Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
5c. Emission Control Station
. _ 1 CITY OF Si. .C. DATE: 9/5/90 �, C.C. DATE: :: \ ���N����� CASE: 9 II �� BY: A1- Jaff /v 1 1 STAFF REPORT il . PROPOSAL: 1) Site Plan Review for a 4,042 Square Foot Office Testing Facility 1 8 2) Metes and Bounds Subdivision to Create a 1.7 Acre from a 3.953 Acre Parcel 1 i 3) Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow Vehicle Testing Stations in the IOP District as a Permitted /Conditional Use • LOCATION: Intersection of Park Road and Park Place 1 APPLICANT: Jerry Perkins Owner: System Control/ Q Pope Associates, Inc. Stanley J. Krzywicki Suite 300 Suite 208 I 1360 Energy Park Drive 5275 Edina Industrial c* n tl 1181T F7 /14 1i'rlinn MTT FFZA') 1 :; -: i V -° 1 EXISTING ZONING: IOP, Industrial Office Park = ACREAGE: 1.7 acres / .4 --9 r _ _ 1 ADJACENT _ - ZONING AND LAND USE: N Wetland vacant /-5-10/10 '3 YO 8 - IOP; EMPAK / - 1 E - IOP; vacant Q --,92 1 l W _ IOP; PMT SEWER AND WATER: Services are available to the site. I Fm. SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The site generally drains to the east and northeast into a wetland located to the north of the 1 site. Natural vegetation exists to the north of the site although the majority of the site is covered • with field grasses. II 2000 LAND USE: Industrial 1 1 Pope Associates, Inc. September 5, 1990 1 Page 2 BACKGROUND t On October 4, 1989, the Planning Commission reviewed an application for Site Plan Review #89 -8 for the Rome Office Building. The same application was reviewed by the City Council and was approved on ' October 9, 1989. The site plan that was approved for Rome Office building showed a future expansion to the site in the form of a free - standing 17,000 square foot office /warehouse building located to the west. The application being reviewed calls for a new structure on the site of the proposed additional building. The primary structure approved by the City in October has not been I/ constructed. The application in front of the Commission today will change the approved proposal for Rome Office Building dramatically. The ' proposed vehicle inspection station site will invalidate the Rome Office Building site plan by creating setback variances, parking variances, and also there might be impervious surface coverage variances. Therefore, to consider action of approval of the vehicle testing station is dependent upon cancellation of approval for the Rome Office Building site plan approval. Staff has met ' with Roman Roos, the owner of the site. Mr. Roos is fully aware of the situation. He anticipates requesting approval for a smaller but similar building on the original site. 1 PROPOSAL /SUMMARY On July 1, 1991, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) will ' require all vehicle owners to test the level of hydrocarbon (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO) that their vehicle produces. The applicant is working to establish 11 sites within the seven county metro area of which one is Chanhassen. The applicant's firm is ' contracted with the state to provide testing services for a 10 year period. They will be the sole provider of required testing services. The Chanhassen site is one of the required services ' areas under the state contract to adequately serve the metro area. The procedure starts by sending notices to all car owners to test their vehicles within 90 days of receiving that notice. A study ' was conducted by the applicant and it is predicted that 95% of the vehicles within 5 miles of the site will be using that location. The site will be built to accommodate 158% of the car population within the area. A car population forecast for the year 1998 was ' used for that study and a network was built to suit that. Cars will be tested by being driven into the building and hooked into test equipment. Cars that fail the test are required to be ' serviced and retested for compliance. Servicing will not be provided on -site. 1 1 1 Pope Associates, Inc. 1 September 5, 1990 Page 3 , On site air quality studies will be conducted to ensure that pollution does not exceed standards. These studies will be submitted to the MPCA on an annual basis. The proposed building will be equipped with machines that will monitor the level of CO and a supply fence which functions as a filter to get rid of CO. The proposed building will be located north of Park Road of which access will be obtained. The area of the proposed building is 4,042 square feet. The parking area is proposed to occupy a portion north of the proposed building. The site plan is well designed. Access, grading, drainage and utilities do not pose any problems. Some minor modification to the walkway that links the parking lot with the building has been requested by staff. Site landscaping is generally of high quality, although staff is requesting some changes on the plan where it abuts Park Road to screen vehicles entering the inspection facility. The proposed zoning ordinance amendment will allow vehicle testing facilities to exist in Industrial Office Park Districts as a permitted use. At the present time, the ordinance does not accommodate this use since it did not exist at the time it was drafted. The subdivision request is a metes and bounds subdivision. The Planning Commission does not need to act on the subdivision request as it is a metes and bounds request. Staff did include the information so that the Planning Commission would be aware of the request. The lot split will result in creating a 74,166 square foot lot. There are no variances attached to either the site plan or subdivision requests. Staff is recommending that the requests be approved subject to appropriate conditions. GENERAL SITE PLAN /ARCHITECTURE The site is located north of Park Road. The building is situated parallel to Park Road where access is gained. Parking is located to the north of the proposed building 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, east and north elevations. The majority of the site will be screened from off -site views by landscaping and a proposed berm to the south of the site. The building architecture meets the standards of the site plan ordinance requirements. The applicant is showing the roof top equipment extending 33 feet above the roof level. Equipment will be screened with metal panels painted to match the color of the overhead doors. Staff is recommending that the equipment be painted to match the color of the building. Picket fencing is not considered to be acceptable screening. It should be designed to be compatible with the building exterior. The 11 1 Pope Associates, Inc. September 5, 1990 ' Page 4 applicant is showing the trash enclosure screened by a chain link fence. Staff is requiring that 100% screening be provided for the ' trash enclosure area. It should be constructed of masonry compatible with the building. 1 PARKING /INTERIOR CIRCULATION The City's parking ordinance does not address facilities such as ' the proposed. The most similar operation is vehicle service stations which requires 4 parking stalls per service stalls. This use will have 3 bays. The applicant has managed a large number of testing facilities around the country. Staff believes that the ' number of parking spaces provided is adequate. The applicant is planning to have 7 employees on site. Fourteen parking stalls are provided and one handicap stall. Staff does not anticipate seeing ' large numbers of cars parked in the area. Staff met with the applicant and was informed that the maximum time for a car to spend on site is two minutes. The Engineering Department has requested a minor change to the parking area layout. It is recommended that ' a sidewalk or other designated walkway system be provided with handicap ramps to establish a safe pedestrian travel way between the parking lot and the building as shown on the attached sketch. ' This walkway plan would eliminate one parking stall, however, the submitted site plan proposes 3 more than the minimum requirements. ACCESS The plans propose one 26' wide curb cut to enter the site from Park Road. The driveways are proposed to be built to city standards. ' The radius of curbing at the entrance should be a minimum of 20'. The number of curb cuts on Park Road was an issue for staff during the approval of the Rome Office Building. Staff argued against the ' placement of 2 curb cuts to maintain traffic safety. Ultimately, the applicant was allowed the two cuts but the western entrance was intended to serve both buildings being proposed. The western ' entrance is generally located in the vicinity of the curb cut being presently proposed. Staff finds the current proposal acceptable only if the parcel remaining in Mr. Roos' control at the corner is allowed to have only 1 curb cut on Park Road. It will have a ' secondary access on Park Drive. An appropriate restriction should be placed in the chain -of -title of that lot. ' LANDSCAPING The landscaping plan is well conceived. Staff is requesting ' additional landscaping on the south and west of the site. Two berms are proposed to the south and the southwest corner of the site. Those berms are proposed to be at a height of 2 and 3 feet. Staff is requesting that those berms be extended and made 4 feet 1 high so that they can provide better screening of vehicles waiting 1 Pope Associates, Inc. September 5, 1990 Page 5 , their turn for inspection as they enter the inspection facility. The berms should be extended along the Park Road exposure and along the west property line to help buffer the adjacent PMT site. Under the revised ordinance, financial guarantees for landscaping and other site improvements are required. LIGHTING 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. SIGNAGE The applicant has submitted a signage plan. = One monument identification sign is proposed at the west of 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 applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the sign on site. One stop sign must be posted on the driveway access to Park Road. GRADING /DRAINAGE The site generally drains to the northeast and north into a wetland located to the north of the site. A small area of the southeast corner drains to Park Road. The proposed grading plan maintains a consistent drainage pattern with the present condition. Slopes along the north and northwest portions of the site appear to be slightly greater than 3:1. This will require special slope stabilization measures such as wood fiber blankets and Type III erosion control. A storm sewer system consisting of two catch basins is proposed to be constructed and connected to an existing trunk storm sewer extending along the northern border of the site. The majority of the site is proposed to be graded. The applicant is proposing to use Type I silt fence or erosion control to the southeast and north portions of the site to minimize erosion. Staff is recommending that Type III erosion control be used. PUBLIC UTILITIES City sewer and water are available on Park Road. Fire hydrants are available on the southerly side of Park Road. The Fire Marshal indicated that those fire hydrants will be sufficient to service the proposed building. 1 II 11 Pope Associates, Inc. September 5, 1990 II Page 6 COMPLIANCE TABLE - IOP DISTRICT II Ordinance Proposed Building Height 4 stories 1 story I Building Setback N -10' E -10' N- 157'E -91' S -30' W -10' S -49' W -114' 1 Parking stalls 12 stalls 15 stalls Parking Setback N -30' E -10' N -61' E -44' II S -N /A W -10' S- W -59' Lot Coverage 70% 49% II Lot Area 1 acre 1.7 acres Variances Required - none I PARK AND TRAIL DEDICATION FEES I 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. It should be noted that a future sidewalk will most II likely be constructed within the north boulevard of Park Drive. The applicant should be advised that no signs or other structures will be permitted within the City right -of -way. 1 METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide 3.953 acres into I two lots. The subject site will have an area of 1.7 acres. The applicant must provide the typical utility easements of 10 feet in front, 5 on the sides and 10 feet to the rear of the site as there I is an existing storm sewer line. The Planning Commission does not have to take action on the subdivision request as it is a metes and bounds subdivision and will be acted on by the City Council. 1 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Staff is proposing the following ordinance amendment that would II allow vehicle testing stations in the IOP District: Amendment to Article XXII, IOP, Industrial Office Park District. Section 20 -812 permitted uses. I 13) Vehicle testing stations authorized to undertake emissions and /or safety monitoring required by the State of Minnesota II provided that: II Associates, Inc. 1 Pope A , September 5, 1990 Page 7 1 a) the operation is under contracted agreement with the State of Minnesota to provide these services; , b) no repairs are performed on the site; and c) no gas or parts are sold on the site. , PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On September 5, 1990, the Planning Commission tabled action on Site ' Plan #90 -9 for a vehicle testing facility and Zoning Ordinance Amendment #90 -10 to allow a vehicle testing station in the IOP, Industrial Office Park District as a permitted use. Staff was asked to further research the matter and to contact cities that had such facilities and find out what their experience has been. We were also instructed to revise the proposed ordinance amendment to ' have vehicle testing stations as conditional rather than permitted use and to also allow for their placeent in the highway business district. The following constitutes staff's efforts at providing additional data to review the request as well as the applicant's attempts to provide more information and propose adjustments to the site plan to accommodate concerns raised by an adjoining property owner. ACTIONS BY OTHER COMMUNITIES Staff contacted several cities which included Skokie, Cicero, 1 Chicago Heights and Wood River, Illinois. All of the cities that were contacted seemed to have one similar theme to them. They have had the stations located in their city anywhere from 3 to 5 years. The first year of opening seemed to be the most troublesome time as people were not used to such facilities nor did they know when to go get their vehicles tested. There was traffic congestion the first year, but it seems that all of the problems were worked out. All of the cities agreed that there is normally not more than 6 cars lined up in a lane and the maximum waiting time at the busiest time has been approximately 15 minutes. The city that had the most problems with the emission station was the City of Cicero. Staff spoke to the Traffic Engineer and the City Clerk. Cicero has a population of 63,000 and has had the station for 5 years. The first year did create some congestion on the streets but bugs were "ironed out ". The second city that had problems during the first year was the Village of Skokie. The Traffic Engineer for the Village of Skokie stated that there was some traffic congestion the first year. He stated that the main problem with that was that the State had mailed out notices to residences in the village to get their vehicles tested. A large number of notices were mailed out which was much more than what the station could handle. The State did officially apologize for that and admitted that it was their fault. The State created a breakdown of the number of vehicles 1 1 Pope Associates, Inc. September 5, 1990 Page 8 within the City and notices are being mailed out accordingly. The testing station in Skokie has been there for 3 years and has a ' population of 60,000. When the station first opened, there was a 45 minute wait in line and today it takes an average of 5 to 6 minutes to get the vehicles tested. The other problem that Skokie ' was facing was that their station opened prior to the other 15 stations within the State of Illinois. This forced the majority of the vehicles to be tested in Skokie and the demand was much higher ' than what the facility could offer and as time passed, other stations opened which reduced the number vehicles being tested at Skokie. Minnesota does not anticipate such a problem as it is one of the state's recommendations that all stations must open on the ' same day or else no station will be permitted to operate. Staff also contacted state officials from Washington, Illinois and Maryland. All state officials from Departments of Ecology, ' Pollution Control and Environmental Services admitted that they had problems with traffic the first year but all of their problems have been ironed out and all the stations are operating efficiently I today. All states and cities agreed that System Controls has been very easy to work with, they move fast to resolve and eliminate problems and are readily available to work with state and city staff to meet demands. The majority of the officials also agreed ' that it takes approximately one year to get used to the facilities, that there were problems during the first year and that there are no problems at the present time. All cities that were contacted ' were asked as to where the facilities were located. The majority of the stations were located in light industrial areas. Attachment #1 shows the location of the stations in Maryland and Illinois. Staff also contacted cities in Minnesota where other facilities are ' being proposed to be located. The following is a list of cities and status of actions taken by each city's respective Planning Commission and City Council. 1 City Action ' White Bear City Council - Approved the site plan as a conditional use permit. ' Oakdale City Council - Approved the site plan as a permitted use. 1 Savage City Council - Approved the site plan as a permitted use. Minneapolis Planning Commission - Approved g PP the site plan as a permitted use. 1 Pope Associates, Inc. September 5, 1990 Page 9 ' Minnetonka Have not held public hearings , Bloomington as of this date. They are Coon Rapids going to them in October. Brooklyn Park Nonetheless, these cities were Roseville contacted and all cities were Eagan certain that they will be approved with no foreseen problems. The only city that has denied the application has been the City of Richfield due to the close location of the station to a residential area and also because the road capacity cannot handle the amount of traffic that would be generated. SIGNAGE /FINDING THE SITE 1 Another issue that was brought up at the Planning Commission was the possibility of people entering buildings within the vicinity asking for directions to the emission control testing site. To avoid this problem, the state will mail out directional maps with the notices. MnDOT will also provide off premise directional signs on their public right -of -way. MAXIMUM VEHICLE SIZE The Planning Commission asked staff to find out what size /type of vehicles are required to be tested. Attachment #2 compares the size of vehicles that need to be tested. If the total gross weight of the vehicle is 8,500 pounds or under, it must be tested. The pictures illustrate that only the smallest trucks will require testing. REVISED ORDINANCE Staff was also asked to develop an ordinance to allow emission control testing stations in the IOP, Industrial Office Park Districts and BH, Highway Business Districts as a conditional use. Conditional use permit standards have been expanded based upon the Planning Commission's direction. Section 20 -293, Conditional Use Permit Standards, is added (amended) to read as follows: 1 1 Pope Associates, Inc. September 5, 1990 Page 10 Emission control testing Stations - Authorized to undertake emissions and /or safety monitoring required by the State of ' Minnesota provided that: a. the operation is under contract agreement with the State ' of Minnesota to provide these services; b. no repairs are performed on the site; ' c. no gas or parts are sold on the site; d. no outdoor storage of vehicles or related materials; ' e. no diesel testing to be allowed at the site; ' 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; g. all vehicle stacking shall be provided on -site in ' designated lanes. Fire lanes, parking areas and other drives shall be prohibited. Section 20 -814. Conditional Uses in the Industrial Office Park District is amended to read: (15) Emission control testing stations. ' Section 20 -714 Conditional Uses in the BH, Highway Business District is amended to read: ' (9) Emission control testing stations. Staff continues to have reservations with the potential of locating emissions testing facilities in the BH district. Fundamentally we believe that the IOP district is the appropriate one to accommodate these uses and this belief has generally been backed up by ' information obtained from other communities. Our findings are further supported by our contention that there are relatively few available sites in the BH district in Chanhassen. These tend to ' have high visibility and are located at major entrances into the central business district. They represent high value commercial sites and we believe it would be inappropriate to in essence lose one of these sites to accommodate the testing station. 1 1 Pope Associates, Inc. 1 September 5, 1990 Page 11 Air Quality and Noise Analysis Based upon discussions with staff, the applicants had their consultant undertake noise and air quality studies of the Chanhassen site to ascertain specific impacts on the adjacent PMT property. The studies are provided in an appendix to this report. The analysis concluded that Minnesota PCA Noise Standards for commercial uses would not be exceeded. Noise analysis relies on a fairly complex set of scientific formulas that need not be explained in detail at this time. However, the state noise standard of 70 dBA will not be exceeded with an expectation that the predicted noise level is 60 dBA. The commission should note that noise is measured on a log rhythmic scale, thus a 10 dBA difference is significantly large. Likewise, an air quality analysis was done for carbon monoxide. The analysis attempts to ascertain a worst case scenario of air quality impacts from the site by projecting long ques of cars waiting to get into the facility. The overall CO concentration at the closest portion of the PMT building is 5.2 ppm which compares with a one hour standard of 30 ppm and the 8 hour standard of 9 ppm. Thus projected levels are well below allowable standards. Traffic Analysis ' An additional traffic study has been done to ascertain the impact of this site on area roads. The applicant will have their transportation consultant at the meeting to respond to questions from the Planning Commission. However, data being submitted indicates that traffic levels on area roadways and contributions to turning movements are quite low given the fact that there are three means of accessing the site. The site can be approached from the west via Audubon Road, the east via County Road 17 and the north via Park Drive from Highway 5. , Site Plan Amendments The applicants are preparing a revised site plan that is designed 1 to afford slight modifications in the interest of improving site screening and buffering for the PMT property to the west. Plans call for shifting the stacking lanes some 5 ft. further to the east to provide additional setback area. This setback area will be used to allow for an expanded berm which along with a dense hedge planting will provide a 5 -7 ft. high screen for the PMT property. 1 Summary Staff continues to support the approval of the vehicle inspection 1 station in the Chanhassen Business Park as requested by the applicant. The additional data we have gathered confirms our belief that the IOP district is the appropriate one for this type 1 1 1 11 Pope Associates, Inc. September 5, 1990 1 Page 12 of use, that it can be accommodated with little or no off -site impact and that concerns raised regarding this use have proven to be largely unfounded based upon the experiences of other communities. We wish to note that the applicants have been extremely cooperative in working with staff to provide additional information to resolve the issues that were raised. Based upon the foregoing, staff is again recommending approval of requests associated with this application. Fortunately when this ' application was initially reviewed, staff anticipated that it might be required to come in as a conditional use permit and was accordingly published as such in the official newspaper. Thus the city is in a position to act on the CUP, the site plan, and the 11 ordinance amendment. At this time, staff has not yet received an application for subdividing the parcel. There is no requirement that the property be subdivided since at this time the site is one ' large lot. However, we do believe it is the current owner's desire to split the property in two so that an office building can be built on the future lot created to the east. Staff expects to see 1 a subdivision request processed as a follow up to this action in the near future. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE and Changes in Proposal Since October 3, ' 1990 On October 3, 1990, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal 1 and approved the site plan with a vote of 4 to 1. Commissioner Wildermuth was opposed. The same evening the Planning Commission reviewed the amendment to the zoning ordinance to amend Seection 20 -714 and 20 -814 to allow vehicle testing stations as conditional uses in the IOP and BH Districts. The zoning ordinance amendment was recommended for approval with a vote of 3 to 2. Commissioners Wildermuth and Erhart were opposed. Several Planning Commissioners ' indicated a belief that an emission control station would be more suitable in a BH District versus the IOP District. 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: I. SITE PLAN REVIEW ' "The City Council approves Site Plan Review #90 -9 as shown on the site plan dated August 10, 1990, subject to the following conditions: 1 1. The applicant must provide roof top equipment screening for approval by staff. Screening must be of materials compatible with the building. 1 1 Pope Associates, Inc. September 5, 1990 Page 13 1 2. The applicant must submit revised screening for the masonry trash enclosure compatible with the building exterior and additional landscaping around the proposed dumpsters. 3. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. 1 4. The applicant must revise the landscaping plans as recommended in the report to provide improved screening. Provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. 5. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District. 