicle trips during a one hour period at lunchtime on a typical weekday. The proposed testing station is expected to ' generate 176 trips in a one -hour period during the five busiest days of the month in 1998. Furthermore, Figure 4 shows that when the overall roadway system is at its peak volume levels (4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.), the testing site ' is not at its peak level. Figure 5 is another comparison of hourly volumes, this one for the p.m. peak hour, 4 :30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. The p.m. peak hour projections for the gas ' station /mini- market, restaurant and drive -in bank (left -most three columns) represent typical national averages. The count conducted at the existing McDonald's shows that in the p.m. peak hour this site presently generates ' about one -half the average national traffic volume for a fast food restaurant (184 expected trips versus 97 counted). Comparison to Figure 4 shows that both the existing McDonald's restaurant and the testing station have their ' peak traffic volumes in the mid -day time period, not during the p.m. peak hour of the area roadway system. ROADWAY SYSTEM /TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT Westwood Professional Services, Inc., received roadway design plans from the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the segment of TH 5 in the vicinity ' of the testing station. The current timetable calls for TH 5 in this area to be fully upgraded to a four -lane divided facility in the next year. The site will be principally served by two signalized, major intersections on TH 5. ' One of these intersections is the rebuilt Dakota Avenue intersection shown on Figure 6. The second major access point for the site is via the new Dell Road /184th Avenue intersection on TH 5, shown on Figure 7. These roadway sketches were shown at the December 13, 1990, public meeting and were made ' available to David Braslau Associates, Inc., for their roadway assignment and analyses calculations. For the detailed calculations, the reader is referred to the Braslau report. In summary, that report found that the vehicle testing 1 1 1 1 station would cause no noticeable impact to the traffic levels of service on the public roadway system surrounding the site. 1 ON - SITE OPERATIONS The major element in the analysis of on -site operations is the provision for 1 vehicles to properly queue on the property during times of heaviest usage at the end of the month. The proposed site layout has over 875 lane -feet of storage. At a conservative value of 25 feet per stored vehicle, 875 feet will accommodate 35 vehicles on the site itself. The results of a queueing analysis indicate that during the busiest days at the end of the month, there is a 1% chance that 23 or more vehicles would queue up during the peak instant within the peak hour. With 35 vehicle spaces of storage available it is very unlikely that a queue would ever extend off the site. (The queueing computations are summarized on a calculation sheet which follows the figures at the back of this memorandum.) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LOCATION NORTH MAP 1 0 1 JQ 78TH STREET WEST ARBORETUM BLVD o2 1 0 SITE al li°111°. LAKE DRIVE 1 w ui Q S a w 4 w 1 O. i 0 r N. LAKE SUSAN 4 � I O h O `t ¢ Q 1 ,U Z 1 O U 1 LYMAN BLVD. 1 1 1 1 FIGURE 1 DEFINITIONS VEHICLE TRIP ' 1 AVERAGE DAY 1 PEAK DAY 1 1 PEAK HOUR 1 - SITE - ROADWAY SYSTEM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 FIGURE 2 1 1 1 1 DAILY TRIP 1,260 GENERATION ' SYSTEMS • CONTROL 1,200- SITE I 1,140 CHANHASSEN, MN 1 1111 - i■■ ■1 900 ■ ■ ■I : 11111 •••••••••• s- 11111 I ■ ■., 730 1111 • • 1111 ■■■i 11111 I 600- 11111 I■■■N �■■ ■� 1■■ ■1 1 11111 300- 1 ■■ ■1 ••...... ` : :::: i 11111 :: 11111 h ill ,■■ ■, I■■ ■I 1991 1998 1991 1998 1 AVERAGE DAY PEAK PERIOD DAY 1 1 ■ FIGURE 3 1 3,640 1 -• ••••• • - .• ....... :::•:.:::::•::: DAILY TRIP 1 :::::::::•::.• GENERATION ••••••••••••••• ::::::::.::::•::. .....:•:•:•:•:•• COMPARISON 1 .•..• .. . .... ::::::::.•:••• 3,000 - .••.• ... . .........• • • ..:-•:•::::::.....- 1 ..•.::::?.::::•.• ...•... •.., , ::::::.:.•::•. :::::•::::::::: :::::.:.:•::. :•••:.::,........ I :::::•:::::•::.; .....,:::•:::.•:::•::.• 2,260 1 • • -• • - ......:•:•:•:•:••• IIIIIIMMEMMIII I 2,000- ..•..•....•. .....-...:.::•:•:::. :::•::::%:.:::.:. I :::::%.::::•:::::. ....:•::•:;.:::....:.. 1 :•:::.:::::::::•:,- .............::::,:;:,: :•:..................:. 1,260 .........•. .•.•......•.•.. ...:::•••:•:•••• • 1,090 1 -• • ..• ".•.••••••••• ,!:"..rp.rmtr :•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:. ••:•.... 1,000 - •.......• • :::::::::::::::::: .:.......:....:.:.:.; ••••••• ••••••••••••••• •:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:. --.-:•-..• I ::•::.::•:::•.. ••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••. .............". ...•........• ........:•:•:•:•:•:•: 810 . ::::::::::.:::: ::*K:::::••.::: — -:-••••-:..- :••••••••::•••: - • •••••••••• ........."..... ................• ::•::::::•:•.•:• •••••••••••••••••, .•........• ..... .• ••••••••••••••••. 1 ......:......:::::::::: • • --...- -....:::::::::.•:. ••••••••••••••••• ..•.• .. ••••••:•:•:•:•:•:•: .........::::...... • •.-., .::: ...-.......::::::::. •:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:. ............::.::•::.. :•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•: .........., .... •. • •:•:•:•:•.•:•:•:. .-,:.----.. 1 ••••••••••••••••• - ••••••••• ....... . ................. ................. ••••••••• •:•:•:•:•:•,•,•:•:• ;:...%•...... ....•.•.•.. ,...:,•:•:•:•:•:•:•: •••-.-•-••••• •••••••.•:•:•:•:. •••:•:•:•:•:•:•:. —•-•- ....... . .....::::::::::•:. ••••••••••••••••• ....„ ••••••••••••••., :-:: 1 :•:•:•:•:•:•:•:„.. ----- ................. _ •••:.•••.:•.•:. ...:•:,•:•:•:•:•:•...• _---- _INc ..J� Z 4 el W 4 0 z 4 :C Z 0 cb O� S2 0 0 QC CC 0) CC ,CP. I E1 cc EC u. cc Ego 1-•"" I— I— 0 2 1 Cn Z 4 0 0. 4 "' tu 0 CD 2 cC CC 2 > 2 I CD ta 'et ILI I— I— CA CI) ›- >- CI) 0 1 FIGURE 4 I IIIII IIIII • MN NMI MOM 111. EN MI NE IMIM MINM EN OM NM MEM In 11111 NM 0 N VI W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i I I I I 1 SYSTEMS CONTROL 4:1, AVERAGE P.M. HOUR Co • , ;,-,......... ...:: S YSTEMS CONTROL .:::**:•' ...... ...4 ....••• :.........*: ....:.•:::.,,•-:.::..f•• PEAK P.M. HOUR ::•:::•: .. '.......;:•.'..*:•.;•.•••. 0) :.:.:.-: :. :.".•t••••:•••• : .:',;::'..- 1, :%. , ::':vrl'A- * . 