6. Type III erosion control shall be used along Park Road and added to the north and east portion of the site. Slopes steeper than 3:1 will require wood fiber blankets and Type III erosion control. The applicant's engineer shall submit 10 year storm flow calculations for the site. This may regulate the location of the connection to the existing storm sewer facility. 7. A concrete industrial driveway apron with a minimum radius cut of 20 feet shall be constructed at the entrance off of Park Road. 8. Revise the plans to provide an additional 5 foot setback on the west property line while extending the berm and landscaping to the north. II. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT "The City Council approves Zoning Ordinance Amendment allowing vehicle testing stations as conditional uses in the IOP and BH Districts." III. WITHDRAWAL OF ORIGINALLY APPROVED SITE PLAN "The City Council recommends the withdrawal of approval of Site Plan No. 89 -8 for the Rome Office building, concurrently with the approval of Site Plan No. 90 -9. The applicant should file the notice of withdrawal against the property at Carver County." IV. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT , "The City Council approves the conditional use permit for the vehicle testing station subject to the following conditions: 1 1 11 Pope Associates, Inc. September 5, 1990 Page 14 1. Compliance with conditions of Site Plan #90 -9. 1 2. Emission control testing Stations - Authorized to undertake emissions and /or safety monitoring required by the State of Minnesota provided that: a. the operation is under contract agreement with the State of Minnesota to provide these services; ' b. no repairs are performed on the site; 11 c. no gas or parts are sold on the site; d. no outdoor storage of vehicles or related materials; ' e. no diesel testing to be allowed at the site; 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; g. all vehicle stacking shall be provided on -site in designated lanes. Fire lanes, parking areas and other drives shall be prohibited." V. SUBDIVISION "The City Council approves Subdivision Request for a metes and bounds subdivision with the following conditions: ' 1. The applicant shall provide the typical utility easements of 10 feet in front, 5 feet on the sides and 10 feet to the rear of the site as there is an existing storm sewer line. 2. The westerly lot shall have one driveway access of of Park Road. The easterly lot shall only be permiotted a driveway access off of Park Place. This condition shall be recorded in the chain -of -title for the site." 1 1 .5 e 1 1 ATTACHMENTS EMISSION CONTROL VEHICLE INSPECTION STATION 1 IOP SITE, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 5TH ADDITION 1. Planning Commission Minutes dated September 5, 1990 and Staff Report: 2. Planning Commission Minutes dated October 3, 1990 and Staff Report. 1 3. Recommended Zoning Ordinance Amendment. 4. Systems Control Operation Overview. 1 5. Site Plan and Final Plat Dated August 9, 1990. 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 5, 1990 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, ' Brian Batzli and Joan Ahrens MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Wildermuth 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 OF POPE ASSOCIATES, PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF PARK ROAD AND PARK PLACE: A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AND CREATE STANDARDS FOR A VEHICLE INSPECTION STATION; B. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 3, BLOCK 1� CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 5TH ADDITION INTO TWO LOTS; ' C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 4,042 SQUARE FOOT VEHICLE INSPECTION STATION. Public Present: Name Address Barb & Russ Murphy 6451 -59 Park Road ' Roman Roos 10341 Heidi Lane Ned V. Rukavina 5275 Edina Industrial Blvd. Dennis Palmer 5275 Edina Industrial Blvd. ' Jerry Perkins 1360 Energy Park Drive Stanley, J. Krzywicki 5275 Edina Industrial Blvd. David Braslau 1313 5th St. S.E., Suite 322, Mpls., 55404 ' Al Iverson 1500 Park Road James Fischer 1500 Park Road Richard Andreasen 1500 Park Road ' Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Dennis Palmer: I have a brief slide presentation if I may. My name is Dennis Palmer. I'm the general manager for System Control and I'm here tonight with Stan Krzywicki our manager for the project. Systems Control is...clean air company. We're proud of our reputation. Our presentation ' tonight is to the community of Chanhassen and we're asking tonight for permission to locate one of our vehicle testing facilities in the community. First I'd like t46 give a little background if I can. The State ' of Minnesota exceeds the federal requirements for carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide is a hazardous pollutant with long term exposure that could be harmful to people. It's been determined by the federal government that ' carbon monoxide is mainly produced from automobiles. So in an effort to improve local air quality, the State of Minnesota is adopting a vehicle inspection program. The program is designed to identify vehicles that are 1 Planning Commission Meeting , September 5, 1990 - Page 2 the gross polluters. As I said, it's goal is to improve the air quality. Systems Control has designed a fast automated test. The test involves jus light duty vehicles. Diesels, trucks, heavy duty trucks, tractor trailers heavy duty buses, motorcycles will not be involved in this program. Just automobiles and light duty vehicles. The stations are operated by Systems Control. Systems Control is a Minnesota Corporation, private corporation. II We do pay taxes. We're not tax exempt. It's administered by the MPCA, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. They're the agency that Systems Control has their contract with. With over 20 years experience, Systems II Control has become the industry leader in this business. This is our only business. We test cars. We don't repair cars. We don't sell cars. We test cars. It's our only business. We operate similar programs in California, in Alaska, in the State of Washington, in Illinois and in Maryland. We're starting a program for the State of Florida and of course the program here in Minnesota. We're proud of the contribution we've made to these communities. In Maryland alone, their program which is similar 1 this program in design is credited for cleaning up or reducing carbon monoxide by 209 tons a single day. This is a facility in Maryland. This station is 7 years old. We started our program there in 1984. We take a II lot of pride in construction. In the maintenance and .he landscaping of our facilities. We have clean facilities. I started in this program in 1983. I started with SC in 1983 as a station manager for this program. A Sharmin said, a vehicle inspection station is not listed as a use because it's new so if I could take a minute and explain some of the comparisons t some common uses that we're familiar with. It's a service business. We just test vehicles. We're a service business. Now this facility located II in Chanhassen will, their traffic flow will be somewhere between 1/3 and a 1/2 of the average sized McDonald's in a single day. It's similar -to an auto hank where you drive through. You stop for 2 minutes and you drive on. It strictly drive thru. Most facilities are built larger than they 11 need to be to assure that there's no back ups in traffic. We're not like gas stations because we do no repairs. There's no repairs at this facility. It's strictly testing. T here's no underground tanks. No problems with disposing of oil from crank cases. It's strictly testing. It's a house of computers. This is the network design for the State of Minnesota. One of the requirements or one of the criteria we use when we II locate a facility is convenience. Most people will not have to drive greater than 5 miles to a facility on an average. That's our goal when we locate a facility. This is an aerial photograph of the Chanhassen site. North is to your left. The lower portion of the photograph is Audubon Roa and the site is located, I'm afraid the arrow is kind of dark but it's located in the lower right hand quadrant of the photograph. This is a street map location. The location is an Park Road. This is an artist rendering of our facility. This is a generic drawing. The facility located here is 3 lanes. The facilities are brick construction and fully landscaped. Here's a landscaping plan Sharmin had shown at the entrances d on Park Road. Again it's strictly drive thru. There's 3 lanes. The fron part and half of the left hand side is bermed. Again, an elevation of the facility. Three lanes. The section without the garage doors are the managerial section. There's a manager on this site. This is a picture oil our operation again in Maryland. One of our rather larger facilities. Again, it's strictly testing. Exclusively testing. We do no repairs. The motorist simply pulls in without appointment. Pulls into the bay. Is greeted by an inspector. The inspector puts in the driver's license plate Information is called up and in 2 minutes, less than 2 minutes actually, Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 1990 - Page 3 II ! the test on average is completed.. These facilities are basically houses of computers. That's all that exist in these facilities. Computers and ' paper. Approximately 10% of the folks will have to use our information office. Most people though will pull in, receive their inspection results and pull out. A little bit about our operations. Again, it's drive thru ' testing. The average test time is less than 2 minutes. We do recruit locally. This facility will employ approximately 10 to 15 people. Our operating hours are Tuesday thru Saturday. We're not open Monday and we're ' not open on Sunday. Tuesdays and Thursdays we close by 7:00 p.m. and on Wednesdays and Fridays we close at 5:30 p.m.. And on Saturdays our hours are from 8:00 to 2:00. Also before we select a site we consider the impact on communities. We've employed Dr. David Braslau. Contracted with Dr. ' David Braslau, a local environmental impact engineer, to perform air quality and traffic studies and all these studies have to be favorable before we select the site. In this case again they're all favorable. With ' respect to noise, noise also is favorable. A little comment. One of our facilities in Maryland, after the operation the stations in no way effect negatively the local area development. We've got doctor's offices, retail outlets, even a nursing home had been built after the operation. The folks from the nursing home are always over having coffee and complimenting our manager on how clean and neat the facility is so we are good neighbors. We're confident that we can do good here and help improve the air quality. ' The federal EPA says that we can, they expect in the first year operation to reduce emissions by 36,000 tons and by 1995, 136,000 tons in a year. We are good neighbors and we hope that you accept your staff's recommendation. 't Thank you. Conrad: Thanks for your report. Okay, we'll open it up for other.-public comments. Are there any? Richard Andreasen: I'm Richard Andreasen. I'm the facilities manager at the PMT Corporation. I'd like to state in the past I've noticed the City of Chanhassen has had a great concern with new projects and how it affects others and how it fit into the community. I believe with the increased amount of traffic, exhaust fumes, noise, that the inspection station does ' not fit into the Chanhassen Lake Industrial Park. 'I believe we should leave the Chanhassen Lake Industrial Park an industrial park. Thank you. James Fischer: - My name is James Fischer and I'm representing on behalf of ' the employees of PMT Corporation. I have spoke with several PMT employees and we feel that the inspection station would be a demoralization of some of the people with, well the employees. We go outside on break. It's ' quiet. There's no cars. The air smells nice and now there's not going to be that if this goes through. There's going to be noise. There's going to be the smell of car exhaust. I know the smell. I lived in California for 4 years while serving in the military. I had to have my car inspected every year. I know what it's like to sit in line and wait and wait. 4 or 5 cars deep. I don't believe that. I've seen it and I've been in 20 plus cars deep waiting for an inspection on my vehicle. It's going to smell. ' The employees aren't going to be going on their walks on lunch. They just won't like it and they don't. Thank you very much. Batzli: When you were waiting 20 in line deep, was that just a safety check or just an emissions check? Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 1990 - Page 4 James Fischer: Just emissions. To get a certificate. Conrad: Thank you. Other comments? Russ Murphy: I'm Russ Murphy. I own Murphy Machine Company across the II street from the proposed site and somebody had mentioned the noon walks. There's a lot of people walking on Park Avenue and it's becoming a race track. I bought the first lot out there and I've watched each building go' up and half the traffic going through McDonald's is probably 10 times the traffic we have right now. I don't think it would fit in very well. Than you. Conrad: Thanks for your comments. Other comments? Anything else? Al Iverson: My name is Al Iverson. I'm President of the PMT Corporation.' I've listened to a pretty heart warming presentation. We're all interested in the environment and air pollution. I have a responsibility to my employees as well and we came out to Chanhassen Industrial Office Park bac" - in 1986 and we were told it would be an industrial office park and we manufacture medical surgical products. We have clean rooms. We cater to our employees. We're putting up a new building. By the way I was never II told about this presentation. I'm putting 1.4 million dollars into a two story building. It will have, it's built for the employees. There's an exercise room. We have an additional 10,000 square foot clean room. We are and we've been working with Paul and his staff and we feel that they'v really been concerned about the industrial office park but this is not fitting. You have to rezone to put it in there. This is not going to be conducive to an industrial office park. This will not be conducive to future developments. I'm anticipating as Paul knows, two other buildings.II Our company is growing very rapidly. We have over 100 employees. We ell want to take the pollutants out of the air but this isn't the location for it. Drive into there. See how difficult it is to, we have people having rough time finding it and they're going to be knocking on our door, bang into our areas. I have employees who walk down the street. They enjoy it' They take their breaks and so forth and we like the Chanhassen Lakes Industrial Park. I have 10 acres there. We're putting in clean buildings. We're listening to the city. We're working with the city. This isn't conducive to what's going on and I take grave exception to the fact that number one, we weren't told about it. I have a project that's now 2 month old. I have 2 1/2 more months into that project. I feel very offended that I wasn't, we were never notified about this. There are other sites. There's a lot of land around there. Right off TH 5. This good gentleman mentioned McDonald's. That's right off TH 5. Put it where•McDonald's is. Somewhere close by. There's plenty of land. Not in the industrial office park. Please. I have a lot of good employees. I want to entice good ' quality people to come into our company. This isn't going to do it. My construction consultant Mr. Dick Hellstrom wrote a list of things that would happen. He's 23 years, Mr. Dick Hellstrom's been working 23 years building buildings for Control Data Corporation. I suspect he's got probably the best reputation in the Twin Cities. He indicated that he would see that property values would fall. Those beautiful pictures up there did not show anything about the surrounding area. I was a resident of Florida for 4 years. The inspection stations were a mess. I think we should really seriously go visit some of these areas number one. Number two, the traffic. The traffic for my employees is just going to be , • II Planning Commission Meeting ' September 5, 1990 - Page 5 ' ridiculous. Come on. Let's put it out on TH 5 someplace. There's a lot of lots out there. Plenty of land. This is ridiculous. It will negatively impact future development of your property to the north. The two buildings we're anticipating. The office buildings. Traffic through ' the area will be greatly increased. Air pollution in the area will be greatly impacted. Cars are the greatest contributors to air pollution in this area. Hey we're trying to clean up these cars but does that mean that our company and our employees and everybody else has to suffer? Let's get it close to the highway. I mean gee whiz. What are we doing to all these people in an industrial office park where we came to have a manufacturing facility and we treat our people well. The area will be much noisier than ' it is at the present. There is no doubt. My office customer service manager, Sue Crankee has told me that she's very concerned about the number of people presently who confusingly walk into our offices and ask where are ' they. I can imagine a whole lot more people doing that. We are a good neighbor here. We're a good manufacturer. We're a clean manufacturer. We manufacture clean, quality products. I don't think we need this. Property values will be negatively impacted. Top quality firms and individuals that ' might have been interested in locating or buying in this area will be debtered with the emissions facility in the area in this place. It will be more difficult to sell properties that are directly adjacent or rent ' properties that are directly adjacent to this special use facility. Special use facility. This is not part of the industrial office park complex. The proposed uses not compatible with existing zoning and planned II development for the area. Planned development. We came in here. We've been working with Paul Krauss. I mean I don't care if it's a space station. You can't really plan ahead for things like this. I'm sure you can say well it didn't exist before this. Hey, this is an industrial ' office park complex and I think we owe something to our employees and this is where we have to stand pat. This is not conducive to our business. For anybody. I mean manufacturing is a carreer. We go to great strives as a ' listings of the FDA and GMP and we're a good neighbor. You know in 11 years we've never been sued in the medical business. Think about it. In a letituous society. We go to great strides to keep up and with what is ' necessary to be a good manufacturer. This is, we're manufacturers and we're office parks out there and this is not conducive for what we're doing. Possibility exists for owners site to be used as unauthorized parking or dumping. People will just come through. You haven't seen these inspection sites. And the traffic alone is just not conducive to my employees. I am really shocked that we were not notified about this and I will go to great strides to just say hey, this isn't fair. I've really ' stood behind Paul Krauss and the Planning Commission for a long time and we've listened to them. We've bent over backwards. We've made changes to planning to make our facilities fit and I feel really somewhat personally ' assaulted here because we've listened. We've bargained. We've communicated. We've, I shouldn't say bargain but compromised. I mean the world's a compromise but this isn't conducive to what we came to the Chanhassen Lakes Industrial Park for and that's to have a clean environment ' for our employees to work and this is not going to fly. Period. I thank you for your time. We have a growth company. We have over 100 employees now. We're doubling annually and I hope you understand we want to be a ' good neighbof but this isn't right. Conrad: Thanks for your comments. Other comments? Anything else? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? 11 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 1990 - Page 6 Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Just a quick comment before we open it up for Planning Commission" comments. What is the projected traffic count per day? Dennis Palmer: We average approximately 400 vehicles. ' Conrad: And does that grow over a time period? Dennis Palmer: That 400 vehicles is our...and that 400 vehicles is the estimate for... Yes it does grow so the first couple years... Conrad: So maximum capacity is 400? ' Dennis Palmer: No, that's not the capacity. The capacity is approximately 250 per... Al Iverson: Is that 1,000 cars? Dennis Palmer: That's the capacity, yes sir. Al Iverson: So you've designed it for 1,000 automobiles a day? Dennis Palmer: That's to assure that there are no log jams. People will come in every 2 minutes for their test. Conrad: Joan, we'll start at your end. Any comments? Ahrens: How was Chanhassen chosen for this? It seems to me that it would" be more logical to locate a center like this in an area that was more easily accessed by highways and maybe like closer to Eden Prairie Center or something like that. I know there was an extensive study where it was mentioned in the staff report where it was determined that the 11 sites were going to be located strategically in places around the Twin Cities but this doesn't seem like a real great site to me. Dennis Palmer: Well we typically locate in industrial parks and I recognize the concern of the neighbors. I hear it all the time. I don't know how to prove to the commission that that's not the way it is. Traffill and air pollution. It is a quiet facility. It is clean. We locate convenient to large population areas. Cars exist in this area. That's why a station is located in this area. It's not intended to draw cars from other areas into a community. We are near TH 5 but we avoid major highway" to assure there are no traffic problems. Ahrens: We don't have a lot of people out there. I mean we will be II drawing a lot of people into this area but locating. If this facility is located in Chanhassen, it will be drawing a lot of people to this area. We already have problems with TH 5. Big problems and so that may be contrary to what your intent is. The result may be contrary to what your intent is., Dennis Palmer: We use the Metropolitan Council's TAZ counts which is traffic zones to locate where pockets of population, people exist. They 1 Planning Commission Meeting 11 September 5, 1990 - Page 7 ' fed into a computer and the State's requirement is that we locate facilities where 90% of the people have to drive no more than 5 miles. Our goal is 100% and that is to service the folks to the west as well as to the immediate east of the area. There are facilities located north of this facility and also east that will draw about midpoint. Ahrens: Where will they be located? Dennis Palmer: Minnetonka, Savage and in the Bloomington /Richfield area. Ahrens: Where's the Minnetonka location? Dennis Palmer: I don't know exactly.. Stan could help you. Stan Krzywicki: It's right off of Hedberg Park which is right off of...Hopkins border. Off of 169. Probably the nearest crossroad would be Excelsior. 1 Ahrens: What kind of area is that? I can't picture where that is. Stan Krzywicki: Cedar Lake Road. Krauss: It's a major intersection. There's residential development. High density residential development to the north and east. There's an industrial park to the south. There's a nice residential area in Hopkins across Minnehaha Creek further to the south. To the west is an operating gravel quarry. 1 Ahrens: Is that down by 169 and Excelsior Blvd.? 1 Krauss: No it's old, that's Hopkins Crossroads and Cedar Lake Road. Ahrens: Okay. You know I've been through these before too. I lived in Illinois and my experience with them was terrible. I mean there were ' long waits. There were always lots of cars and frustrated drivers because they did have to wait so long and that's from what I've heard from some of the other people tonight, have experienced the same thing and I wasn't sure if that had just happened in Illinois but it sounds like that happens all over the place with these sites. This looks very small to me. You have 14 parking spots -here. You're going to have 7 employees and 1O% of the people ' who use this facility will be parking to use the information center right? Dennis Palmer: That's an estimate, yes ma'am. They stop in. 5 minue visits and they leave. Most people will drive through. Ahrens: What happens when, I think the parking, I mean I haven't seen any of the studies of which this report refers so I don't have any information ' about that but it looks too small to me. Considering what my experience has been in the past, there's never been enough room. They're always over crowded and there's always long lines of cars. '{ Dennis Palmer: I can't speak for your experiences. I'm sure that that happened. These facilities, like I said, are built to accommodate 2 or more times the number of vehicles anticipated on an average. We meet the Codes with respect to parking and to the State's guidelines. 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 1990 - Page 8 Stan Krzywicki: As far as the parking is concerned, typically what we'd have, the 3 bay staff with 1 person being a manager so you really only hav 4 staff people at a time. The 10 people that we had talked about, because we're running 12 hour days, 7 and 7 on 2 days, we actually have part time 1 people working at the stations so our staffing level is 10. The people that work in the lanes will be part time people. Ahrens: Are those projects based on the number of cars you anticipate II going through if it started up tomorrow? Not on 400 cars or more. Then you'd have to have more employees right? Stan Krzywicki: No. No, that's not correct. What we'd actually do is, I well you're right. There is a mode of testing which makes the testing faster which is a tube position test so that staff would...6 people plus 1 ' station manager. Ahrens: So you could have 7 employees. Stan Krzywicki: And that would be the maximum. Ahrens: Then you'd have 400 perhaps, approximately 400 cars going through!' a day? Stan Krzywicki: The 400 cars is the absolute peak. Normally, as you recall in Illinois, there were certain days that you could go in and you ' could just breeze through. There are 3 weeks. Ahrens: I don't know when that was. ' Stan Krzywicki: There are 3 weeks during the month that are like that. The last week is when we have, when we test most of our vehicles. Ahrens: I don't know about that but if you have 7 employees and you have 400 cars, let's say 400 cars going through a day and I'm focusing on that number because that's what you anticipate in a few years. Right? ' Dennis Palmer: Yes Ma'am. Ahrens: And if 10% of those people are parking their cars, go into the information center, that's 40 vehicles over a 12 hour period. Is that it? Dennis Palmer: That's less than 4 an hour, yes ma'am. ' Ahrens: Less than 4 an hour. I don't know. I just don't, the parking seems, I have a real problem with that. It doesn't seem big enough and II what happens if you need to expand? Can you expand in this? I mean can you expand the parking? Dennis Palmer: I don't see the need to expand either lanes or parking, but' yes we can. Yes ma'am, we can. Ahrens: I'm still thinking about this. Why don't you move on. 1 Conrad: Brian? 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 1990 - Page 9 c ' Batzli: While we have the applicant up here, I might as well ask those questions first. How long is your contract with the State? Dennis Palmer: 7 years. The program starts in 1991 and expires in 1998. 1 Batzli: Have you ever conducted a study on the environmental impact of the location of one of your test facilities? Dennis Palmer: Yes. Actually we've done studies on what this facility, the impact this facility will have to the community in terms of ' environment. We've done studies on existing facilities in our other states. In Baltimore for example, OSHA is very concerned with the pollution levels of the actual inspectors in the facility and they place monitors on the inspectors to determine whether .or not there's a health ' hazard. Their conclusion was that it's more dangerous to walk down the streets of downtown Baltimore than it is to work in the inspection facility. Now this wasn't their official conclusion but there was no ' harmful effect. I mean that was a comment. I mean that wasn't written but I mean I'm trying to explain how little impact it really is and I don't know how to. 1 Batzli: I think any congregation of traffic is going to concentrate the air pollution in that area so that although it may be within certain guidelines, it will increase it in that given area and that's the concern 1 of the people here. . Dennis Palmer: Dr. Braslau is with us this evening. He's done a 'study on ' what that hour concentration would be. If you'd like to address that question with him, I'm sure he'd be happy to. Batzli: Do you guys want it addressed? 1 Conrad: You're in charge. It's your question. 1 Batzli: Yeah, I would like to hear it addressed. Dennis Palmer: Okay. Dr. David Braslau: My name is Dr. David Breslau. I'm President of David Braslau Associates, Minneapolis. My address is, company address is 1313 5th Street S.E. in the old Marshall U High School. I prepared a report 1 which is entitled Carbon Monoxide Analysis of 5 Vehicle Inspection Sites in the Twin Cities Metro Area for System Control Inc. dated August, 1990 and in the report I looked at 5 of the sites which are being proposed including ' the Chanhassen site. What we look at is carbon monoxide. The Pollution Control Agency since the testing site is intended to reduce carbon monoxide emissions, they are very interested in knowing whether or not the location of the site itself will cause problems with carbon monoxide concentrations. 1 Carbon monoxide is a gas which is prolematical only in high concentrations. It's very localized and it is easily dispersed so that the primary intent of the vehicle inspection is to reduce overall emissions of carbon monoxide 1 so that a hot spot such as 7th and Hennepin, Lake and Hennepin, Snelling and University which are the spots where the standards have been exceeded in the past, that if the inspection stations...overall emissions by 20%, that will then bring the levels at these sites down below the standard. • 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 1990 - Page 10 The standard is 9 parts per million over an 8 hour period. The standard i intended to insure that people, including infirm people are not adversely impacted by carbon monoxide. We assume that for the carbon monoxide analysis at the site, we assume that there would be a capacity of 80 cars an hour going through the, this is the expected, actually the capacity of is 105. That is absolute maximum capacity but the normal expected maximum level that would be ,going through this site in the last 5 days of the month when people have to, in other words people will procrastinate for the firs 3 weeks and then in the last 5 days they feel 'they have to go in and so that's when there's a push to have their vehicles inspected. And so we looked at 81 cars per hour. We projected the 8 hour levels to be less tha 2 parts per million at receptive sites that were about 10 meters away from the roadway and that was about 30 feet. So anybody that's further away is going to have a lower concentration. We're assuming a fairly stable atmospheric conditions. We're assuming 1 meter per second wind which I really doesn't disperse the pollutants very much. So that we really did not, at this particular site, project any significant concentrations of carbon monoxide. I should point out that carbon monoxide is not a, it's 1 strictly a gas. The gas is pollutant. It's not a dirty pollutant like diesel exhaust are like particulates that come out so the projected levels were actually quite low. The highest levels that we projected for any sit was at a 4 or 5 lane site where because of the background level that we ha to assume, the PCA requires that we assume a certain background level to add onto the roadway concentration and the roadway concentration generally is on the order of 1 1/2 to 2 parts per million. The background level tha we estimated is about 1 part per million so we're talking about at the mos 3 parts per million in the area which is about 1/3 of an 8 hour standard. Now I don't know, I'd be happy to answer some specific questions on this but we don't, at any of the sites, project that the levels will be above the standards. In fact in Chanhassen we're looking at, because we only have 3 lanes, we're looking at about 30% of the 8 hour standard even with the worse case traffic. Thank you. Batzli: Paul, could you explain to me why this type of a use should be a permitted use in an IOP area? ' Krauss: We looked at this from several different viewpoints. First of all we note that this is a State program. They're under a State contract. There's only one of these. It's almost a quasi - public utility for, if you ll want to view it that way. Rightly or wrongly they've selected Chanhassen as a receptor site based on their analysis and we looked at where else this could go in the community and decided that a TH 5 location was not optimal" hat we would rather keep that traffic on a roadway that was designed for it which Park Drive was and hopefully in an area where it could fit in visually and we think that this was designed to do that. We note that there are some fairly unusual uses that could go in that area. For example" truck transfer terminal is allowable by conditional use permit and in fact we did have a terminal developer who was looking to develop the site just north of there last fall. We tried to discourage that and in fact did so II but that is allowable under conditional use and that is of course much heavier traffic with diesel trucks. We're proposing that this thing be located in an area that we think is suitable for it. We think it was designed appropriately. As a State operated facility .and the ordinance change is worded so that this only applies to State contracted facilities. It's a one off type of project. It's basically a somewhat tough one to 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 1990 - Page 11 ' locate. We felt that this proposal though was reasonable given the guidelines that have been established. One of the concerns we had was what happens to this site if 8 years hence this contractor loses the contract ' and somebody else gets the bid. I believe there were two people bidding on the contract originally. The way we've worded the ordinance is if that happens, it's their problem. That investment may well be lost because the only thing that is allowable in that building is a State contracted vehicle 1 testing facility. 5o we tried to cover our bases in that regard too. So again I guess all things being considered, we felt it was a fairly reasonable site. It could be, well we had approved the Rome office ' building which was approved on the corner. Has not been built to date. This site was originally conceptually approved or reviewed at any rate for a 17,000 square foot office building which this would replace and we felt that the Rome site plan could be modified to accommodate it. ' Batzli: Has he agreed to withdraw the site plan? Krauss: He has in conversations with us and I believe he's here tonight 1 and can address that specifically. Conracd: . Do you want to speak Roman? Roman Roos: This site plan review process, staff did advise me of that last wee and in view of what we're trying to get accomplished, I have 1 accepted and told staff that we would go ahead and resubmit a smaller building on that particular site. There's about 2.25 acres left. I have a user in rr,ind and we are in the process of redrawing the site plan itself ' and the parking for same. I have heard a lot of conversation this evening and I guess I feel both sides of it because I'm also in the park. I think, and I have to go back quite a ways. I started working with Systems Control before Chanhassen was even selected as a site and I had the opportunity to look at quite a few of the different projects that they have now accomplished throughout the United States and I guess if we could have told the future as to what is going to be required in the State of Minnesota, or 1 in this case in Chanhassen, we might have been able to address that issue. But when I look at the facilities they've done to date, and I'm talking about the architectural styles, I have to say that in the Chanhassen area 1 right now, knowing how staff and Council feel about TH 5, the corridor, and looking at the transportation system. Looking at the traffic control if you will on CR 17. Stop light controlled intersection there and I'm sure all of this is coming out in Dr. Braslau's report, and it is my site. That ' is true. I'm very concerned about what I put next door to that particular facility. I think if it's done in the context that I've been led to believe over the last 6 months, that,you can make it a very desireable site 1 for another type of office building. It has to be controlled. That is the Planning Commission's responsibility. Their charge if you will to City Hall, to Council, and I think with the proper controls from staff, I think this can be done. It's not, as far as PMT and Murphy Machine across the street and my building which is right behind it, yes I had concern. I've thought a lot about that. There's just not the economics on it. As I said, I have a 2.25 acre parcel left next to it. Believe me I'm vilely concerned about that but I think it will work if it's held in the geise and the different views that I've seen in the other states that System Control has accomplished in the past. I'm open for any questions you might have. And yes I did ask for a resubmittal. 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 1990 - Page 12 1 Batzli: Do you want me to comment on the amendment to the zoning ordinance? Conrad: Sure. Batzli: If we get that far I think we should broaden the paragraph (c). N gas or other flammable or parts are sold or stored on the site. I'd also like to take a look at making it potentially a conditional use rather than a permitted use. If we think that they should belong in the IOP, I guess III looking at what IOP is supposed to be, I don't really view something that generates a lot of traffic as something that should belong in there. Whether it's 400 cars a day or 800 cars a day. I was actually surprised till see as a conditional use the truck transfer use as a conditional use. Conrad: Annette. 1 Ellson: Let's see. 1 don't mind having Chanhassen be the site for a testing facility and I really doubt with so many drive up and things all around that it's going to be really a pollutant to neighbors and things like that. I'm concerned about a couple things. One, this thing could be temporary. 7 -8 years you know. What do they do with them? I mean do you have a history of ever closing one and what do they turn into? 1 Dennis Palmer: We don't... Ellson: And what sorts of things? Do they become drive - banks or what II kind of things do they do? Dennis Palmer: Generally, I think that this program and I'd ask Stan...I II think the State does have the option to manage it themselves. Ellson: So changes are it pretty much would stay? 1 Dennis Palmer: Like I say, the building is mostly computers. Without those computers, the value of the building is minimal. ' Ellson: But you know it is a brick construction. Fairly substantial and yet there is a potential of it being temporary as far as having the contract renewed or whatever and I see the nice Chanhassen saying well let's work a way of making this building work for something else someday later down the road and I was wondering if it'd never had been done before. What it could possibly become and it 'really seems like we should be lookinil at it short range as well as long range. When I look at it short range I think it might not even be this in 9 years. Then what could it potentially be or have them ever become is one of my concerns. Krauss: Well I did discuss that with the applicants on occasion because I had the same concern when I found out the duration of the contract. But you know it's clear to me as a staff person interpretting the ordinance, II the only thing it can become is what's permitted or conditional in the ordinance. It can't become a Hardee's or a gas station because we don't allow those things in there. If there is an economic loss to be absorbed because the building is unbuyable as anything else, that's the developer's II problem. 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 1990 - Page 13 Ellson: Okay, and then the long range concern I would have is the traffic and I'm not convinced as to why you chose this location out of convenience . yet you don't want it in a location that we normally have convenience type of facilities. Both Paul as well as the applicant talked about that. You didn't want the same kind of place that we'd have with convenience center or a Hardee's or something like that which are built, as far as traffic for quick in and out yet this one is going to be a quick in and out just like a convenience store or just like a drive up bank so why aren't we thinking of ' putting it•where those other kinds of places would be? Can you shed some light on that? Krauss: Yeah. You know I also work with the HRA and those other sites are typically in our central business district. Our central business district has a precious little supply of land. Recently we discussed the ' possibility of a Hardee's behind the Amoco station and there was a great deal of concern as to whether or not that was an appropriate site for a high volume use. Arguably, squandering a few suitable high volume sites you have for a vehicle testing station which offers services once a year to ' people in the community instead of once a week as a fast food restaurant might do, might be a waste of that site. I would have concerns locating it next to McDonald's for that reason or in the Market Square shopping center 1 for that reason. Possibly those sites are suitable elsewhere. I would think that the city would be best served though by protecting those sites. Ellson: Yeah, I can understand the standpoint from our resources but if II • resources aside, I guess I'm thinking there are a lot more logical places of quick in and out that people could potentially see from a major road and...testing ground or whatever. I'm taking it from the fact that they're testing year round right? You don't just have seasons of testing. Dennis Palmer: There's a 10 month testing period. I understand that most vehicles are not registered in January or February. If you buy a new car it's registered in those months but then they'll assign you a sticker for another month. The...you need the inspection facility to run the test. Given that, there would be very little traffic thru January and February. The facility is based on operation of 10 months but it will be open 12. Ellson: I don't think it's as convenient in that IOP. I guess I could see it more in a business fringe or something like that or like I said, more of a convenience center type location. And I guess I can't prejudice it by knowing that there's only like 7 sites left and I'm probably sure it's a lot more expensive for an applicant to go into a place there than it is here but I don't think 95% of the people are going to be going there are going to know that it's easy to get to. SO I guess I don't see it in the IOP. Conrad: Steve. Emmings: I think we finally found something that belongs in business fringe. No, I don't mean that. Let's see. As far as where this might go in our community, when you look at what the IOP is, this doesn't quite seem to fit in a way. And yet on the other hand, I can't imagine where else it would go. i don't think it belongs in a commercial area in the central business district or anything like that but I guess I've come around to thinking that maybe the IOP is the right place for it if it's going to go 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 1990 - Page 14 somewhere. I've got a few questions here. Tell me that this is a mistake • on page 3 where it says that the rooftop equipment extends 33 feet above II the roof. Krauss: Inches. ' Emmings: That makes me happy. Tell me too, it says the Planning Commission does not have to take action on the subdivision request as it i a metes and bounds subdivision. It will be acted on by the City Council. Maybe I was just unaware of that. Is that the way we've always done those. Krauss: Yes. It's a little bit unusual procedure but that's the way we'vl done it. Emmings: Okay, so if we're going into lots and blocks, if the subdivision" into lots and blocks or something, we do it. Kraus:: You'll have to do preliminary plat. Emmings: Fine. On the elevations it shows .there are'3 garage doors and one of then hicher than the other two. Why is that? Dennis Palmer: That's to accommodate oversized vehicles. Emmings: Then I'm not clear on what, it was sort of my understanding that we're having mostly cars in here and pick -up trucks. Dennis Palmer: It's vehicles under 8,500 gross vehicle weight. There will be soma. vehicles with refrigeration, air conditioners or something on top that can't fit in the 10 foot door. Glass trucks. We always had one lane that wG: . . . Batzli: So for instance there are step vans and construction boxed trucks" thincs like that are going to be running through here as well? Dennis Palmer: If they're under 8,500 gross vehicle weight and they're gall powered. Emmings: When I read this I didn't have any strong feelings about it but 11 guess the thing that's bothering me right now is primarily the comments we've heard that people that have had experience with these stations in other places have said that traffic tends to back up and cars sit for long period of time and that bothers me a lot I guess. If I could be satisfied that didn't happen, I think I'd support the plan and frankly I think it's important enough that it ought to be tabled and we ought to find out what the experience has been in other places or else that ought to be found out" between us and the City Council or something because a lot of cars backed up there are sitting for very•long. I mean if cars are coming in and getting out in 2 minutes, I'm not too much bothered by it really. But if they're sitting there backed up, then I think that's different so that's a 1 • piece of information that I'd like to have before I'd really feel comfortable voting on this. Conrad: Tim. 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 1990 - Page 15 t Erhart: Well, I was kind of excited about this before I came in here 11 tonight. How convenient this would be for me just to drive across the street to get my vehicle tested every year. However, the more I listen to it, I was really surprised that anybody have negative comments from the ' neighbors. I'm glad you came in but I think it brings some issues to light that 1 guess I hadn't thought about. Fundamentally, I guess there's some questions I had to kind of decide the issue. So I'll start out with why ' isn't, can you shed some light on this other use that we do permit that's most like a gas station. When you're dealing with retail people and people have a ,requirement to do something with their cars. They go in and take the 2 minutes, about the same time it takes to fill up. The frequency ' of traffic on the average would be about 1 to 2 cars a minute and more cars at peak time. The question then is, why don't we allow gas stations in the IOP district. Krauss: I don't know that I could answer that effectively. The IOP district predates me. I know there was some desire at points in the past to offer services that would be utilizable by residents of the industrial ' park such as restaurants, that sort of thing. Chanhassen has always been rather restrictive on where gas stations locate. In fact ordinance amendments were approved last year that made it even more restrictive with ' an eye towards limiting the number of intersections there found that. So I'm afraid I don't have any specific information for you. ' Erhart: So there's no conflict with having a gas station in the industrial office park in your mind as a professional planner, if I can use that term? Kraus I you had an industrial park that's large enough where you're ' eel' generating demand, like an Opus II sort of situation, I think it's very -essonable to locate specific facilities-tailored for that population. Opts II has 12,000 people working there every day and there's people that live there. We don't have anything like that. We have 6,000 employees in ' the city as of the count that Sharmin completed last week, which is a goodly number but they can adequately be served by our central business district and I think our business community would prefer that they be ' serviced there. Erhart: So you're saying you would expect a gas station to serve the ' people in the industrial park as opposed to outsiders coming in? Krauss: Yeah. What it boils down to is I don't think it's really ' appropriate in our context. Erhart: I didn't understand. Take a look at the general business district which is the fringe commercial development. What's the other one? 1 Krauss: Highway business. ' Erhart: What was the reason why this use couldn't be in there along with gas stations? Krauss: Well, there's not a specific use but if you look at where those districts lay in our community, they're in and around the central business district and the available sites are very limited. They oftentimes have exposure to residential neighborhoods. As you recall, McDonald's itself 1 . 1 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 1990 - Page 16 1 was very controversial when it first came in. That site next to McDonald' is presumably one of the possibilities here. It's available. It's on them market I believe. It would presumably generate lower traffic levels as we've heard tonight than McDonald's would. The other sites might be the ' ones that we considered for Hardee's or the Burdick property on 78th Street. All of those are areas that the City has spent a great deal of time, effort and money in getting it to coalescent to a real central business district offering services needed by the community on a daily of I weekly basis. I'm not sure that this fits the bill. Erhart: It's required by the community isn't it? 1 Krauss: Once a year. Erhart: Kind of like a dentist. You should go more often but it comes down to once a year. I don't know. I would think that, I would think a II great location would be next to Gary•Brown's station and then Gary could go over and recruit business. Going right out the door. The business highway. Fast food restaurants. Automotive service stations. Do we have, a service station or an auto repair station in the business park now? Krauss: There's one in there by a conditional use permit. Jo Ann, the auto repair use that we have in the business park, do you have the background on that? Olsen: It was before me. The radiator store? Erhart: Auto Unlimited? • Olsen: 1 don't know. Russ Murphy: That service center or whatever you want to call it is 1 ...building. They have two automotive places in there and the other tenants in the building can't even park there... You're going to mix 400 cars with semi trailers trying to manuever in here. ' Erhart: The other concern I have with the thing as we go along here is a couple and I'm not sure, you know it's sort of described as a place where cars come in and go through their 2 minutes and leave and at 10%, that's only 4 cars will be parked there so I've calculated that out and that's not a problem but you know, is somebody going to want to come along and expand the program to include diesels at some time? How do we know? Isn't it natural? It's well gee, you've got your facility. The State's got a contract with you. It would be natural to include that testing too. Dennis Palmer: That's a different testing entirely. That's a test for 1 particulate matter. Diesel's create dust particulate. We're not equipped for the testing resources. Erhart: Do they test diesels now someplace? Is there a...to test diesels Dennis Palmer: Yes, they do. They're typically tested at the factory. Most of the pollution from the diesel is inside the particulate or...and II nitrous oxide is very difficult to do any repairs to. 