1 0 0 G) i c xi E M 0 m 1) Z C ul > rn xi SYSTEMS CONTROL AVERAGE PEAK HOUR ::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::; K) ;;;;;;;;;;;;;a4;;;;;;;;:zz;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; .... ):• 0 --I --I .-:-:-...-::.:-.-: -::. . :-::. . .::.:.:-:.:.:.:-:.:-..:.:.::.:.:.•-:.::.:.:.::.:,:.:.::.:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:::-.:-::...:..- ..-.-......-:.-....... z 5 2 3 SYSTEMS CONTROL :::: -J. PEAK PEAK HOUR •::-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-.-:.:.:.:.:.:-:-.-:.:-:-:-:.:.:.:.::-:-:...:-...:.:.:-.-:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:-:.:.:::.:::::.:.:.:.:.:.:.-.:.:..:: 1.0 ? C Lr i v il uc A ND : c 7 HN A AH S Lo S D E us is s i R 1111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111101111111111 Cr) 0 0 ...1 • IV 1%, (01 CI 0 0 Ul 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 TYPICAL : :-.....:. :,..................-:.:.::::.......: :::.:••••••••:::.:.......:-..:.:::.:.:.:.:-:.::*:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:...::.:..-:.:-:.:-:-:.-:.:.:-::.....:.:.:-:.::-::-::-::-.:-:.:-.:-:-:-.-.-::-..:..:...::.:.:::-:-:..::.:-......: er , GAS STATION/ .::: MINI-MARKET : : :::;::: ' "........: .........:::: :::: ....... .i . ..... ..... ..... : : : ..... TYPICAL . ...A FAST FOOD CO RESTAURANT Oh TYPICAL .-.-..-.-.- 5 ... , ;:. • .:::;;:::::;:- • .::*:::*;:,:;*;:;::::;:i*::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : : : ::: : ::: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ..s. '71 - •:::.....w.w.......-.....-.-........................................w.....-...w.......wern...........w.................................-. G) DRIVE-IN BANK :-:-,...:-:.:.:.:-:-:-:.:•:.:-:.:.:-:.:-:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:-:.:-:.:•:-:::-:-:::::•:.:::•::::::•:::::.:-:::.:•:•::::::•:.:::::::::::::-:•:::::.:.:.:::::::::::::::::::.::- CO 13 M 0) SYSTEMS CONTROL IIIIIIIIIIII1 41 AVERAGE 1998 11111 1 C° '''i ..:::::-.,....*.1:.:'...•:-.•:::%.;•„::-*:':.."' 7) m a SYSTEMS CONTROL . PEAK 1998 .:....•.....: ....1 ..... .• ••*- ... !•.....•......0. CO 'v.::••:;-:•::t.•-••::.:::•:.•*:::*0•.°:'•: n . . - 0 Firi TI •, E z m CHANHASSEN 111111111111111111111111110111 > 23 x ..., ... . o 5 C z z 21 ... IN. INE I. EN ... E. No 11. EN N. No N. .. im 1.• ow No a. 1 1 1 INTERSECTION 1 NORTH LAYOUT 1 1 1 1 1 I > i \ I 0\\ , . „ � y O � AVN‘ t ,� � N� P 9 09 I Z TO 1 1 1 1 FIGURE 7 1 1 INTERSECTION 1 NORTH LAYOUT 1 1 C 1 Q O CC J 1 J W D 1 � TRUNK HIGHWAY 5 I ../ I L ITT 1 4 w t I Z W a x 1 1 FIGURE 8 1 1 1 1 On Site Queueing Analysis Systems Control, Chanhassen Site Assume Poisson Arrival Rate 1 Input Data = 35 /Hour (Service Rate Q per Lane) P 1 N = 3 (Number of Lanes) q = 88 /Hour (Peak Hourly Demand Rate) ' Computations 1 Utilization Factor = q /(N *Q) = 88/(3 *35) = 0.8381 Qm = 0.7120 (Look up from Table 8 -11, p. 231, "Transportation and Land Development ", ITE, 1988) Solution Determine the on site storage amount, such that there is at most a 1% probabilty that this number will be exceeded once in 1 the peak hour. - = X = {(ln 0.01 In 0.7120)/in 0.8381} 1 23 vehicles 1 Conclusion ' There is a 1% chance that 23 or more vehicles will store on the site one time during the peak hour. The site provides stacking distance that will accomodate 35 vehicles. 1 1 1 1 1