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 September 5, 1990 - Page 17 11 Erhart: Do you have any facilities that test diesels anyplace that you own? All gas? I guess if we proceed with recommending approval on this, and I still haven't decided so I'm having a hard time but I think there's some other requirements we should add in here. Number one, I think we ' should strengthen both the conditions here and the ordinance to say that there is no outside storage of material or waste materials or anything else at any time. I think we ought to specifically prohibit testing for diesel ' powered vehicles and I think we ought to draw, perhaps we could draw on the line how big of vehicles we want coming in here. It's one thing having some cars parked next to us in a line but then we have to have trucks and ' industrial trucks that are allowed, then I think there's some very real legitimate concerns on the behalf of the people from PMT so I guess I personally think we ought to look at cutting the line someplace. Vans or something where they're relatively quiet. Again, I think we've already got permitted in there no retail sales. The other thing is that this is, as we pointed out before, this is under a 7 year or 10 year contract, I'm not sure which. What happens at the end of that period? I can see visions of ' that gas station down on TH 5 sitting there empty for many years after it was Ebandoned and they really become unsightly then. I would think that since this thing is under contract and there's not that much investment in the building, that if this facility is not used for 1 year, that perhaps maybe we should require in the conditional use that it's dismantled and the lot be returned to it's natural state or something. I think this is a whole new area and I think those laws are going to be changed and updated ' rapidly and I think with the lack of investment in this facility, I think we ought to be protecting ourselves from a sudden change. And I agree with Brian's or someone stated this should, if we're going to go ahead and make =, an ordinance change, it ought to be a conditional use as opposed to a permitted use. 5o I have some concerns with this. I maybe agree with Steve. Maybe we need to get a little bit more information. I guess my feeling is in general, again I wasn't opposed to it but when you have an ' area and your neighbors come in and object to a change of use in it, I think there's a lot of meaning to that and so I'm real concerned about it so I guess I'll make my decision when someone makes a motion. Conrad: So you're waivering? You could go either way? ' Erhart: Yes. Conrad: I don't know that I'm going to be able to persuade anybody one way or another. Definitely I have no problem with it being located in Chanhassen. I think it's great that this site would be here. I don't have any problem with pollution. It's improving pollution. I think it's terrific again. The pollution aspect just doesn't ring with me at all. ' It's improving the problem. There's no difference between cars going into McDonald's and cars going into this site. I just have no problem with that whatsoever. The question in my.mind is where it's located in Chanhassen and which is what I think everybody has been sort of hammering ' on here. Highway business without a doubt seems appropriate for me. 100,000 cars a year seems like a highway business type of use and that's sort of what it's designed to take. Industrial park, it gets marginal and I think we've gone through those exercises of is it the right use. I think Paul's comments are trying to, he's trying to find a site that's appropriate for it. I think the bottom line for me right now is it's a new use. It's a use surprising the neighbors and Tim, as you said, those new II Planning Commission Meeting II September 5, 1990 - Page 18 uses have to be reviewed carefully because neighbors kind of look at the II zoning to see what's permitted. I don't think it's a permitted use. I think it has to be a conditional use which means standards. So my basic feeling right now is to table it and to have staff take a look at the II standards that would be applicable based on problems from other communities. I'd be very concerned if somebody said if the traffic is backed up 3 and 4 deep, as a resident or as a neighbor business, I don't think that's appropriate. That's not what they're doing. And I also hear" that these are not scheduled and that bothers me. I prefer to have scheduled maintenance where we have a day, an hour, whatever and they probably looked at that and found it's practically impossible but in my II mind I think we need the standards to drive this thing. I don't have a problem being a permitted use in highway business. I do have a problem with it being a permitted use in an industrial and therefore would recommend that we search it out. The governing or the methods of allowing" it as a conditional and also having staff review any kind of controls that C!hhanhase:en would like to place on it. I had one other question with the staff report and it said on page 5, under grading and drainage. The app'icant is proposing to use Type I silt fence for erosion control to the southeast. Is that during construction? Those are my comments. If somebody would 'like to make a motion. II Emmings: I'm going to move that we table the application to allow staff to do two t! One is to acquire information from other communities that , have these facilities to find out what their experience has been. Ind secondly, and it's related, to allow staff time once they've had a chance to contact these communities, to develop some standards for this use as a conditional use. 1 Conrad: Is there a second? Erhart: I'll second it. II • Conrad: Discussion. II Erhart: Another thing that I wanted to have the next time this comes up, assume there's some other facilities in the Twin Cities area right? Dennis Palmer: Well not in operation. The program will begin, all II facilities will open January 1st. Erhart: Oh, alright. So there isn't -any addresses that we could go visit" Elison: But Joan can give you an Illinois address. Erhart: There's no testing stations in the'Twin Cities that is owned by II anybody? • Elison: It's not required yet. I think we should be able to do this , between now and going to City Council. I don't know that it needs to be tabled and come back. Emmings: Not if we're going to establish standards. II II Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 1990 - Page 19 Conrad: If we want standards, we should take a look at it. If your posture is not to allow it, then you're right. Any other discussion? . Batzli: Is part of your motion considering it to be a permitted use in the highway business or should it be conditional use in any district that it's located in? ' Emmings: I guess after looking at this I agree with Ladd's comments that it does seem appropriate to the BH and if. Batzli: Wouldn't you rather have these standards apply no matter where it was located? Conrad: Yeah, it should probably be conditional in both. ' Batzli: I guess I'd like information on, I kept on thinking that this was going to be pretty much limited to common folks, car traffic but 8,500 ' gross vehicle weight, if that's the correct number, might be a lot of different construction type delivery vehicles and things like that as well. I guess I'd like to know from staff, because I don't have a clear idea of what kind of vehicles we're talking about anymore I guess. What kind of ' vehicles are going to be going through this facility. Emmings: Yeah. And that's particularly important if it's going to be down ' in the IOP. Batzli: Well maybe, maybe not but the interesting thing is, there's going to be 400 trips maximum someday and that's true. If you do have a lot of ' larger vehicles going through there it might but if this is going to be a permittG use, I actually think it changes the reflection of what I consider an IOP district because I guess I didn't consider a use like that generating that kind of traffic to be appropriate before tonight and I don't know if I still do but. Conrad: That's tough because a lot of your industrial, if you take a look at your industrial users, they have 2 -3 shifts and they're generating that many traffic counts. ' Emmings: But you know they're a lot bigger Ladd. I guess I was thinking about that too. Like Rosemount, they've got, if they have 1,000 employees and they do don't they? So they're generating that kind of traffic but ' it's also a how many acre site. Conrad: But what does that have to do with it? ' Emmings: Well I think it might have a lot to do with it. I don't know. I was first thinking gee, that's less than Rosemount and then I'm thinking wow, that's a big site and this is just a little one. I think maybe the ' impact is a lot more. - Conrad: If you put a lot of little uses like that together, then you may t have some impacts. ' Krauss: If I may, that gets into the question of whether or not this precedence setting and as we viewed it it's not. You're talking about an l Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 1990 - Page 20 one cff type of licensed used through the State of Minnesota to satisfy a 1 new State law. Batzli: But you know safety inspections might be next. A federal inspection might be next. You know it might not be a one type deal. Conrad: See that would worry me. What we're saying right now is, 400 car but then the feds can dictate some other things and pretty soon it's there Emmings: The proof is that we didn't foresee this one so I guess we can't foresee. ' Conrad: Well you know this type of'use has to be, it has to have a place. We're trying to find a place for it. That happens to be Roman's property,, that's fine but you know, it's trying to sort.it in logically where it's best serve: in Chanhassen. Betz:_: _' don't know that anybody on the Commission, and I'm kind of , speaking broadly here, is against having this type of- facility and even potentially in Chanhassen somewhere. The question is whether it belongs where they're proposing I think. I don't know if you feel that way. Ther is a concern, : mean we are drawing a lot of traffic into the area on road that are already congested and we've gone over that time and time again. In the comprehensive plan, that TH 5's already busy, well you've got 400 more cars a day here. Small matter on a big ship maybe but hey, it's 400 more trips. Conrac :: Maybe we should stop development. , Batzli: This isn't development. Conrad: What is it? 1 Ahrens: It's a semi -quasi public use. Batzli: That's development. Ellson: But 400 cars could come just easily with a new office building. ' Conrad: Absolutely. Erhart: You know the flip side of that whole thing. We're worrying about" some 8,500 pound trucks here and on the other hand we also allow as a conditional use concrete mixing. Batzli: Yeah, I saw that and the transfer terminal. Erhart: So, the fact is it exists next to this building is some kind of all firm that has trucks, I don't know what they do in that building. Do you know? They have trucks there all the time. ! Audience: ...It's construction. Batzli: But I mean are they going in and out? Generating a couple hundre trips. • • Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 1990 - Page 21 Audience: Well, they're out in the morning and back at night. g lg t. But you've got a lot of .. . I Erhart: On one hand we'd all like to have it to be some real pristine industrial, office industrial park like Baker Park you know but it's not • ' there. PMT's got a nice building. We have a nice building but then right across from us is a service station. Two service stations and a contractor's yard with a potential concrete mixing plant so I don't know. ' This is a tough one. I don't see it as a big problem but. Conrad: Again, I don't see it as a big problem•today. I'm really worried about the future. I'm worried about traffic. I'm worried about what other 1 stuff goes in there. Erhart: The one thing I said I'd never do as a Planning Commissioner is be ' wishy washy. Conrad: The motion has been made and seconded to table this and for staff review. Is there any more discussion? ' Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to table action on the Vehicle Inspection Station for Jerry Perkins of Pope Associations for further study of other ' existing uses and directing staff to study this application as a conditional use permit. All voted in favor except Annette Ellson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. ' Conrad: And your reasons Annette? Elison: I think that it shouldn't be in the industrial office park and not ' that they shouldn't be looking into that but I think they could have looked into the typical neighbors and what people's reactions are by the time it got to City Council. And I think the other districts are better for it. ' Conrad: Paul, have we given you enough direction in terms of what we'd like to see when this comes back? Krauss: Well I think we have enough direction to come back and get you the information you're seeking. What's not clear to me is if fundamentally they come back let's say we come up with revised ordinance standards. ' It's processed as a CUP, is it still going to be objectionable from the nature of the fact that it's on this site in the IOP district? If it is, I think that the applicant should be aware of that so they don't waste their time on it. Conrad: I think there's a lot of swing. We're balancing right now and something that could be a condition might satisfy me to say yes. And therefore I don't think there's anyway to read the Planning Commission right now to say if all the conditions are right, are we going to vote for it? We don't know but I think it's one of those things where we have to ' say it is a conditional use. What are those standards and if we're still not comfortable that we have control with those standards in that district, { then it won't be turned down. It's not a waste of somebody's time. We're not toying with people. We're taking a good look at what we think should be done. • • t Planning Commission Mt.,;ting September 5, 1990 - Page 22 Krauss: And Paul, if I could interject. If you could get some idea on what the truck traffic would be, it would help me. A car a minute isn't sil bad but if you're talking about a lot of trucks, what kind of traffic are we talking about here? Conrad: Okay. Might this come back when Paul? 1 Krauss: Well it seems to be your intent to wherever it goes to process as a conditional use permit which requires publication so it could not be at II the next meeting. I would anticipate 4 weeks from today. Emmings: That's true if we just leave the public hearing open. Just continue it? Krauss: We have a publication requirement for the CUP's and I'm not sure • that we've satisfied that by posting it as a rezoning. Conrad: Everybody comfortable with that? Emmings: I'm comfortable letting him worry about it. , Conrad:. Sorry for the delay but I think that's what we have to do. We'll" definitely make it on the agenda as soon as we can. Thank you all for coming in. You had a comment? Al Iverson: I was curious. There's no date given for the next place for II this to show up or the next meeting. Conrad: We haven't right now. We're guessing not next meeting. We meet II every 2 weeks. Not next meeting. The meeting after. It will be published. Krauss: We'll renotify. 1 Conrad: Neighbors will be communicated to. Al Iverson: We did not receive the previous. I didn't have very much warning about this meeting. Conrad: Notice go out to everybody? , Krauss: Yes. And Mr. Iverson talked to me about it last week. Al Iverson: Last when? Krauss: Last week. , Al Iverson: For me it was...7 days isn't much notice and I don't know why Paul...tell us earlier. Krauss: The fact of the matter is, we're not clairvoyant. We don't know when these things are going to come up and we notify people on the schedule that we've been adhering to for years which gives them about a week and a half to 2 weeks notice. t P.C. DATE: 9/5/90 C ITY O F C.C. DATE: 9/24/90 „ � C CASE: 90 -9 Site Plan ' BY: A1- Jaff /v �1� 1 STAFF REPORT li PROPOSAL: i e • an •ev -4 - .,. •■- - -- - Testing Facility I 2) Metes and Bounds Subdivision to Create a 1.7 Acre from a 3.953 Acre Parcel Imp 3) Zoning Ordinance.Amendment to Allow Vehicle I Testing Stations in the IOP•District as a i Permitted Use V II � LOCATION: Intersection of Park Road and Park Place CL APPLICANT: Jerry Perkins Owner: System Control/ I Pope Associates, Inc. Stanley J. Krzywicki Suite 300 Suite 208 1360 Energy Park Drive 5275 Edina Industrial St. Paul, MN 55108 Edina, MN 55342 II II EXISTING ZONING: IOP, Industrial Office Park • 1 ACREAGE: 1.7 acres ADJACENT ZONING I AND LAND USE: N - Wetland - vacant 8 - IOP; EMPAK I E - IOP; vacant Q W - IOP; PMT 1 0 SEWER AND WATER: Services are available to the site. II W SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The site generally drains to the east and northeast into a wetland located to the north of the site. Natural vegetation exists to the north of the I site although the majority of the site is covered with field grasses. 2000 LAND USE: Industrial II 1 t Pope Associates, Inc. September 5, 1990 Page 2 BACKGROUND 1 On October 4, 1989, the Planning Commission reviewed an application for Site Plan Review #89 -8 for the Rome Office Building. The same application was reviewed by the City Council and was approved on October 9, 1989. The site plan that was approved for Rome Office building showed a future expansion to the site in the form of a free - standing 17,000 square foot office /warehouse building located to the west. The application being reviewed calls for a new structure on the site of the proposed additional building. The primary structure approved by the City in October has not been constructed. The application in front of the Commission today will change the , approved proposal for Rome Office Building dramatically. The proposed vehicle inspection station site will invalidate the Rome Office Building site plan by creating setback variances, parking variances, and also there might be impervious surface coverage variances. Therefore, to consider action of approval of the vehicle testing station is dependent upon cancellation of approval for the Rome Office Building site plan approval. Staff has met with Roman Roos, the owner of the site. Mr. Roos is fully aware of the situation. He anticipates requesting approval for a smaller but similar building on the original site. PROPOSAL /SUMMARY On July 1, 1991, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) will require all vehicle owners to test the level of hydrocarbon (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO) that their vehicle produces. The applicant is working to establish 11 sites within the seven county metro area of which one is Chanhassen. The applicant's firm is contracted with the state to provide testing services for a 10 year period. They will be the sole provider of required testing services. The Chanhassen site is one of the required services areas under the state contract to adequately serve the metro area. The procedure starts by sending notices to all car owners to test their vehicles within 90 days of receiving that notice. A study was conducted by the applicant and it is predicted that 95% of the vehicles within 5 miles of the site will be using that location. The site will be built to accommodate 158% of the car population within the area. A car population forecast for the year 1998 was used for that study and a network was built to suit that. Cars will be tested by being driven into the building and hooked into test equipment. Cars that fail the test are required to be serviced and retested for compliance. Servicing will not be provided on -site. , 1 1 Pope Associates, Inc. ' September 5, 1990 Page 3 ' On site air quality studies will be conducted to ensure that pollution does not exceed standards. These studies will be submitted to the MPCA on an annual basis. The proposed building will be equipped with machines that will monitor the level of CO and a supply fence which functions as a filter to get rid of CO. The proposed building will be located ' north of Park Road of which access will be obtained. The area of the proposed building is 4,042 square feet. The parking area is proposed to occupy a portion north of the proposed building. The site plan is well designed. Access, grading, drainage and utilities do not pose any problems. Some minor modification to the walkway that links the parking lot with the building has been requested by staff. Site landscaping is generally of high quality, ' although staff is requesting some changes on the plan where it abuts Park Road to screen vehicles entering the inspection facility. 1 The proposed zoning ordinance amendment will allow vehicle testing facilities to exist in Industrial Office Park Districts as a permitted use. At the present time, the ordinance does not accommodate this use since it did not exist at the time it was drafted. ' The subdivision request is a metes and bounds subdivision. The Planning Commission does not need to act on the subdivision request as it is a metes and bounds request. Staff did include the information so that the Planning Commission would be aware of the 1 request. The lot split will result in creating a 74,166 square foot lot. There are no variances attached to either the site plan or subdivision requests. Staff is recommending that the requests be approved subject to appropriate conditions. GENERAL SITE PLAN /ARCHITECTURE ' The site is located north of Park Road. The building is situated parallel to Park Road where access is gained. Parking is located to the north of the proposed building. 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, east and north elevations. The majority of the site will be screened from off -site views by landscaping and a proposed berm to the south of the site. The building architecture meets the standards of the site plan ordinance requirements. The applicant is showing the roof top equipment extending 33 feet above the roof level. Equipment will be screened with metal panels painted to match the color of the overhead doors. Staff is recommending that the equipment be painted,to match the color of the building. Picket fencing is not considered to be acceptable screening. It should be designed to be compatible with the building exterior. The 1 1 Pope Associates, Inc. 1 September 5, 1990 Page 4 applicant is showing the trash enclosure screened by a chain link fence. Staff is requiring that 100% screening be provided for the trash enclosure area. •It should be constructed of masonry compatible with the building. PARKING /INTERIOR CIRCULATION 1 The City's parking ordinance does not address facilities such as the proposed. The most similar operation is vehicle service stations which requires 4 parking stalls per service stalls. This use will have 3 bays. The applicant has managed a large number of testing facilities around the country. Staff believes that the number of parking spaces provided is adequate. The applicant is planning to have 7 employees on site. Fourteen parking stalls are provided and one handicap stall. Staff does not anticipate seeing large numbers of cars parked in the area. Staff met with the applicant and was informed that the maximum time for a car to spend on site is two minutes. The Engineering Department has requested a minor change to the parking area layout. It is recommended that a sidewalk or other designated walkway system be provided with handicap ramps to establish a safe pedestrian travel way between the parking lot and the building as shown on the attached sketch. This walkway plan would eliminate one parking stall, however, the submitted site plan proposes 3 more than the minimum requirements. ACCESS The plans propose one 26' wide curb cut to enter the site from Park Road. The driveways are proposed to be built to city standards. The radius of curbing at the entrance should be a minimum of 20'. The number of curb cuts on Park Road was an issue for staff during the approval of the Rome Office Building. Staff argued against the placement of 2 curb cuts to maintain traffic safety. Ultimately, the applicant was allowed the two cuts but the western entrance was intended to serve both buildings being proposed. The western entrance is generally located in the vicinity of the curb cut being presently proposed. Staff finds the current proposal acceptable only if the parcel remaining in Mr. Roos' control at the corner is allowed to have only 1 curb cut on Park Road. It will have a secondary access on Park Drive. An appropriate restriction should be placed in the chain -of -title of that lot. LANDSCAPING The landscaping plan is well conceived. Staff is requesting additional landscaping on the south and west of the site. Two berms are proposed to the south and the southwest corner of the site. Those berms are proposed to be at a height of 2 and 3 feet. Staff is requesting that those berms be extended and made 4 feet high so that they can provide better screening of vehicles waiting 1 Pope Associates, Inc. September 5, 1990 ' Page 5 their turn for inspection as they enter the inspection facility. ' The berms should be extended along the Park Road exposure and along the west property line to help buffer the adjacent PMT site. Under the revised ordinance, financial guarantees for landscaping and other site improvements are required. ' LIGHTING • ' 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. SIGNAGE ' The applicant has submitted a signage plan. One monument identification sign is proposed at the west of - 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 applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the sign on site. One stop sign must be posted on the driveway access to Park Road. ' GRADING /DRAINAGE ' The site generally drains to the northeast and north into a wetland located to the north of the site. A small area of the southeast corner drains to Park Road. The proposed grading plan maintains a consistent drainage pattern with the present condition. Slopes ' along the north and northwest portions of the site appear to be slightly greater than 3:1. This will require special slope stabilization measures such as wood fiber blankets and Type III ' erosion control. A storm sewer system consisting of two catch basins is proposed to be constructed and connected to an existing trunk storm sewer extending along the northern border of the site. • The majority of the site is proposed to be graded. The applicant is proposing to use Type I silt fence or erosion control to the southeast and north portions of the site to minimize erosion. Staff is recommending that Type III erosion control be used. PUBLIC UTILITIES ' City sewer and water are available on Park Road. Fire hydrants are available on the southerly side of Park Road. The Fire Marshal indicated that those fire hydrants will be sufficient to service the proposed building. Pope Associates, Inc. September 5, 1990 Page 6 1 COMPLIANCE TABLE - IOP DISTRICT Ordinance Proposed , Building Height 4 stories 1 story Building Setback N -10' E -10' N- 157'E -91' S -30' W -10' S -49' W -114' • Parking stalls 12 stalls 15 stalls ' Parking Setback N -30' E -10' N -61' E -44' S -N /A W -10' S- W -59' , Lot Coverage 70% 49% Lot Area 1 acre 1.7 acres , Variances Required - none II 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. It should be noted that a future sidewalk will most likely be constructed within the north boulevard of Park Drive. The applicant should be advised that no signs or other structures will be permitted within the City right -of -way. METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION , The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide 3.953 acres into two lots. The subject site will have an area of 1.7 acres. The applicant must provide the typical utility easements of 10 feet in front, 5 on the sides and 10 feet to the rear of the site as there is an existing storm sewer line. The Planning Commission does not have to take action on the subdivision request as it is a metes and bounds subdivision and will be acted on by the City Council. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT , Staff is proposing the following ordinance amendment that would allow vehicle testing stations in the IOP District: , Amendment to Article XXII, IOP, Industrial Office Park District. Section 20 -812 permitted uses. 13) Vehicle testing stations authorized to undertake emissions and /or safety monitoring required by the State of Minnesota provided that: 1 ' Pope Associates, Inc. September 5, 1990 ' Page 7 a) the operation is under contracted agreement with the State of Minnesota to provide these services; ' b) no repairs are performed on the site; and c) no gas or parts are sold on the site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ' Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: ' I. SITE PLAN REVIEW ' "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #90 -9 as shown on the site plan dated August 10, 1990, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must provide roof top equipment screening for approval by staff. Screening must be of materials compatible with the building. ' 2. The applicant must submit revised screening for the masonry trash enclosure compatible with the building exterior and additional landscaping around the proposed dumpsters. ' 3. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. ' 4. The applicant must revise the landscaping plans as recommended in the report to provide improved screening. Provide staff • ' with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. • ' 5. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District. ' 6. Type III erosion control shall be used along Park Road and added to the north and east portion of the site. Slopes steeper than 3:1 will require wood fiber blankets and Type III ' erosion control. The applicant's engineer shall submit 10 year storm flow calculations for the site. This may regulate the location of the connection to the existing storm sewer facility. 7. A concrete industrial driveway apron with a minimum radius cut of 20 feet shall be constructed at the entrance off of Park Road." 1 1 • Pope Associates, Inc. September 5, 1990 Page 8 1 II. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance 1 Amendment allowing vehicle testing stations in the IOP District." III. WITHDRAWAL OF ORIGINALLY APPROVED SITE PLAN 1 "The Planning Commission recommends the withdrawal of approval of Site Plan No. 89 -8 for the Rome Office building, concurrently with the approval of Site Plan No. 90 -9. The applicant should file the notice of withdrawal against the property at Carver County." ATTACHMENTS 1 1. Rome Office Building approval. 2. Memo from Charles Folch dated August 30, 1990. 3. Systems control operation overview. 4. Site plan for inspection facility. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •City Council Meeting - 0c sr 23, 1989 ' instance that it's coning out well for the apartment people but I think this is the tool that we have used for all of the people to date and it provides sore form of benchmark, even if there may be some holes in it. ' Mayor Chmiel:. Any discussion? Bill? ' Councilman Boyt: Well I can see your point. It sounds to re though like what • the City is saying is we set our fees based on same formula that really has nothing to do with market. It's just the formula. This is interesting. We've got appraisals that people get that are under the City's at certain times and appraisals we get when we're trying to buy the property that are always over the City. I don't know how the appraisal process works but I know if I was a million dollars off and I suspect any of the rest of us, that we'd be in here ' doing the same thing so it's a legitimate procedure. It sounds like staff is saying we just did it the same way we always do it. If the Council is trying to be consistent, I guess I vote to support that. Don Ashworth: May /make one quick addition comment and that is, we require the appraisal from the County Assessor and that comes about as a part of the HRA activities and what we want to do there is assure that there is going to be a certain minimum value for tax purposes that will be used. So if there is any form of an incentive program that's going to be considered, what is the absolute floor. If you look at that, all he's saying there is, here is the absolute ' minimum value that we would be assigning to this property. I'm not saying that i that's what Orlin is going to take and have as a final value. I'm just saying my initial review of this is this is the absolute minimum that wound go on that ' property. Mayor Chrmiel: Okay. Can I get a motion? If not, I will make a motion that we deny the request as so indicated in the cover letter that we have. Councilwoman Dialer: I'll second that. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to deny the request for reimbur sertent of $4,527.00 to Heritage Park Apartments on the basis that it would violate the intent of the State Uniform Building Code valuation tables used by the City of Chanhassen in determining building valuation. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR INDUSTRIAL/ OFFICE /WAREHOUSE FACILITY, NORTHWEST CORNER OF PARK ROAD AND PARK COURT, ROME CORPORATION. ' Paul Krauss: The applicant's proposing to build a 32,000 square foot office/ warehouse building at the intersection of Park 'Road and Park Place. The additional building shown on the plans conceptually that would be built in the ' future. We thought it was a fairly well designed product. Basically they responded to most of the issues that were raised by staff. Our only concern with the proposal was in regards to the eastern access on Park Road. Staff believe that it represented an unnecessary traffic hazard in that the site could be basically adequately served by the two other curb cuts that had already been proposed. We went to the Planning Commission with this several weeks ago and the Planning Commission agreed that the general concept was a good one. After 78 City Council Meeting - _tober 23, 1989 1 examining the issues with regard to the curb cut though, they ultimately decided , that, they recommended approval of the site plan with that additional curb cut. They believe that the traffic hazard was not as great as had been expressed and they not that the second building being proposed with no additional curb cuts. At the same time there was a grading permit requested through the City Council that was acted on the Consent Agenda recently prepare by the engineering department. The applicant wasn't present to argue it but that grading permit had in there a stipulation that they could leave that access point they were concerned about. Since the Planning Commission meeting we've reassessed it. The Engineering department has same additional information. We retrain concerned about that curb cut. The new information that we have is that not only is it a hazard due to it's proximity to Park Place but it also interferes with a couple curb cuts located across the street. So we're continuing to zeca lend that it be approved but we are moving to zecarmerd that the...curb cut be deleted. Councilman Boyt: Might I ask, this is so straight forward. If we could focus everything on the curb cut, maybe we could get out of here on this issue pretty quickly. Mark Johnson: I'm Mark Johnson from Rome Development. I'll just bring up a couple of points if I can. We were trying to be sensitive to the access onto Park Road with the site. It is a 4 acre, slightly under that,'parcel of land and on that we have just two points of access to the site. We were trying to be sensitive I say in that we had two building pads proposed for the parcel and by doing the one furthez to the west, we incorporated the one drive into the two sites. The property line on Park Read is 600 feet long. We've got 300 feet of distance between the two drives. We are approximately 130 -140 feet from the . cornet curb of Park Place and Park Road so we were trying to be sensitive. We think that due to the size of the property, that it is reasonable. We anticipate seeing the traffic pattern on the site being semis and delivery vans and things will enter the curb cut to the west. Pull in behind the two buildings and then leave the property onto the Park Place road so that's really the rain reason we wanted to have the drive entering Park Place was for the lower amount of maneuvering that these semis would have to make. So due to the distances between and the size of the properties, we feel that it is reasonable. I did not know of any conflict that was across the street there. There happens to be another curb cut right there? Paul Krauss: There's actually a double curb cut across the street. It's illustrate on the aerial photograph... • Mark Johnson: Do you have any questions that I can answer? Mayor Ctruiel: I guess basically the major concern that we have, Bill mentioned this is very straight forward and in the staff recamendations they are asking that they eliminate that eastern curb cut on Park Road and place it with a maneuvering area for use by parked cars and redesign the retraining curb cuts as required to facilitate truck turning movements and to reduce the grade on the remaining Park Road curb cut from 10 +% to less than 5 %. I don't know if that's a real problem with you in regards to that. If there isn't, I think we can, besides the other conditions contained on there and I'm sure * you've had a chance to review those Reiman. Do you have any objections to those either? 1 79 1 II C.ty Council Meeting - Cf. .er 23, 1989 II Roman Roos: Yes Mr. Mayor. As Mark eluded to, the property's about 600 feet along Park Road. In that park, we checked everything after made the report the first time with the Planning Commission. In that park there's four major II companies. United, Victory, CC and DayCb and all of those people have curb cuts identical to mine but even shorter distance to the corner of the curve. Park Place is a cul-de -sac. A dead cul-de -sac. The intent is somewhat II unreasonable when you have a piece of property that's 600 foot long that one single curb cut coming in to service two potential building projects is just unreasonable. As far as the traffic pattern, I can address the amount of traffic you have on Park Road going through the park east /west would be no II greater than that which is coming in the main drag coning off of Park Place _ which is the main street coming in off TH 5. If I thought there was a traffic pattern, I would say definitely we'd change' that but as far as a hazard I do not 11 see that. We envision the main traffic that Mark eluded to would be coming off of Park Place and off of the common drive between the two buildings. The drive closest to the east would be strictly a small car entrance for the personnel 1 . II working in the office department in that building. I have a very difficulty with staff's opinion that there's a traffic problem on that site. Mark Johnson: Particularly when I drove down Park Road this evening before 1 coming here just to look at the other drives and I would say that the majority of the on centered distances of the drives down that road, which there are quite a few, were 100 feet, 150 feet apart and you're looking at 300 feet for two II sizeable buildings and being a full 140 feet off of the intersection of the two roads which are, the Park Place road is not a very major road at this point. Will not be adding a lot of traffic counts to Park Road. I Gary Warren: Park Place from the engineering perspective, we look also with an eye to the future here. The closeness of that curb cut is part of our concern .- here. In fact as recent as this mornirg we're talking with a package delivery II service was interested in Lot 6 at the end of Park Place for example. Was talking about establishing a tandem trailer route in the city that's going to be, if approved, would cane into this area here. Ten trucks a day and I think I the activity in that area has got a lot of potential for traffic and especially with the closeness of that cut to the corner and the fact that it's opposite two cuts was our concern. You could move that thing to the west in our opinion and live with it or indeed Planning Ccnmission said to further restrict any cuts in I the expansion. We could tolerate a cut I think in the expansion more than we could tolerate a cut at this location. I'll readily admit that there are other examples of cuts that are close to corners but I don't think that should be the II justification why we should continue to tolerate a bad situation in my opinion. That's our rationale. II Ronan Roos: When you analyze it from a traffic point of view, what criteria'and what type of accident are you talking about? Gary Warren: What type of what? II Ronan Roos: Accident. • II Gary Warren: We were looking at conflicts. Turning movement conflicts from the two driveways and it's best shown I guess in the graphic, the aerial graphic, from the cuts across the road and also from turning movements. The tandem route II that is proposed for traffic is caning off Park Place to the west down Park Road 80 City Council Meeting - - ltober 23, 1989 and then up Audubon so we see a lot of movements going out towards the Audubon 1 Road area. Mark Johnson: I guess I think in my mind about the distance whether the drive is entering Park Road directly across one another or they're 50 feet one way or another but the closeness in proximity to all the drives down Park Road, they cannot be that far off that there's going to be that much of a reduction of danger of one car pulling on, turning one way and one from the opposite sides of the road and just continuing to look at the distance between the drives here. Roman Roos: Cary, what is the width of those roads on Park Road? 1 Gary Warren: It should be 36 I believe. Roman Roos: That's at least a car and a half per side. Fbr a passing lane if 1 somebody's trying to turn into it. I don't care... Gary Marren: We talked earlier this evening about having to divert around buses and things of this nature. I guess sure, it's manageable. The question here I think is, is the site adequately served with the two cuts and I guess in our opinion we felt there was adequate service without having to tolerate further. congestion at that intersection and could indeed support a further cut to the west in the expansion if that would be a trade -off. Roman Roos: With the lot like it is, you have to, because of the odd shape of Palk Place and Park Road, it's very difficult to take the building and set it into this area and make it useable. Okay? That's one of the reasons we backed it off so we have a lot of visibility effect on the front of that building come down Park Road. We've tried that building at several different locations. The site was configured to put two building pads on it...the day I bought it but after... The one time we had it over here which was a straight line into this bypass area and we shifted it all the way over to this point. That's 100 and some 40 foot over to that corner. There's no drive in that park that is that far from the corner to the building. 20 foot is common. Now I'm not saying that's precedent. I'm just saying I just don't see the justifiable reason saying you can't have a curb cut off of Park Road. ,It's an industrial park. Councilman Boyt: It's also a collector. Roman Roos: Bill, there is no ordinances contolling that at all. If there was an ordinance saying that you can have 35 foot or 40 foot from the corner, we'd comply with that ordinance but there's no ordinance. Councilman Boyt: I thought I heard Gary saying move it further to the west and he could live with it. 1 Raman Roos: Well I did. I shifted it as far as I could Bill on that site. Councilman Boyt: If you shift it to the east you're the too close to the 1 corner I gather from what staff is saying and as far as your shifting it to the west, I can see where it lays up by your building. It appears to do that pretty nicely. Unfortunately it's right across from a couple other existing drives. I think staff is pretty consistent Raman when they're saying to us, we don't like to have that many accesses in such a tight area. 81 1 1 II - City Council Meeting - Oc 'er 23, 1989 • • Gary Warren: Roman, have you looked at that cut being on you ng o the east on Park Place instead of on Park Road? Ratan Roos: Again, the site, what I tried to do is have the access into the property frram the primary road on the site and that is Park Road. We were not ' going to have a truck entrance at all because I'm going to have a common easement for this building to access this site but it seemed to be the best method to get truck traffic in there...in this front section so that was a whole site to have truck traffic caning in on Park Place and back out. This traffic '. here is cal traffic. It is not truck traffic. You're talking about tenants, the tenants in that end of the building, you're probably looking at I'd say ballpark maybe 20 -25 individuals having cars perking in the office department of ' that building. It is not truck traffic. That is corning out of the other western driveway. ' Councilman Boyt: mat are your hours of operation? Raman Roos: Typical office hours. 8:00 to 5:00. Councilman Boyt: So it's going to be dumping the cars about the same time the others in that, is that what you were saying Gary? Does it make a difference that it's car traffic? I'm sure it must make a difference. Does it change your opinion knowing that it's car traffic? • Gary Warren: I guess anything would help but car traffic is more easily-managed I think at an access like that than truck traffic. Councilman Boyt: So if Raman posted that no truck entrance or exit, could you live with it from a staff standpoint? Cary Warren: It would improve the situation. ' Councilman Boyt: What a diplomatic answer. Mark Johnson: I liken the distances down to Park Drive which goes up to TH 5 and Alx3ubon Trail and the traffic going like this and splitting at that point to get onto TH 5. We're about dead center there so the traffic would be about 50 -50 each way for the businesses down to the western part, they would go down Audubon to TH 5 and the others to the east of us would go to Park Drive and take that way would be logical. Roman Roos: ...It was never intended for trucks in the first place because ' traffic that would turn around with a truck is very difficult. Vert/ difficult. Mayor Chmiel: I think we've probably discussed it enough back and forth here. Councilman Workman: I don't see a problem and I would think to me the logic is to have it across from another entrance but I don't see it is as a problem but I do see it being kind of a void for this building if it isn't there too so I'm a ' fence sitter. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I appreciate staff's consideration here and I think they have more of an expert opinion than I do. We did approve it on the 82 City Council Meeting - nctobei: 23, 1989 consent agenda with the elimination of the eastern curb cut so I guess I'd stick with that. Mayor Chmiel: With? t Councilwoman D5i1er: Keep the curt cut eliminated like we approved in our consent agenda. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Roman Roos: ...the reason for the grading permit was initially we were trying to get this thing ground breaking... When it became obvious that one tenant couldn't get in the ground that quick so we're going to stall it until spring so the grading process...so that's the primary reason there wasn't anybody present at that time... Mawr Chmiel: How about if we were to just post that for cars only and no trucks? ' Gary Warren: I was going to sqggest, it depends on the timing of Roman's situation but if he's talking about springtime construction, he mentioned sage other alternatives for the building site that he had gone through and I don't know if Planning has looked at those in the past but I'd be interested to look at those also to bettex, understand the restraints that he's talking about for other alternate curb cuts here. It depends on the timing here but I would suggest that maybe it's appropriate to table the item or approve it with the understanding that we'll resolve this curb cut issue. Mayor Chmiel: I think I'd like to just as soon approve it with resolve?kent between the two of you. Between staff and yourselves. Councilwoman Dimler: Alright. That's fine with me. , Councilman Hoyt moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded that Site Plan Review *89 -8 for the Rome Office Building be approved without variances subject to the following conditions: 1. Provide trash storage enclosures built with materials compatible with the ' building or store all trash internally. 2. Roof mounted HVAC equipment should be provided with a screen constructed of Materials compatible with the building exterior. Details should be prepared for staff approval prior to City Council review. 3. The developer will work with the City Engineer to resolve the curb cut issues. 4. Revise the landscaping plan to illustrate seeding or sodding of the Phase II 1 building area. This area is to be kept in a maintained condition until construction occurs. 5. Project approval by the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District. 83 ' I II - City Council Meeting — Oc ier 23, 1989 ' 6. Utilize concrete curb and gutter and design it to connect to improvements in Park Place that will be installed by the City. Add an additional catch basin at the Palk Place curb cut. All storm sewer located in public I easement or ROW shall be reinforced concrete pipe. 7. Erosion controls are to be in place prior to start of work on the site and maintained until site restoration is completed. Additional erosion control may be required along the south property line by staff•to prevent erosion into Park Road. ' 8. Add a fire hydrant on the perking lot island located off the northwest corner of the building. ' 9. Provide lighting and signage details for staff review. A11 voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Boyt: Could I ask, could we go right to 12(b)? Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that. ' 12(B) CURRY FARMS WETLAND ALTERATION, SENIOR PLANNER. 3o Ann Olsen: This was brought in front of the Council tonight because there's been scree activity out in Curry Farms which tpyically would require the ' residents to go through a wetland alteration permit to remove the vegetation around the ponding areas. The whole purpose for this was just to, I know that they were going to be contact with the Council, was jmst to bring them up to ' date with what was happening and to allow the residents a chance to speak. I know it's really late and this could be a really long item so I'll kind of open it up to for them but essentially when Curry Farris went through the subdivision process, they also went through a wetland alteration permit and there were some ' low Class B wetland areas that were dredged and allowed to be dredged and used as ponding areas. As part of that, those areas have taken on qualities of a wetland. They now have cattails and other wetland vegetation. There has been ' some removal of that vegetation. Staff has contacted the residents stating that they would have to go through a wetland alteration permit process for that to be permitted. We understand their reasoning for wanting to remove it is to allow ' views into the ponding areas or to allow them to be used actively like in the wintertime and we acknowledge that there might be a compromise that we can c' to working on but they do have to go through the process because what is happening now is not the correct way and it's removing a lot of the vegetation ' and taking away the benefits of the area. So with that i guess I'll let then, however you want to do this. Maybe have one spokesperson. ' Mayor Chmiel: That's what I'd really like to do. Can we have a spokesperson for this? ' Jo Ann Olsen: And there would be no decisions made tonight. also, there are residents who also do not like what is happening out there and wish to see the vegetation remain too. 84 • 11 1 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 9, 1989 Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Caniel, Councilman Boyt, Councilman Workman, Councilwoman Dimler and Cbuncilman Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Paul Krauss, Jo Ann Olsen, Gary Warren, Dori ' Sietsema, Todd Gerhardt, Jim Chaffee and Dave Harmeyer, City Attorney APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, C uncilwaaan Dimler seconded to approve the agenda with the following additions: Councilman Boyt wanted to discuss Frontier Haines, Lake Lucy access, and Pleasant View speed control; Mayor Ctrmiel wanted to discuss David Headla's resignation from the Planning Commission; and Councilman Johnson wanted to discuss the vacancy on the • Southwest Metro Transit Commission. Don Ashworth had an Adminstration Presentation, an update on the Pauls' acquisition. Al]. voted in favor and the motion carried. RECYCLING PRIZE DRAWING: Mayor Ordel drew 5 names for the recycling prize drawing to split the $500.00 pot into $100.00 per each of the names. CONSENT AGENDA: CoUncilwaman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the following consent agenda items puxsuant to the City Manager's recarr►endations : c. Resolution 489 -108: Approval of Resolution for Joint cooperative project 1 with Rile:- Bluff - Purgatory Creek Watershed District, Lake Riley Maintenance Program. d. Approve Grading Permit, Rare Building Site, 1450 Park Road. e. Approval of Bills. f. City Council Minutes dated September 25, 1989 Planning Commission Minutes dated September 20, 1989 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated September 12, 1989 ' g. Resolution 489 -109: Approve Resolution Authorizing Acquisition of the Bongard Property. 1 h. Set Budget Worksession, October 16, 1989, 7:30 p.m. at City Hall. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 VISITOR PRESENTATION: COMMUNITY CENTER TASK FORCE. ' Lori Sietsema: As stated in the material that's in your packet, the Community Center Task Force is planning to take their findings and the research to the community in carmunity meetings in the next couple of months. Their goal is to get residential input on issues regarding the ca*:munity center. This item is 1 1 " a_ 1 . . C ITY O F e.C• DATE: Oct. 4, 1989 \ 1 ,r CHANHASSEN C.C. DATE: Oct. 23, 1989 1 CASE NO: .89 -8 Site Plan 1 Prepared by: Krauss /v (3f ` 1 STAFF REPORT 1 PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review for the Rome Office Building II i V LOCATION: Northwest Corner of the Intersection of Park Road 1 1 j and Park Place -_ 1 Q APPLICANT: Roman R. Roos for Rome Corporation 1450 Park Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 II 1 PRESENT ZONING: IOP , Industrial Office Park District 1 • ACREAGE: 3.95 acres DENSITY: A r i - 1 . - .... -. I ADJACENT ZONING in " -i % AND LAND .USE N - IOP, vacant industrial 1 S- IOP; .industrial - , .. - -. f9 EC Ur E - IOP; industrial ''"7.7.77 - 1 Q W- IOP; industrial - /! 4 1 L W WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site I' PHYSICAL CHARAC.: Vacant - previously eviously graded - land slopes from high point in west to low point near I Park Place. The site contains no wetland areas. 1 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Industrial 1 . El LJ . _ _a " wAt R. . =.- *VA • % 1. cin in ..-"""-----:---'.---....,___, z - t in Militi10 .01?„:* V/ • . I li 1 ti lity: . s LA is0 . sew II ■ , 4v fst ;1- Td: r allnah11111 T Iv:3R: :::1 . ' -, t--if4 Ailigf' 40 , . . V. t r 00° matas r ../ . . %R 4 . 1=1[finennia 1 me- ,- . ..... . . - ,.. 6..-irmirs...., 4,-;„.. r •Nino , .__ . , - .., i ,.., w RS i 1 ,' *a Irlitkoit C. LAKE ANN _.... ..._ . ;) kijov_li ---- ; A lb ol" ,/ . ) 11.. ...6 • t o '• RD 1 f . v .,. , ...._ ._. 4 . 11 s 41 yr. iirlo = 4 Ai r ovir . 4 P121 rl RR ____ .4 •■■ -, ' R4 t- _ lowlia 411--L* - ' " o ON II R 1 2 ........ R 1 2 - *- • ___._. Illihi I - - -. ...... . ,-. A ;e- lv BOULEVARD :LIIIIIC'-. . BUTTERCUP ' SG If ll. , iiii _ .11 • F1 3 . 0 fi L .f.- C ROAD 1 31111.1 ..■ - .4X11 11.* $ C I ICJ - ik• - ■••.....' ''' ‘• 10 P •-' $ 'a 01/ T ='• - =' ; 1111 — vv' ,.........-.1:71 MM.... ■•• • .... ....••••••• _ alt iii_,.._----,--- \ki __,•sti - P • 4r 4 11=10 1 P — • . — — N./ - • I 40 • airev.‘ i -./- - I Et I PA I 7 \ --- 0\- ,._%•,, 4411131"P. - i.. ./ . pt.A-0 •• ... IIIMPRItiu / . ' ,.....11:3 ala TS11 7 -, ,... , • • # . , 4 e 7 d LAKE SUSAN ' 4 ... a It ■ 4111 ; r - - - - - - $ Vip IJAT a I e RD . 1 9__... .0. v ..,.. 4 4 05:4i.4.y.,10:0,,......._........._...... „ 0 , 0 5 PUD—R g - - --- _____ _ . , . Pi"' II . 1 Rome Office Building October 4, 1989 Page 2 1 PROPOSAL /SUMMARY 1 The applicant is requesting site plan approval to construct a 32,400 square foot office /warehouse building on a 3.9 acres site located at the intersection of Park Road and Park Place. A ' second 17,500 square foot building is conceptually illustrated for development on the same site although approvals for it are not being requested at this time. ' The site appears to have been graded previously and contains no natural amenities worthy of preservation. The single story building is attractively designed. Office areas are oriented ' towards the streets with truck loading docks concealed in an area along the less visible north elevation. Exterior materials include brick and rock -faced block with a standing seam metal roofing used to highlight the rounded building corners and ' entrances. Parking provisions exceed ordinance requirements. Staff is concerned with the proposal to have two curb cuts on Park Road due to the traffic volumes that the road carries and ' the proximity of the eastern curb cut to Park Place. We are recommending that the eastern entrance be deleted and believe that the building is adequately served by the remaining two ' entrances. An extremely well developed landscaping plan has been provided, public utilities are available and drainage provisions are ' reasonably simple. There are no variances associated with the proposal. ' The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal on October 4, 1989. Staff had recommended approval subject to appropriate conditions including one in that the eastern curb cut on Park Drive be deleted. The Commission generally concurred with the staff ' report; however, they ultimately concluded that the curb cut should be allowed. They did not believe that it constituted a significant hazard and believed that the site plan was consistent ' with staff's intent to limit the total number of curb cuts since it illustrates serving the second building with no new entrances. The Commission recommended approval of the project while deleting 1 the condition relating to the curb cut. Meeting minutes are attached. On Monday, October 9, 1989, the City Council authorized a grading permit for the project on the consent agenda. The report from the Engineering Department (attached) stipulated deletion of the curb cut for safety reasons. Since it was on the consent agenda, the issue was not pursued by staff or the applicant. Staff is continuing to recommend approval of the project but ' reservations regarding the curb cut remain. An update memorandum from the Engineering Department (attached) indicates their con- tinued opposition to the entrance and provides further documen- t . f Rome Office Building ' October 4, 1989 Page 3 tation for the osition based upon the location of existing curb P P g cuts located across the street. Based upon the foregoing, staff is continuing to recommend that the eastern curb cut be deleted. If the City Council ultimately determines that the curb cut is acceptable, condition #3 needs to be modified. SITE CHARACTERISTICS The 3.95 acres site is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Park Road and Park Place. It appears to have been extensively graded in the past and contains no trees or wetlands. Natural drainage is into a low /wet area located off - site to the north. The site slopes down from west to east with the high point of 946' found near the northwest corner of the site and the low of 923' found along Park Place. GENERAL SITE PLAN /ARCHITECTURE The site is retangular with the longer face oriented east to west along Park Drive. Park Place is the more minor street and is designed as a cul -de -sac to serve several industrial lots. Both- the 32,400 square foot building currently being proposed and a 17,500 square foot building that is conceptually illustrated are oriented south along Park Drive. Truck loading areas are placed along the north elevations where they will be concealed by the building with further screening provided by the fact that the docks are recessed. The single story office /warehouse building is attractively designed. Exterior materials include brick skirting with rock - faced block above. The roofline is flat, however, interest is provided by a variety of steps incorported into the building ele- vations and standing seam metal roofing over building corners and entrances. Extensive glazing on all visible elevations tends to promote an office rather then industrial image. The architect has confirmed that the exterior treatment will be utilized on all building elevations except inside the loading dock areas. No details are provided on trash storage facilities. Exterior 1 trash storage areas should be provided with enclosures built of material compatible with the building. Alternatively, trash storage could be restricted to internal locations. No details are provided on HVAC equipment screening. The equip- ment will be roof mounted. Staff would prefer to have the screen constructed from materials compatible with the building exterior, by utilizing the standing seam metal for example, rather then employ a wood screen fence. Details acceptable to the City should be worked out prior to City Council review. 1 1 Rome Office Building October 4, 1989 Page 4 II PARKING /INTERIOR CIRCULATION 1 Parking provisions for this type of building are often difficult for staff to determine accurately. The reason is that the inter- nal division of space is flexible since it is based upon the 1 tennants needs. Office and manufacturing generate large parking demands while warehousing does not. Therefore, it is our pre- ference to provide a "cushion" of additional stalls if possible. 1 The plans illustrate the following: Phase I & II 1 Use Area Parking Total 1 Office 10,500 s.f. 3 stalls /per 1000 s.f. 32 Warehouse 39,400 s.f. 1 stall /per 1000 s.f. 40 Required Total 72 stalls I Provided 154 stalls Phase I 1 Use Area Parking Total 1 Office 9,000 s.f. 3 stalls /per 1000 s.f. 27 Warehouse 23,400 s.f. 1 stall /per 1000 s.f. 24 Required Total 51 stalls 1 Provided 72 stalls Based upon the analysis, we have concluded that parking provi- I sions are acceptable since ordinance requirements are exceeded by a large margin. I Internal circulation works well and no modifications are proposed. ACCESS I Three access points have been proposed, two on Park Drive and one on Plark Place. Park Drive is a through street that functions as an industrial collector. Park Place is a short cul -de -sac I serving the area that is scheduled for upgrading,next spring. Staff is concerned that the eastern curb cut on Park Road could cause traffic conflicts with Park Place and normally attempts to I reduce the number of curb cuts on busy streets. We believe that the site can be adequately served by the western curb cut on Park Road and by the Park Place entrance and are recommending that the II eastern curb cut be eliminated. In its place a paved area to facilitate backing movements of parked cars should be provided. 1 . 1 Rome Office Building 1 October 4, 1989 Page 5 In addition, we are recommending that the remaining two curb cuts be widened to facilitate truck turning movements. We are also concerned that the grade on the western curb cut exceeds 10 %. While no official ordinance standard exists, we believe that this is excessive and could pose a traffic hazard. The grading plan should be revised to reduce the grade to less then 5 %. LANDSCAPING A very high quality landscaping plan has been developed. The 1 plan provides generous amounts of landscaping in setback areas, around the building foundation and on parking lot islands. The area that is to contain the second phase addition will be t graded during the initial construction. This area should be seeded or sodded and kept in a maintained condition until construction is proposed. LIGHTING /SIGNAGE Lighting and signage details should be provided for staff review. GRADING /DRAINAGE 1 The site naturally drains towards the north and this flow will.be perpetuated by the current proposal. The off -site ponding area that will be utilized was sized to handle the water that will be generated. Preliminary plans are generally acceptable. Storm sewer located along Park Place should be designed to connect with improvements that will be installed by the City when that street is upgraded. To accomplish this an additional catch basin at the Park Place curb cut is required. The culvert under the driveway is to be for temporary use only since the roadside ditch will be elimi- nated when the street is,upgraded. All storm sewer located in public easement or ROW should be built with reinforced concrete pipe. All parking lot curbing should be concrete and designed to merge with the curb line in the ROW. Watershed District approval is required. Grading plans are generally acceptable. A large amount of work is required to lower and flatten the site. Erosion control is proposed along the north construction line. Additional measures are required along the south where water may flow into the street. 1 PUBLIC UTILITIES City water and sewer are available in Park Road. An additional 1 fire hydrant is needed to adequately serve the site. It should 1 II II Rome Office Building October 4, 1989 Page 6 II be located on the parking lot island found off the northwest I corner of the building. PHASE I COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE - IOP DISTRICT II Ordinance Proposed I Building Height 4 stories 1 story Building Setback N -10' E -25' N -90' E -150' S -30' W -10' S -30' W -250' I Parking Stalls 72 103 Parking Setback N -10' E -25' N -10' E -25' S-30' W -10' S30' W -220' I Lot Coverage 70% 75% Variances Required: None I * First phase hard surface exceeds the permitted standard, however, no variance is needed since Phase II currently remains undeveloped. As currently proposed both phases will result in I 71.5% lot coverage which also exceeds the ordinance standards. When the Phase II site plan is reviewed, it is expected that this variance can be eliminated by simply removing several parking stalls. Since the number of stalls far exceeds the ordinance II standards this will not cause any problems. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1 Staff recommends that the Site Plan Review #89 -8 for the Rome Office Building be approved without variances subject to the I following conditions: 1. Provide trash storage enclosures built with materials com- patible with the building or store all trash internally. ' 2. Roof mounted HVAC equipment should be provided with a screen constructed of materials compatible with the building I exterior. Details should be preapred for staff approval prior to City Council review. I 3. Eliminate the eastern curb cut on Park Road and replace it with a maneuvering area for use by parked cars. Redesign the remaining curb cuts as required to facilitate truck turning movements. Reduce the grade on the remaining Park Road curb II cut from 10 +% to less then 58. II Rome Office Building October 4, 1989 1 Page 7 4. Revise the landscaping plan to illustrate seeding or sodding 1 of the Phase II building area. This area is to be kept in a maintained condition until construction occurs. 5. Project approval by the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District. 6. Utilize concrete curb and gutter and design it to connect to improvements in Park Place that will be installed by the City. Add an additional catch basin at the Park Place curb cut. All storm sewer located in public easement or ROW shall be reinforced concrete pipe. 7. Erosion controls are to be in place prior to start of work on the site and maintained until site restoration is completed. Additional erosion control may be required along the south property line by staff to prevent erosion into Park Road. 1 8. Add a fire hydrant on the parking lot island located off the northwest corner of the building. 9. Provide lighting and signage details for staff review. ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Dave Hempel dated September 27, 1989. 2. Memo from Mark Littfin dated September 22, 1989. 3. Memo from Ron Julkowski dated September 27, 1989. 4. Site plan details dated September 7, 1989 (sheets Al, L1 and C1). 5. October 4, 1989 Planning Commission minutes. • 6. Dave Hempel's letter to Roman Roos dated October 18, 1989 7. Update memo from Dave Hempel dated October 18, 1989. 8. Site plan dated September 8, 1989. 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITYOF 1%.4 CHANHASSEN ='� 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician i (Cht44 ' DATE: September 27, 1989 SUBJ: Site Plan Review, Rome Office Building 1 Upon review of the site plan for Rome Office Building dated August 31, 1989, I offer the following comments and ' recommendation: Streets 1. Delete the most easterly driveway access onto Park Drive. Since Park Road acts as a collector through the industrial ' park, it is desirable to reduce the number of curb cuts having direct access. =� 2. The applicant should be made aware that Park Place is pro- posed to be upgraded this spring. The plans should be modified accordingly to reflect the proposed road improve- ments scheduled. The proposed road will consist of 3}" bitu- 1 minous overlay 38 ft. wide face-to -face with B -618 concrete curb and gutter and 3% slopes on the boulevards. 3. The applicant shall verify that the radiuses are sufficient for truck traffic. ' 4. The applicant should end the concrete curbs for the driveway access onto Park Place at the property line. This would enable the City's contractor to match the existing curbs when Park Place is upgraded. ' Sanitary Sewer and Water ' City water and sanitary sewer is available from Park Road. Grading and Drainage ' The plans indicate storm sewer being extended to the site from the City's storm sewer system along the north property line. The • 1 1 1 Mr. Paul Krauss September 27, 1989 Page 2 overall system was designed to handle storm runoff generated from such developments. All storm sewer within the City's right -of- way or utility easements shall be reinforced concrete pipe (RCP). The plans propose a 15" storm sewer underneath the driveway access at Park Place. This culvert should be placed for tem- porary purposes only. As Park Place is upgraded the existing ditch will be filled in and the culvert will no longer be needed. When the future parking lot to the west is constructed, an addi- tional catch basin should be added in the northeast corner of the parking lot. 1 The applicant shall comply with any and all Watershed require- ments. Erosion Control The applicant proposes Type I erosion control along the perimeter of the east and north lot lines. It may also be necessary to extend the erosion control on the south boundary for part of the site. Type I erosion control, i.e. silt fence, will be accep- table at this time; however, if the City feels that this is not sufficient in holding back the erosion, the City will monitor the site for erosion problems and if deemed necessary, additional erosion control may be required in the future. All catch basins_ 1 shall be ringed with bales or silt fence until paving operations are completed. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITY OF 1 CHANHAS SEX 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Inspector DATE: September 22, 1989 SUBJ: 89 -8 Site Plan Review (Rome Office Building) Comments and /or recommendations: 1) Add an additional Fire Hydrant as shown on Utility Plan. • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITY OF 1 CHANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Ron Julkowski, Building Official 1 DATE: September 27, 1989 SUBJ: Rome Office Building 1 The Building Department has reviewed the site plans for the Rome 1 Office Building has has no comments. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L -- - --1 m i ce i � - -- __ I CA 1111 I 1 X> • ' � i o � � m -i -- - ' l' 1 t _-j Z ' I 1 _ _ I r r'I n1�' 1 \ � -- -•j 1111:: Z i i i I i i i I i I I I I � J 1 t 1 I I I 1 I J -1 11 I I I I 1 rr — • pin a r, — 1 __ It V _ o .. VD X 80 — I o s - ?,,, 1 i -� .1.--w O '707, . -i-i •' I I � N I 7,11' I _ I.la -_ 1 Immo o ` , I I {1 I fl1 7T1 1 I - , I • 1 ° III ..-./ i =3f i 11111 i- i i a- \ \)/.. 4 4 46 e D • 1 1 o a [... ---........... 111 - — •/ 4 i ... l itii r l tp 3ii Z ! + + }�_ 4� i' 0p L C : If I i ! s f °. € � : � ° � 111. '���� f h 9 �� �'' a 111 nt eiji t' 1! , I 9 iii 1, i. € 1 r Z r r , 1 1 ! ' 0 l'i ; • I '' ''' a : t . . i ! 11 't it ' i . -3 1 V . t j #o P i • I R OME OFFI BUILDING i . . i �' I CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA .A 1 jW _. a Z Z 1 a r 1 'ill Ii •; -= .'.. ... A�,.- l i . I E 1� ��} ill! IE i • ' ' i ill 11 •. _ __ _� _ I I . I 11 1 l !!li I 1I : DID ` 1 ` i • �l! ill i E 1 9i �• I E Itll I�I • :1: . • .-< '•.. 5 > :.: :t '_. - 1 I-! i '. III i ll: ; i,illil iE D E . .1 t in • : : : : ;`f . .:: :.• I 'l %I � j. I t � � 1111 e' :�: •.:,• :.�. . • \ .:-;: '•.,:. 1 I I ili I 1� 1; ' ". E i�'II: .1::`;:: of i : . •:::v •• ::...;:: till li i ;!I IIIII .::111 1 liif •i'l ••; ':: is :1::�' . 1 :. •.;`• : a ' i " f II iI ;Ili E II i I : 1.' h :' . i : {. :,,.• _� I 1. � RI 1 I I /1. , II "iir= III i ' 4;5 ! • ry. ;: ::I :r i.1Ii' Ili I1 .1 i 61 41 II , . - : 11 . .•' . . 1 • f - 1 -, ..4,..,,,_.1.:.L.4. , ../..:.:.s...f..4.....,-;-1.-,-- .. --. ....;,...<7 ,- :T•:. • 1 ?I d! el e1 41 4.1 41 "1 .1 .fig i 4" 1 - .x li 1.1g.� VII Ill; 11 i I a ,2ad�Igf tai { __ I_ t 8 i = I II M� i lk i I 1 • 11) 1 10 1 1 1... i 11 11 • 1 i f 1 0 . 1 II t• F f G i i 1 1• I MD — I III 1 I 1 I ;I ;I FI I VI 11 1 1 1 1 8 1 8 1 1 1 il l 1 1 8 1 8 1 111 ,'• � r II il Olt it il it 1 At i MI - -A) ( 42' -,, a g II i -- I 1111; o 11 - t1 , t 1211— lji♦1�'ii11 n 11 1 i ri..-- -, 1,:. a i i i 1n, i �` f �8�. r�1 m s : s . .• 1 , 1 Id, � u VIIIP ita-,7=i , m . .. tit ■ib', .... 49 d` ' lel ....A.7t •ii;t0 ,. ' 4 ? 1 I e 1 .. y....f.::,,,_...- . li ., W itk , 1 • ..PY.IP---'-f-- f • Ibil" P 1 tibi . ; i ' 11 . w . ;- =_T.:. s- Z31 l td. .0. 1 _,- H RME OFFICE BUILDING 1 141'ii A •' f :". • tg CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 1 • f! �-:.. Ii 7. x i; -. 1 N' . "• ' • 11 .! ' . r .• ' l • / ' . . ' . . j • '• : . .:..... • t--• -- i •--.....,,, / E1,8 15, - Ag ; _,... ___",,___ _.......:. _- I. . . : ' I I I i '' 1 ; .; i:- • # f _ . : tl 14 .,' 4, • 1 . 1:: - , k ;,... c . . i ':...i. I . x T a .i_,4 : ... .. ,..._...1,:.,-_ 1 .. . & . /... / , .. 1 U. - . 1 ' _LEI ,e,„ • . ., ... i ' It • •;1 1 • . I • •i . r:/ -- • -,- f ■ ,,. .. • r 1 • • ,: , • 1 • Z • I • I ; . , • I: : ' / . • P fp . : 1.; 1 - .P; f. -. . ..:-., .--. _ .. Pi . ...,. f p eli: ..■.4 : - f 1 • . ...4 lie , , . ,11,. i 1 i \ / . , • .! • ..,-------- ' . • I 1 „ • • . 1 : 1 ' . , \ I ....z.......„ il i ;, . ' 1 .• ., 7 . I • I i i ', :3 .... .• • ••• 4 11 , ••• 11 •tom .....•• •••.. , T ...‘ ' . : • ' i : • 15 ," 1 1 -z.c..s.:•.c....7 1 . : i i - 1 • oi f i • ' I -- •••---- -. t 1 9 .. • 1 P i i .1 • I I 1 1 1 . ..- _ ._______..-- .... 1- — - ......- - ,E -.-_•- •-•.. __, . ,1 : / 1 • I .1 i . - .• .• . _ ._— , • --" . . I a f: r .• '9 • 1 ' ' Y.1 1 • 4 I , ;!:., I • : ' To, 1 I 1 / i 0 . -?. se v ,.. ' 1■ tn • op 11 t•o 1 ' II , . ' . ' .... • • • ; 4 , B , / , el ' . W 1 t ..., • _ ji C ° .. ' B • : 1.•.. i to a 1 ti I t • I 1 • : • • 1 • ' c • " • F IN .,,, ,.....• ,. 0 • • . z CI , , — . i ' j ! I 1 ! , :., i 1 • .•*'• • —4 , 7 1 r •"; 1_ , • I' 1 . , ., ,.: 1 -,e. • • , I ... a ! i . , • 1 jt I 1 . . T? 1... r . i i i . ! . ,1 k .--- i 1 I I A ; I ...' 1 , . , I i I .,c__ -- ...-. „....../ 1 d ' :,..1h: • . c• :•, i , ..... - - - • - ••••• '.... -- • . - -41..... „ „.. % . . 4 -...." • -I' 1 . s 1 t g fl 1 I 1 • ; 1 f ' I • m ■•.. . ... •,„.....1 •.- • --- - ----.- • e B at / • ../ - ....- 4 ___ ... .........---.-:-.. 0 ...... •. 7 .. , :‘: _ 13 • • ' i , ,t,..! f . • ••••1 t o. •• , ' . :: :7 , 4 %47. :••... ,-' . F .-I .< -a 1 ' i 1 I 1 .0 / "...0 b J ., i .... : ........... .„-- ,.. „,.....,--- 4 ,..(` ..,.... 0 v • r „......--- 7, a I i ...,• I I ••• - • • * t e r--- i • • . •••) 7 1 :, ' 1 1 ill a • ,- \N. • • — 1 • .... ... 1 4 1 4 1 1 , 4 i i i Ift:Tii! 1 I 1 , I II ?. Illiii E , 1 ligill fal g 1 • l I.,.. E • :I I ;i; •11111 Iti IV i I lit 1 1 1 I i • I II it • . 8 . • I , I i I I I V i [ • 11 _ : ii;, CHANHASSEN MINNESOTA '.; 1,....1 -4; .4.4.,,, , •:-, . - , r,-...1. - := l e ti4 4 ROME OFFICE BUILDING 14' .: -; rt:1-• T. i -- _ t ,. 5 .t v . ; , if tl i - . s el ; .:". • t_•,:a :14z=z 11 4 1 , e 5.:;• • ; ; ift III i 1 at 0 I 1 , . . --- • • 1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION II REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 4, 1989 II Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steve Emmings, Annette Ellson, Ladd Conrad,' Brian Batzli and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Wildermuth II STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Director of Planning and Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner 1 Conrad: I'm going to start out with just an item of interest. Did everybody receive a copy of Dave Headla's note of resigning. He has sent, that to the City Council and myself. He said it was effective October 15th. I always feel there's a loss when somebody resigns Dave because when you've been around and you have some experience, I think it is a loss to II the community but you've talked to me about reasons and I sure know why you're doing it. I thank you for the time. I don't know what's the right date for your resignation. As you said, there is some flexibility. I'll talk to you about that. Thanks for your time. You always seem to bring different perspectives and I don't know what Jo Ann's going to do without you around here. II SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN INDUSTRIAL /OFFICE /WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON 3.95 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED IOP AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PARK ROAD ANII PARK COURT, ROME CORPORATION. Paul Krauss presented the staff report. ill Conrad: Roman, do you want to present your proposal or react to the staf report? It was pretty clean. We haven't heard one this clean for a long time. 1 Roman Roos: Well a little history basically. The site, as Paul eluded to, is a 4 acre site. Originally was two lots but when they put in Park Plac which is a cul -de -sac to the north...they reconfigured that general area and made that into one... What I'm proposing to do is much like I did on the last building in Chanhassen that I did in 1985. The lot is large enough to sustain two buildings. The second building about 17,500 and thil reason I'm leading you into this is having to do with that curb cut. My option would be downstream to build a second building on that site. At that point in time I could have put a curb cut in just for that building 11 instead I shifted it -to make it a common easement for both lots at such time as I might split that property into two. The building is a multi - tenanted building. Therefore the amount of parking on the eastern side a you see... The distance from the corner to here is approximately 65 foot I did want to say in terms of the industrial park, there are quite a few curb cuts... (Roman Roos stepped away from the microphone and was not picked up on the 1 tape.) II 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 4, 1989 - Page 2 Roman Roos: ...I'm not aware of any situation in the park now that has that type of situation that has created a hazard. The other thing in consideration would be a cul- de- sac...The building will bring probably about 40 new employees into Chanhassen. ...As far as the staff report, the picture that I have, the landscaping. We went a little heavy on the landscaping with intent also and I guess I'm pretty open for questions that you people might have regarding the overall site plan. Conrad: Good. Thanks Roman. Anybody else have comments? 1 Batzli: Do we have to close the public hearing? ' Conrad: It's not a public hearing. We'll start Dave down at your end. Headla: Any particular reason you chose those kind of apple trees? Crab apple trees. 1 Roman Roos' answer was not picked up on tape. ' Headla: The reason I, and I'm going to dwell on it a little bit, some crab apple trees will keep their apples over the winter and the birds will feed on them. 1 Emmings: These do. Headla: And I should have been able to tell you the name of those trees 1 but I can't but I'd like to see if you can do that. I think that would help... Then the other one, you have junipers and red cedar. When one's next to the other, I was hoping to get some information on this today but I 1 wasn't able to but whenever you see apple trees, you never see red cedar by them because you've got...from the tree and that becomes quite objectionable. If you go to the crab apple tree, I think you need some expert advice on it. If you can look at it to see if the Junipers could 1 affect those apple trees. The other comment is, Jo Ann did you talk to the fire department again? Olsen: Yes. Headla: How do they feel about that coming down on the eastern side of the building? Olsen: They had no objection to that. They had reviewed it and they were comfortable with it. They felt that they had the access points on both ' streets and that's what they needed and the circulation. Headla: Okay. That's all I had. ' Conrad: What's your comment on the access? That's the bone of contention that staff has. The 3 curb cuts versus 2. Any comments? Headla: I think I've got a 51% preference to see the access there. I could be swayed awful easy. I think the staff has got some good arguments 1 • • Planning Commission Meeting October 4, 1989 - Page 3 1 but the other patty has some good arguments too and I think it's real close. Batzli: Curb cuts first. I actually think I like the plan better with t 2 curb cuts. I'm not a traffic engineer though but it makes sense to me have them there. Conrad: To have two? ' Batzli: To have the two. Well the two on the south. Those two. Ellson: Leave it as it? Batzli: It makes sense with the future expansion and everything else to have that access in there so you don't need another one for the future expansion. Otherwise we're going to get into a situation where we just put it in on West 78th where they have to redo it so they can get the internal. flow. Or else you're leaving yourself open because_= you're going to end ull with another one in the future expanded lot. I would rather have it planned at this point than down the stream having to force one in there. couple of questions of Paul I think. I think just for clarity sake, don' we normally include in the motion the plans dated stamped received whatever? So whoever makes the motion may want to include that as part of the motion. Something that I'd like to see in I guess I brought up befit Whenever we see a future expansion on a site plan, potential future expansion, I would actually like to see it become a condition that we're not approving the future expansion and I don't know how the other commissioners feel about that but I'd like to see it. I think the City from time to time has maybe regretted that they were somehow tacitedly approving future expansion when in fact nobody's really looking at it tha hard but I think the applicant gets a false sense of security that the future expansion is, since nobody said anything bad about it, it's a go a a later date. I'd like to hear some comments on that. The only other thing I had was the drainage to the north I think. Is that currently int" a wetland or where is that going to? Roman Roos: - There's a storm sewer along the property line. Batzli: But what was the holding pond or something? Krauss: It was an area that was created or utilized with our industrial park and was designed to receive all the water. Now it does have some wetland characteristics which may have occurred over the recent years. It's located entirely off site. Batzli: So they're not within 75 feet or whatever the heck? They're not going to need that type of approval? There's not going to be any kind of requirement for a skimmer or anything else draining off of the blacktop oll anything like that? Krauss: We didn't include that. It certainly could be and the other poi" is they have to get Watershed District approval as well. 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 4, 1989 - Page 4 Batzli: Yon know I don't know. There was no discussion of that in here but it appeared that they weren't going to initially drain into the storm sewer system. It looked like it was going to be draining into a holding ' retention pond or something. Krauss: No, it does go into the system. What's temporary though is the ' improvement on Park Place right now are only there temporarily. There's no storm sewer in Park Place. When you rebuild the street next spring, it will have curb and gutter and storm sewer and we're asking that the system be designed so when we put in the final line, that they all hook together and run into that retention area. Batzli: I guess I'd like engineering or whoever to look at just to make ' sure that they're engineering it properly. That's the only questions I have. Roman Roos' comments were not picked up on tape. Batzli: So it's really not even being subdivided as an outlot? ' Roman Roos: No. Absolutely not... Conrad: I kind of like seeing the thought of the direction and to me it's ' more persuasive in terms of allowing the 2 curb cuts on Park Road. Now I think if Roman comes back in and when he subdivides and wants an additional curb cut, I think it depends what we do here tonight, how many we.-allow but I think_on my part, if we allow 3 now, there'd be a terrific amount of ' resistance to add an additional one when he subdivides later on so I really like seeing an overall plan like this. ' Batzli: I agree. My only point was that we're not approving this building or that particular location or configuration. I mean the setbacks. Whatever hasn't really been studied by staff or us. ' Ellson: Right. There's an assumption that might go along with it that you just want to protect yourself against. I like the plan. I like the rear loading and I the landscaping. It was so refreshing to see a lot of ' landscaping for a change versus always asking to add a little more and things like that. I think it's a good use of that area and like Ladd said, I like the idea of seeing the idea of the expansion. One of my pet ' peeves is just seeing the word outlot and you have no idea what the whole, you know here we are planners. We like to see the whole plan even though it's not an approval like that. I don't really have a problem with the extra curb cuts now that I've heard the explanation and again the plan of ' what he's seeing in the future. I think then it's natural that people from that building would go in that way and the people in this one would go in that way. In that context it makes sense so I don't think I would have a ' problem with allowing that there. It sounded like there would be about 40 additional people that would be in this case now splitting up these two which would pretty much stagger how busy it would be. I can't imagine it'd be too busy. But I like it. Do you have tenants? You said this one's 1 going to be a multiple tenant. Planning Commission Meeting October 4, 1989 - Page 5 Roman Roos: We have one tenant and we're working on the other. • Ellson: What kind of company? I'm just kind of interested. Roman Roos' answer could not be heard on tape. 1 Emmings: I'd like to ask on page 5. In that little table you've got under lot coverage. Just the line that says lot coverage ordinance 70 %, propos 75 %. I know there's that note under there. I wasn't clear about what th�t line was telling me. Krauss: What that was telling you is we took a look or I asked the developer's architect to take a look at what the total site coverage woulli be with both buildings that they're showing on the concept and it exceeded the requirement. Then we discussed how you could bring that into compliance and it's a relatively simple task since the site is so over parked. There is no variance now since that entire concept future phase is going to be a vacant lot. Emmings: But the actual lot coverage with what is being proposed. Krauss: Is considerably less. ' Emmings: Do we know what that number is? Krauss: No, I have not worked that out. ' Emmings: But it's certainly well within? Krauss: It's probably 40%. ' II Emmings: Alright. As far as the curb cuts are concerned. This looks lilt a real reasonable and natural way to have the curb cuts and I guess I lik it there. You're not getting too much support from us tonight on this but I tell you one thing I'nm concerned about is when we talked about last week, the last time we met, about that infamous Lot A and the PUD for the supermarket. I think I or somebody asked what the regulations are in te of how close you can have a driveway to a corner and the number 300 feet stuck in my mind. Didn't I hear that? ' Olsen: That was on West 78th Street that we used with Charlie James' property. Emmings: So that doesn't apply to this situation? Olsen: That was a busier intersection. ' Emmings: Now is there a standard in this area for how close a driveway can be to a frontage? ' Krauss: No. 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 4, 1989 - Page 6 Conrad: Why don't you just talk to us about this. I'm going to ask the same questions so I'll jump in here. It sounds like so far we're pretty receptive to the 3 curb cuts so Paul tell us the other side of the coin. ' Give us some negatives. Krauss: The negatives fall into a couple categories. Basically you have, everytime you introduce a new curb cut, you introduce turning movements ' because obviously people are going to stop their cars and turn out. The more turning movements you have, the more places you have to look for oncoming cars as you're driving down the street. More places there are for ' potential interaction between cars going in different directions. There's no firm rule about how many there should be or how far they should be apart from one another typically except that the general rule of thumb is you want to minimize them and I can't argue that there aren't a lot of curb ' cuts on that road right now. There are and there's probably, is my opinion, more than are warranted given the levels of traffic. Having 40 employees or how ever any employees sounds innocuous enough, except you ' have to realize it's an industrial park and they all tend to arrive and leave at the same time. I'm not going to tell you that there's definitely a traffic accident in the making here with the proposal the way it sits right now. It's really a matter of normally accepted practices and rules of thumb. Emmings: The Red Splendor Crab is the one that holds it's apples. The Red Splender Crab is the one that holds it's apples all winter. That happens to be the one that holds it longer I think than any other one. ' Elison: Did you just look that up or you knew that? Well good for you. Emmings: And I like it. I agree with Brian's notion and I agree it's good to see what people are planning to do in the future on the balance of the lot but I think it is important that we have some kind of a statement in there that we're not giving any consideration to that even though it appears here and that there's to be no approval, implied or otherwise fox ' approving a plan that's in front of. I think it's nice to make that real clear. Those are all the comments I have. Otherwise I think it's a real nice plan. I keep thinking this Lot 2, if it didn't have Park Place over ' here, you'd certainly have an access on each side of your building and I wouldn't see any reason to treat it differently just because he has that other access opportunity way up Park Street. I think it's an advantage to having the corner and I'd leave the accesses the way they are. Erhart: I think it's a real nice plan. I think the additional landscaping overcomes my concern for the reputation of the developer. 1 Roman Roos: I love you too Tim. 1 Erhart: It's a good plan. Regarding the curb cuts. I understand the issue of the curb cuts close to the intersection. We're obviously, our business is right across the street and down a bit. Yeah, you do get some people running into each other. We had one the other day. Some guy ' scraped a car a little bit. We're right in the middle of the street so I don't know how these things happen. Essentially it's a four lane road. I Planning Commission Meeting October 4, 1989 - Page 7 1 mean it's wide enough so if someone makes a left turn, you can pass on th right. If someone's slowing down to make a right turn, they can pass on the left. I guess my feeling is the nuisance factor of not having a curb cut outweighs the potential danger of it so I guess I would tend to lean to allow the curb cuts. I also agree with Brian's idea of adding a 16th recommendation so that's it. Conrad: I'm persuaded to allow that curb cut only because I see the futu expansion. Property only having one and I would be real critical if the next subdivision came in and had 2 so I would only grant the 3 this time if I felt real comfortable that the future expansion was only going to us the one curb cut. Other than that it looks like a good one. Good projec I like it. Anything else? Is there a motion? Erhart: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the' City Council of Site Plan Review 489 -8 dated 9 -6 -89. Ellson: 9 -8. Emmings: Received 9 -8. Erhart: Received 9 -8 -89 with all the staff recommendations except for number 3. We delete the first sentence and change the second sentence toll start, redesign curb cuts as required as it remains. Add item 10. Site plan approval does not include approval of the building designated on the!' plans as future expansion. Ellson: I'll second that. Conrad: Discussion. Batzli: Do you want to talk about the rust on the trees? ' Conrad: My concern hasn't been incorporated. Emmings: Oh, the future expansion. ' Erhart: You wanted... Conrad: The only reason I'd vote for the 3 right now is if I'm convinced II that that's all we're going to have on this 4 acre property. Krauss: Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons why we encouraged Roman to .' include that development concept was for this very reason. So we could assess those sorts of impacts. At such time, it isn't one parcel right no and through the subdivision process, if it's ever subdivided off in the future, we can always whip this concept out and say this is what we intended to do. Ellson: Would that be typical to remember to do that or is that just ' automatic to do that? 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 4, 1989 - Page 8 1 1 Krauss: It's automatic to look at background and to actions associated with the property and that would be one of them. Conrad: See we're kind of over - riding your staff report which I don't like doing typically on technical issues but I feel we're getting something or I think in the future. Krauss: No, I'm saying it's fine. I'm not disputing that point but your concern I think was to ensure that there isn't another access in the future and I think we can do that adequately through the subdivision process and by having this concept and your hearing on this item tonight. 1 Conrad: So Roman can come back and say I want to subdivide this 1.5 acres off without a site plan. He could do that couldn't he? 1 Krauss: He could subdivide it off. At that time we would recommend that a cross access easement to serve both properties be recorded against it. ' Conrad: But wouldn't he have the right to come back in and have a second access to that? 1 Krauss: Theoretically. Roman Roos: Ladd, can I address that a little bit? Conrad: Go ahead. Roman Roos: From the day I conceived the project,'the intent was I wanted the truck traffic behind both buildings. That's the reason for this curb cut here in order to service this building and this building. Now the purpose of the second curb cut is exactly what you're eluding to. I wanted ' to not have a lot of curb cuts in the front of the property on the building so with this servicing the truck traffic, hoping the truck traffic can go back out that way this should be car traffic and it was my intent, as I already told you, to eventually probably split that property line. I have no problem with the green space. I have no problem with... Conrad: I hear what you're saying. 1 Roman Roos: So I did have intent from day one. I don't have a crystal ball and I can't tell you what's going to happen 5 years downstream or 2 years downstream but my intent at this point in time is to do that such that this would be a cross over easement. That's all I can say about it. Conrad: But you're also telling me, you would have a tough time getting a ' second access in on the subdivided... Roman Roos: I guess if at that point I needed a second access, it would ' hurt me on this building, the width of the building. Okay, that's number one. Number two, if I needed a second access, I would probably have to sell my soul to get both Council and Planning Commission to agree to that but I think if that did, there would be some logical reasons behind it and probably would not, should not be denied based on every other type of... Planning Commission Meeting II October 4, 1989 - Page 9 II and office in the industrial park. My intent at this point in time is no to do that. Conrad: I think I'm persuaded he can't do it so I don't need the language. II Erhart moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #89 -8 dated "Received 9 -8 -89" for the Rome II Office Building without variances subject to the following stipulations: 1. Provide trash storage enclosure built with materials compatible with the building or store all trash internally. , 2. Roof mounted HVAC equipment should be . provided with a screen constructed of materials compatible with the building exterior. II Details should be prepared for staff approval prior to City Council review. 3. Redesign the remaining curb cuts as required to facilitate truck II turning movements. Reduce the grade on the remaining Park Road and curb cut from 10 +% to less than 5 %. 4. Revise the landscaping plan to illustrate seeding or sodding of the II Phase II building area. This area is to be kept in a maintained condition until construction occurs. II 5. Project approval by the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed, District. 6. Utilize concrete curb and gutter and design it to connect to improvements in Park Place that will be installed by the City. Add a additional catch basin at the Park place curb cut. All storm sewer located in public easement or ROW shall be reinforced concrete pipe. II 7. Erosion controls are to be in place prior to start of work on the site and maintained until site restoration is completed. Additional erosill control may be required along the south property line by staff to prevent erosion into Park Road. 8. Add a fire hydrant on the parking lot island located off the northwest corner of the building. 9. Providing lighting and signage details for staff review. II 10. Site plan approval does not include approval of the building designate on the plans as future expansion. All voted in favor and the motion carried. II II II II 1 • 1 _ 4 CITY OF 1 CHANHASSEN , . .. . 1 . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 1 October 18, 1989 - II Mr. Roman Roos 10341 Heidi Lane II Chaska, MN 55318 Re: Grading Permit for Rome Building Site, 1450 Park Road II File No. 89 -8 Grading Permit - Dear Mr. Roos: II This letter is to confirm that on October 9, 1989 the City Council approved your grading permit for 1450 Park Road subject to the following conditions: 1 1. All erosion control measures shall be in place before grading operations begin. 1 2. The applicant shall pay the City's permit fees as required and shall provide the City with a cash escrow or irrevocable I letter of credit from a bank in the amount of $7,700 before grading commences. The letter of credit shall be for a term ending October 1, 1990 or until such time as a building permit is issued. 1 3. The applicant shall receive Watershed District approval prior to commencement of any grading. 1 4. Eliminate the eastern curb cut on Park Road and replace it with a maneuvering area for use by parked cars. I 5. Reduce the grade on the remaining Park Road access from 10% to around 5%. I Upon receipt of a revised grading plan reflecting the stipulations of approval, together with a letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount specified and permit fee of $238.50, 1 the City will authorize execution of the grading permit. 1 1 . 1 Mr. Roman Roos 1 October 18, 1989 Page 2 1 If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. 1 Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 <9 °— ' 44°if9 4 1-/ David C. Hempel 1 Sr. Engineering Technician DCH:ktm 1 c: Gary Warren, City Engineer Ron Julkowski, Building Official Paul Krauss, Planning Director • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 CITYOF \I 'Ilk CHANHASSEN yy 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director 1 FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician ae DATE: October 18, 1989 ' SUBJ: Update on Site Plan Review for Rome Office Building Site 1450 Park Road File No. 89 -8 Grading Permit As you are aware, at the October 4, 1989 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission agreed with staff's recommendation for site plan approval with the exception of the proposal to delete the easterly curb cut on Park Road. They did recommend that the project be approved with the proposed curb cuts as long as it was ' clear that no additional curb cuts would be permitted when the second phase building is proposed. On October 9, 1989, the City Council consider approval of a grading permit for this site to help expedite construction before winter set in. The Council agreed with staff's recommendation for the approval of the permit. One of the conditions of appro- val was to delete the easterly curb cut on Park Road. This created a controversy between what the Planning Commission had previously approved. 1 The basis of Engineering's recommendation to eliminate this curb cut is from a traffic safety standpoint. With the anticipated high commercial /industrial traffic volume along Park Road com- bined with the geometric layout of the adjacent streets and dri- veways (see attached map), it appears that this curb cut will aggravate the traffic flow situation in the area. Staff felt if ' the easterly curb cut along Park Road was deleted that the site could still be adequately served by the remaining two accesses. Based on these considerations, it is therefore recommended that that easterly curb cut be eliminated and replaced with a maneuvering area for use by parked cars. Attachments: 1. Memo to Gary Warren dated October 2, 1989. 2. Driveway Layout Map. 1 c: Gary Warren, City Engineer 1 1 .,__„ CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Gary Warren, City Engineer FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician DATE: October 2, 1989 1 SUBJ: Approve Grading Permit for Rome Building Site, 1450 Park Road File No. 89 -8 Grading Permit • Attached is a grading and erosion control plan dated August 31, 1 1989 prepared by Rehder - Wenzel, Inc. on behalf of Roman Roos. Mr. Roos is on the October 4, 1989 Planning Commission Agenda • for site plan review. The applicant has requested a grading per- mit be issued in advance of the site plan approval to complet - the site grading before weather conditions turn for the worse. The 3.9 acre site is located at the northwest corner of the 1 intersection of Park Road and Park Place. The site consists of grassy meadowlands sloping from west to east. The area naturally drains towards the north and will be perpetuated by the proposed plan. An off -site ponding area that will be utilized was sized to handle the runoff generated from the site. Three access points are proposed, two on Park Drive and one on 1 Park Place. Park Drive is a through street that functions as an industrial collector. Park Place is a short cul -de -sac which is - scheduled for upgrading next s rin r through street that functions as an industrial collector, it is recommended that the easterly access should be deleted. It appears that the site can still be adequately served by the remaining two accesses. The plans propose Type I erosion control along the perimeter of the east and north lot lines. It may also be necessary to extend the erosion control on the south boundary for part of the site. Type I erosion control, i.e. silt fence, will be acceptable at this time; however, if the City feels that this is not sufficient in holding back the erosion, the City will require additional erosion control in the future. • 1 1 • i Gary Warren October 2, 1989 Page 2 i • The grading plans are generall y i recommended that a grading and erosion a control plan e for e1 450 1 Park it Road dated August 31, 1989 as prepared by Rehder- Wenzel, Inc. be approved with the following specific conditions being a part of the permit besides the general conditions set forth: 1 1. All erosion control measures shall be in place before grading operations begin. 2. The applicant shall ' and shall provide theaCity ewithy i letter of credit from a bank in the amount of $7,700 before e grading commences. The letter of credit shall be for a term ending October 1, 1990 or until such time as a building per- mit is issued. 3. The applicant shall recei to commencement of an Ve Watershed District approval prior y grading. 4. Eliminate the eastern curb cut on Park Road and replace it with a maneuvering area for use by parked cars. i 5. Reduce the grade on the remaining Park Road access from to around 5 %. 10% 1 Attachment 1. Location map. i 2. Grading plan dated August 31, 1989. 3. Application for permit. 4. Copy of Grading Permit. 1 • 1 + 1 1 1 1 1 1 .■ • ‘.. ... - ...., _4. ... ..4 ., :AM , • 18. .K. ir p! ; •■ ., :, I J ..: a . :41 r a■ T.. . -• ..: .iffitf., .•••••-.. A i , - „;,... 1 ., ..4,..t.: ipt^ _ .._ . ' : - - . - 9 ., , -: - " - i .?_,; • . - "41 - .. 4111"."is.'-' ,.."N‘ ! • ... . ..,er.. et- 4 . _,..:4,_...... ...s. _,,.......„-.:. . 4 ... * r.....- It ' icA-lt - - ''' - *?t - -, .:: ' /..k 4 -- - Viir -•*•• 6 - ' - ' 1 •WM , ' - ' • ... Nt?' .. -, __ . • -..-* -*---. --` ••• - .-, . .. -Lk- - .4 - '•-• 1. . • 4 • - N • Ir - ! x 4-7 ••• ••••••• . , - - f t , . • - < : 3 , ....tt , !..... -- at-. It • . 00 w - ‘.1.1. -- - ......._•., . -‘)......---re . • ..,., . ,,, 6 .. --- .. , .--,. -., ..„ -.4........ -..... -__ ; 27.... ; , . 4.. :, . -• ,. . ... ,. • ..,,,........ 1 5,1 z , - ...S.- ",&••,.. _ .., •••• - ),„-1. _- .._ ,''' • : .. f r- ?: - . * ./ 4.410 ... i t.. 1 ,:,-; ./ 1. o p . . -- . 4 t . - . • ,* .1 • - • - . i lip : -..-. 4 •'"7 , . 7 .. A. . •:- . : • ...i, ''' . i ' •- -. .- : .-- '.71' '!!,- ft`" , . : • V ....4 X • ' • _-... .' • -; - • • -.. • - ,- .-- - . * •■• ,... t: , I. 1) 1 4 '.g. -_ 2 ' • afri ar.,_ 4 " .- - . . - - 7 • ,_, .,m, ""' *44 ' • ' •,-::*_, 7" ' ' • 1/4 • -• s II ' . „ .,-. r ; . ...--,..."). .. -:... 1 , oi:; ."- 1 - viii -.-.? -...r r -- - ... . r - - • 7 - .: . - - -• ....-, .• .-..., r .., -...-. .0' XS+ - 1.. . LT: . :to, ,,,, - •: It - .yr ••• ' .4 . - • ,,or . .• • - "A.- ... - '. * $ - • " "" ' ! , - ) 4 114. \ .... .. .. -. ....41. .,....y. 14- ,.. : x ii... _ V •,,. . r . • „ 14114 4. t •47;:‘,1„," . . • 4 '". • '- t z l i 1 , 12 , '. .- .5, - *t- . ..\-..4.. ••,..--• --IN . - a / ,. 0 4 .. .4 , ... . . ,... ,_. :: _ 4 ,1 , .. . ,; . • . . . _ •-• , -1. , . - • :::...‘' V ' . , - - - i NV - t. ` - - „ S I C 4 J . 1 r ' ' - .4;i • .• ** -tr .?_,... -' .. - - o _ . 4 ,... .,. . . ‘ • .31 • - .4 1 ' r .-4 t..fi-,.:2- -tor - . ' . . • - ..,.... . . • ...-, - . ,,.... . . .. .,- . - • . s ,_ _ „ .. .._ _ - •'• ., t•-? __. • • -,-,. PROPOSED ... -.,..- - ., .........1.- . .... .,... # • b " , it ...7-. -...- ... ;tr..: -- - • i. , O, ; t,- . ...,-,.. „.f. ..-,,, , - - - __..• , .,-4- t ,. 4.-/-4r '- CURB CUT S - • - • - _ -...•, . ,,s. .. . _ ,...:-. ,,,,..4..„.,........ ei .,,. , •,,..1 .....--11.. . _ ... r '.'.e• - ...-.*It . v • - -L.' •`",:::-. - - . ... . . - 4- _ ..„5.- ,,.0 ..... - *...1, . • . , - • „. _ •„„..... - _-- ... - . - -. • . 4., .... - - - ... ..-_-... - .. _ , _ ..- . .- . . -.„.4, --,,-; -,, -,.... At . - ,....-. .....), . • ... ..,,,,..„:. -- , • . -.1 .-,. .. ... . ,-, ..„.„.- .- . . . ... , - -,- ..•••e• - -,- . ,;;,. . ' . ,,e9"44.0e 4t 4 • , "i: • i , 4 4. r., • .• - - .- - _ _ ..-4- - • .,, ...... -,, . i •- . , 1 -,r.... .., _ tr - -, • -.. - .. - t - ..,--;/ , 4- i.: i _..-. ..: r4 4 • 4i ..* , .. - ; ;Jr .. ........ ••• _ . .-• -. , ..3 .1 A 11 It* . ' . - 1 • ••■ 4 • t. ..-- -.' ‘`, , 1 , •• - ..,. - 97; ..e ,„ ...„-. . . . • 1 - - - , . .-- --- - - - 1= .- s., ..`. ,o. • : - A :: l' . :, w . - ...l : •`' ,. .'• .. .' .. , 4 la" '' . • el • . . ,, ,z,.\. ' w ,...;'''''......- ....•■ • - ' N ' jr , • a tkt.• . .1.• :„L .., ..4--.7. -. • - - • - gi - r•-• *1 . 1 •■..- s, ., * ..*-:-.17,... ir" ":1"--- ; 4 •• . . j:ee i •.:11.*: i. ri::::::::: 17* - • p--• , - . - 4 - - Pr k 1 ..,_. ..„ . _:„...,„ ,„......,- . ... , , ,•••., . • .. .. .. - • - ' ". . 7 4 f .u . e 14.. 5 04 1-#. _ • , .4... • w •- -op-. • : op . • • • . . / .. t .,,......47. • . eit ...‘ -4..-:., , . . a.a .... A 4 ,.".. - „, ;it „ i „ 1"; i „ '. A , AC- • - - . . --..- 1 4 . ' k, 1. .. 1 ..'' . ''''- 'le 4;?; -...4- . ..... • "T • . 4111' 1 ... ik ...:.. ■ . -;-r - "' • 1111 . ..._ .. ...--..--- ... : T .0 1.... - . ..- •• .- :. *.•••• ' T,V - - . • 9 t' • • 4 4i f 4 .. ' . 4.t'. . te *■,,_ * - - .••• . 3- .0 - - • . i . '-,,_ - .. - 1... _■ y rAr o ... lic . • . • - 2 1 1‘. V -- 441- - -- . 1 . - ' ;IV.' - - -"•- 4-- "- ._- 7 - a - k•-•;:te . 16 - • ' ' -0 , _ • -Y. - - ., _ g A . L,_ ill, •■ _ s '. : _ 4 t -4 1 • 4 ..i - • , i... - - • - .... .d..- t, " • I le .. - 4%;- I- ier, , j : _ .;„--- 1. 4 .3, -51.-- -- - ..;.- *v. .1. . -.6:-7 • '. .: '"'" -_ it - ..• - , - • .„,..-4* V(4% . ...A. 14-, ,i - - 1. : --- - i .. I,. .. i,... walt. _ ...*. '-.. - • if ■-.N: -..-- "4 . --- . :,,, 11- - - ''• ' ''''' - - - .." - ' . ' - .4. ' ...illi•-- ...if ...14 1 ..-... "Aiikt.% ' . - .1.14 ! •-'% . 4, - . - -4 • Mk' 9 ' !.. 4: • - , ' ' t " ... ...4 vt ie -ippge i .1.11;..;:...._ak,r ::i:..- .r..... -• ..- ...1, -.:,-.7-- .... 447 ,;. -•••• • :.• •• . --i1/41-.-- . - • • 4r- ' - --2... 4 :1 „.. k. 40.• - ..,:‘,....• * . ;..,-,... - --.1... • 4. •." ''' - _ . 4 .... .... ., - .-.......„ -,.. _. . . ....4., ..... .,....... . - '"..15;!-CM , .- NI - :' _ ."": lt i p ...I.. -a. . - - ---tzi 2 1 . 0 i , ... 40 1:4 :,... , .. 4 ,„ ? . I': .. , 4 41#:' ::'4. -= - - ' ' '' --* '0 11 ' - '' - ....,.. y ..••••,7:4 - • ,_. - 1., k - --=„1.i-4 - - - - 1 . -.:40- ..1--,- . ----e-JR-- -., ..jii • : , s . ' .. . . k it ' --•.- '::10 7A' i4111i* •Lb ' . t /:. • . - --- ... ..-..-`1 - f---.' ,A iiir-..;'' -:. • ' :: _ fl a : t'il 91 1 1 0 4'1 1 ° V . r. C • _7 • ,-. ik 1 , 4,. IA, • ....4 ,• tb .. ... % , _' - --- - - - --* • • ' - - - "W I iwe ft. - je- ... - - -", , • .. - .- - t• ?I :,.-..",*". " " '_ - - - _„-In• . 41 ..-... -- - i - . ..:. _ • ' i ,--.,„,„ - 4.......: ■.-2.., ■.: -.1„. _-_- . - ""..._„„ ..... ii... ''-' ••• ,4 r' 4 :- ; 3t , - ,--07-7,....... s.: . ..t..x.........., .. 1.. I. . 7 ,. . - - . •-4 1A-7" • ."., )?.. -* .. .1 :,.._ ....:-...aaea• .,.‘••A - .4 .;,..,. ... ..-.... a.-- - ..- . - 1 .. .....;.. - si . • -•,,a,....* %as 4....... a. a -...A... :.4' **,....,:. _..... - - ... , _ _7,- .L., ' Je: .' '•'=","" - - ..r....' 4 . '-'' ' kt . t•-• , 0_ - _ 4.P.:...„: .'__,.. - .. -....„ •,..... _le.,gitt- per- -sto - ..,;.,„..... .. , ... • ,.... er^ . " ... ' .• ...„..).4,..., , . :01,;spo.....4Utr . ...- •61" ,..„., ' ...44rnit4.74.0.,, ... ...,,,.. ... .7.7P . ....... 7 4•• .- ''''''. . 4 E' . 1. l'Apia',00434.45, _ • : • III '. ; I - - AO ' 7Pr•4• ,•• V-•-•-t - „-_, _ , - .2.A..r., • ' 7.'-'17 ; -. )141E 0 ' ■-+ is • / ...1." . "is, • - lig.r.211,11 - •'.. .- ' ,..,..- ,.... . .11‘ - - - -- ,e' .. ±- s_ 0. til. ;°•• - -.`„ , • '''''t ,. - 4.711.4 ' • ,,,..:. 1. • . ' _ •••`-'," •'' -. '''':-• - ` ' - 2p/PAltrAZ,rt.r - Al,. „-4. -•t-r..• tr . • ...-ifi,•,,-•:- , ... _ .--,- r • --,, x-- 0' - - ..... - ".- --'- •,,r ' - . '4-Aale .-. ‘ - .----;. .0 - ? - .• - - '' + . -. st II: .." ! -.' .i"' s'. t - " . ...let. I --, :■• < . 4 .J.V. C. ...V "-4 - Tr `: - "..... t ... _._,,,.z . .".. „„. :7:6 ;', ...A ....•■•- .r , ,, , ..4. " .. • ' ••., . ....,%..--a„-- . .....ilAk ,.: ' ' - -... ". -44. '77 -•' -d itt -.. , --f:;, - - -, 4.! - r '''‘':• ' A-- --- - 4.1.-„1:4 - - -•:-.:,.:' .2-, • ..:g-14,;-„,:i t __ ...., .a. lit .,., - ,...v.... -1.14• , ..„..,..„,......,_,...... . _,..„ ‘... -7.- . 4., f -4: - ''''-- -,,,,.. ' - r " -P-....... 14„.. ----. ,. , _ _ ..k: - 41 ' !... - --'47.!.-r4f -P" 4A-1- - W - -it Vr ,,,tt - :UV* % lir. „,... ' 17;i• .•-_,.• it: V' .41'; r-- 5- ARK ' AA . . . ■ - _ - • .. - ' ".. -411111' - - .0 , 4-...47...:,•• v't NO, . '....- .... •- __ ..... . , P. , 4 _ - - - . ._ e a it ,..',- . - - - • CITYOF CHANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612)937-1900* FAX(612)937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I c \ FROM: Charles Folch, Assistant City Engineer C \ ' DATE: August 28, 1990 SUBJ: Review of Lot Split of Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park into 2 Lots and Site Plan Review for ' Minnesota Vehicle Inspection Station (Systems Control, Incorporated File No. 90 -24 Land Use Review Lot 3 of Block 1 in Chanhassen Lakes Business Park is currently ' an undeveloped parcel vegetated with field grasses. The proposed replat would yield 2 lots with the westerly lot (approximately 1.7 acres) designated for a vehicle inspection station. Since the westerly lot is the subject area for review, it will be ' refer to in this report as the "site ". Upon completion of development, the site will change from a totally pervious site to one with a nearly equal mix of 51% pervious and 49% imperivous. GRADING /DRAINAGE ' The site primarily drains to the east and northeast. A small area of the southeast corner drains to Park Road. The proposed ' grading plan maintains a consistent drainage pattern with the present condition. However, slopes along the north and northwest portions of the site appear to be slightly greater than 3:1 and thus will require special slope stabilization measures such as wood -fiber blankets and Type III erosion control. Being that the site is larger than one acre, a Watershed permit will be required. A storm sewer system comprised of two catch basins is proposed to be constructed and connected to an existing trunk storm sewer extending along the northern border of the site. The proposed ' connection point is located at a manhole adjacent to the north- east corner of the site. However, design capacity limitations for the existing storm sewer may dictate the actual location for the connection. The applicant shall submit 10 -year storm flow calculations for the site prior to final site plan approval. 1 Sharmin Al -Jaff August 28, 1990 Page 2 ' UTILITIES ' Sanitary sewer and water service stubs are availble at the southerly porperty line. Fire hydrant requirements shall be verified with the City Fire Marshall. ' EASEMENTS An existing 45 -foot wide drainage and utility easement borders , the northern property line of the site. No other special easements are anticipated. However, the proper front, back and side lot line easements for both of the newly created lots shall be dedicated on the plat. CITY RIGHT -OF -WAY , A future sidewalk will likely be constructed within the north boulevard of Park Drive. Thus, the applicant shall be advised that no signs or other structures will be permitted to be installed within the City right -of -way. PARKING LOT /DRIVEWAY ACCESS ' The proposed parking lot and driveway access have been designed to allow for the required turning movements of the various vehicles and trucks (including emergency vehicles) that will be using the facility. A concrete industrial driveway apron with a minimum radius cut of 20 feet shall be constructed at the _ entrance to the facility from Park Road. It is also recommended that a sidewalk or other designated walkway system be provided with handicap ramps to establish a safe pedestrian travelway between the parking lot and the building (see attached sketch). This walkway plan would eliminate one parking stall. However, the submitted site plan proposes five stalls more than the minimum requirements. Thus, some flexibility may be possible. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. Slopes steeper than 3:1 will require wood -fiber blankets and ' Type II erosion control. 2. The applicant's engineer shall submit 10 -year storm flow calculations for the site. This may regulate the location of the connection to the existing storm sewer facility. 3. The required lot line easements for both of the newly created lots shall be provided on the plat. 4. A concrete industrial driveway apron with a minimum radius cut of 20 feet shall be constructed at the entrance off of Park Road. 1 . 1 Sharmin Al -Jaff August 28, 1990 i Page 2 5. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all requirements 1 of the Watershed permit. ktm 1 Attachment: Walkway Plan . 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • \\,,, 1 b ---,,„ ,, • ;,-) _ •,/,` il . e. . l' io , i i 5 \ _ i i i I 1 it i ! ! ; ! .\ . 11 1, it , il 11 r _ r ____:d ) ; i I i , • ! I I, ! , i 1 , - i! , i i I • '1141.0. i 1 1 ii li -c1 i i 0 SPACES at I 1 8' - •1• ;! 2 6'10' b ;+0 Cs+ b I 9 ' 0* • 90' - 0* , i , , , • AO i , ,, i ii I . , , i 1 ..; ( ill i 1 il I 4 - -PAcE- of 1 1 1111 • )11 f .0. I s 260 ' ' 1 L ! 9- •• - 3") ® ' r- CY „ .; t C ' ...:.'.'. : ' • 1:::,:' J . '.:j,; - ' • ' . il . , „IQ *to' \ , . I 11 0 i • ' ..I .•,•.• b . II 1 I, 1 0 07-70. r 4 ...._ siRiPE 1 = 1 I I WALKwAy .o i % 1111 0.0' \A AI b i b, ci-44.1N,' LL7t,7 I • cu.k. ) •, , 4 2 - 3 :1!) ENCLOSLIZ • k R- 1 ory V !I li I \( ..,„441Likt I ' ' I I I I 2 6 - 0' g I , , b DisAa.ED : 14/ R • 20' • i i il; 1 '------ 5.11 . I • > T i i R % en - 1! 1 CD e S pANT 01 PROPOSED . I •11, sTPPING _.--4 I INSPECTION . ;0 FACILITY ' 1 . I •1 1 • 1 WALKWAY PLAN ATTACHMENT 1 I II Planning Commission Meeting II October 3, 1990 - Page 49 PUBLIC HEARING: I ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTIONS 20 -714 AND 20 -814. CONDITIONAL USES IN THE BH AND IOP DISTRICTS TO ALLOW AND CREATE STANDARDS. FOR VEHICLE INSPECTION STATIONS IN THESE DISTRICTS. 1 AND . II JERRY PERKINS OF POPE ASSOCIATES. PROPERTY ZONED IOP. INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF PARK ROAD AND PARK PLACE: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A VEHICLE INSPECTION STATION; 1 B. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 3. BLOCK 1. CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 5TH ADDITION INTO TWO LOTS. 1 Public Present: Name Address . I Jerry Perkins 1360 Energy Park Drive Dennis Palmer 5275 Edina Industrial Blvd. I John Uban Walter Rockenstein Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban Attorney for Systems Control Alan Klugman Traffic Engineer I Dave Braslau Stanley J. Krzywicki 1313 5th St. S.E., Suite 322, Mpls, 55404 5275 Edina Industrial Blvd. Al Iverson PMT, 1500 Park Road - Sue Krienke 1500 Park Road II Hugh Yeager 320 W. 76th Street, #201, Edina, MN 55435 Dick Hellstrom 1500 Park Road Dave Kelso Pollution Control Agency II Barb Jackson Pollution Control Agency Tim Raschlager Industrial Information Controls Gary Welch Industrial Information Controls II Paul Krauss presented the staff report. Vice Chairman Erhart called the public hearing to order. I Emmings: If you're still gathering information, are you asking us to act on this tonight or to table it again until that information comes in? I Krauss: The only information which we are in the process of attempting to gather is we spoke, the Mayor spoke to us this morning and suggested that we contact adjoining property owners. What we propose to do is bring that information to the City Council meeting if you act on this proposal II tonight. Erhart: Okay, what I'd like to do is open this up to the public input and II to deal only with the first item which is the zoning ordinance amendment at this point. And that is the amendment that would allow a vehicle inspection station in the BH and IOP district. What I'm trying to do is not get specifics related to this site plan initially until we have an II opportunity to, well let's give it a shot. I think we can get more sense done. So with that, would someone have some comments about the ordinance change? 2.- Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 50 ' Dennis Palmer: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My ' name is Dennis Palmer. I'm general manager with Systems Control. Thank you for the opportunity to come here and speak before you. Erhart: Excuse me. You're general manager of which company? , Dennis Palmer: Systems Control. Systems Control is the private contractor contracted by the State of Minnesota to conduct the emission testing II program here in Minnesota. The location here in Chanhassen is one of 11 sites selected for the program. We're here to support the staff's recommendation to allow emission testing stations, vehicle inspection stations in an IOP district as a conditional use. I have with me this evening a number of people to address just about all your concerns regarding the use and traffic and such. We have with us John Uban from Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban to talk a little bit about the use and I guess I'll reserve my comments for 5 shortly after that. Erhart: Okay, thanks. John Uban: I'm John Uban. I'm a consulting land planner and they've , g P asked, we've looked at the particular ordinance, the condition of the area and we have looked at the industrial park and we have found that when looking at an ordinance that I think you should really decide where is theill best place and not have it go into two. And as we look at both business uses and industrial uses, we see that this testing facility in our opinion , really falls better into an industrial type use. For instance, in Plymouth the State has similar facilities that they use to test drivers to get driver's licenses and it's off Fernbrook. It's in an industrial area and normal industrial growth has happened around that facility. It tests people. It tests cars. It tests people for driver's licenses. This facility as proposed also tests and that is basically an industrial type use. Industrial type activity. They don't come and pay money. It is a II fee that's covered in their normal licensing applications and so there is no commerce in the sense of people buying things. Buying services. Transactions with money. That kind of activity normally would happen in all commercial zone where you do have people buying things and it's that kind of activity, that kind of commerce that this particular use usually does not fit in with and it's commonality is best with industrial type uses. And so to try and encourage it into an area that is better suited for businesses or is more attractive for businesses I don't think is wise. An the other thing that the areas along TH 5 have in the business zones is visibility and that is a very important attribute that property has that II makes it valuable and very attractive for businesses, especially those areas close to the downtown area of Chanhassen and I think you want to strengthen downtown, strengthen your business zones by having uses that have common interests and business uses that have commerce as that base would be better suited along TH 5 with visibility. And so I think this type of use of testing automobiles is better suited in an industrial area. Industrial areas can handle the minimum amount of extra traffic this may create. It is built that way. The facility is very attractive so it meetil all the aesthetic concerns and it's peak traffic for instance, the peaking of traffic in industrial areas in the morning and evening where you have II traffic problems that may occur, this facility does not peak at those particular times. And so I think it works very well and is complimentary in that fashion. The other thing that we looked at and we had an appraiser Planning Commission Meeting 1 October 3, 1990 - Page 51 ' look at the impact on property values if such a facility were to go into an industrial area. Their review found that there was no adverse impact to surrounding properties when this is located in an industrial park and so we feel that allowing this use, either permitted or conditional use, in an industrial park is the appropriate approach. Thank you. Emmings: May I ask a question? Did you provide a copy of your appraiser's report to the city? John Uban: That, we have a summary which will be provided tomorrow. We ' just did not have a copy that had been finally prepared for tonight but that will be for them tomorrow. Erhart: Thanks John. Anybody else? Is there anybody opposing the ordinance changes? Sue Krienke: My name is Sue Krienke and I'm the Office Manager for PMT ' Corporation and I have some, what I feel are very legitimate concerns about the location of the station. At the current time we - are having 6 to 10 people per week coming in and asking directions. Now not directions to the ' station, Directions to other businesses in the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. In the Jonathan Park. Chanhassen. All over the surrounding area. Okay? 5o even with the signs that will be provided, I still see that these people stopping in and asking directions will at least double if not ' triple. I mean you're even talking where's the McDonald's. You know we're going to get that type of question. We'll also be getting people stopping in asking to use the phone and the restroom facilities and again, / don't ' feel like PMT or the people who work with me should have to deal with that. I would think that a much better location for the station would be on a major highway where people can find it right away. I feel almost like PMT is being penalized, we'll be penalized for being next to the station. Also at the present time, the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park is a clean industrial park. If you drive up and down Park Road on an average day you'll see numbers of employees from PMT, Empak and other places down the road where the employees are sitting outside having breaks, walking up and down the road enjoying the nice weather and getting some exercise. With these cars traveling up and down the road, will the walking be possible? You know it's a nice quiet pleasant atmosphere now to get away from your ' work station. What will it be like with the cars and the traffic out there? Thank you ' Erhart: Thank you. Anybody else? Again, I just want to emphasize that we're discussing now is the ordinance change that if this is passes, essentially it'd be very difficult not to allow this use in an industrial ' park or the BH district so anybody who opposes it, please speak. Dick Hellstrom: My name's Dick Hellstrom. I'm a consultant for facilities, planning and construction. Right now one of my clients is PMT ' Corporation. I was retained by them to help plan and build 50,000 square foot addition to their existing 25,000 square foot facility. The concern I'd bring up is whether it's PMT Corporation or another industrial office ' park type of client in the Chanhassen Business Park or another IOP, they've got a great deal of investment in their land already. Their specials and in case of PMT, the ownership of the property. Use of, in my opinion, non- ' compatible type operation is going to cause his property value to go down. Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 52 I would think there would be good potential for it. I don't think I could guarantee it's going to go down. I don't think opposing people that want 11 to put that non - compatible use in there can guarantee that it's not going to go down. He also, or PMT in this case has very expensive property. Not only are they impinged on the west by the inspection station, they'll be I impacted on the north because he's got even a larger lot and the two facilities, the 25,000 and the 50,000. The potential to develop office industrial operation on that lot is going to be impacted negatively in my opinion. Not only if he owns to use or to staff it with his own operation or builds to lease. It would seem to me that there's a big potential for negative use of that property that he might not even be able to build what he wants to build because he won't be able to find a clientele or be able II to lease the property to, whether it's manufacturing, whether it's office, whether it's warehouse type operations. I don't think staff has adequately explored the negatives of what one of these stations has done to an II existing industrial office park. They said they have plans of contacting some of the people but they brought up nobody yet. Nobody else that we can contact and say is it really true. Is it really have a very minimal impact? They've only talked to city people and all the city people are probably concerned with is maybe an additional tax base or something of this nature. Not the negative impact on the existing businesses. That's all I really wanted to bring up. Thank you. , Erhart: Thanks Dave. The survey we did was on talking to other cities about problems? ' Krauss: It was other units of government, yeah. Erhart: Do we have plans to contact surrounding businesses or did we talk' to any? Ellson: Before the Council. Erhart: You were going to do that for the Council? Krauss: Yeah. The Mayor spoke to us about that this morning. It was a good suggestion and we'll follow up on that. • Erhart: Tim, this is, we're struggling with this one. You guys own a building in this park. Do you have any feelings? Tim Rashchlager: We're neighbors with Roman and he has of course a facility also there. I think probably the impact... I really think two points that are well taken that need to be strongly considered. We alread have a real problem with the road...and the number of people coming in our front door and asking directions. It's a real disruption to normal business every day there. The second impact...we've had two employees hav serious accidents in the last 6 months. Both cars totaled. The problem was traffic on those corners there. And without doing the proper II directional signals at the corner where you enter the park there and down by...and even potentially down as far as the miniature golf course on TH 5. Those three corners already can't tolerate the current traffic and any amount on...would be suicidal. In fact I will strongly guess that you're II going to have a fatality on one of those three corners in the next 12 months. 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 53 Erhart: Thanks. That was Tim Raschlager from IIC. Okay. Anybody else on ' the issue of the ordinance change? Al? Al Iverson: Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, my name is Al Iverson and I'm the President of the PMT Corporation. I appreciate ' the time that you put into this. I'm a manufacturer and I'm not totally familiar with all of the things that take place and I guess that each man is really right in their own eyes. We came to the IOP looking for an ' environment to grow. Our company has been growing very, very rapidly. We manufacture medical surgical products. We have 100 employees. I expect to add 50 in 1991 minimum. You've listened to a number of people and we believe the IOP should not be rezoned to allow this. I've witnessed what Ms. Krienke goes through. Mr. Helistrom who is assisting us in the development of what we'd like is four total buildings which actually would surround, almost surround the inspection site, and I do anticipate to build ' it for our use and there's a possibility to build it for, I know right now we have about a 20% office vacancy rate but I don't expect that to last long with our growth in Chanhassen and I anticipate there might be an ' opportunity for additional office building to lease out to professional tenants. I don't think this is going to help me bring in any professional tenants because there's a nice pond there. We're going to anticipate, the DNR wants us to leave it. We wanted to leave it anyway. That is directly ' behind there. A pond where some of the employees can go out. A pond, a nice site. It's a nice amenity. It's a natural site so we feel we could build around it and add to the IOP the way it should be. And so we came here with the philosophy of it being truly an industrial office park and I think the word park is really something that we should seriously consider that employees deserve. We don't have sweat shops. We have good breaks that we pay for. They have lunch times. They like to walk. They like to ' get out. We've added a new lunch space with more window. More plaza. More exposure. We have all air conditioned facilities. We try to do the best we can. It's a small to medium company. They do like to get out and about and this is not conducive to that at all and I would be going against my philosophy and not doing my part in not opposing this strongly. Mr. Uban, the consultant stated this item. This training center in ' Plymouth is actually a very short distance off of a well driven road. This is not. I think that unit in Plymouth is not a good example. We see and you've heard about the disruptions. I've rethought about the corner areas myself and I think it would become more of a dangerous, serious situation ' and I just don't think this is the site. I appreciate all your time and I must state that this is just not the site nor within the true philosophy that brought us out here. We've very satisfied by the way with coming out here. We've got a tremendous group of people. We draw from as far away as Montgomery and Hamburg. It's a little bit harder getting people out here but it's getting better and we have a lot of openings in everything from assembly to engineering but this is not going to be conducive to our growth and our future expansion plans for additional office buildings and I think these are more in line with the office park. Thank you. ' Erhart: Thanks Al. Hugh Jaeger: Mr. Chairman and the Planning Commission, I'm Hugh Jaeger, attorney from Edina. I represent PMT Corporation. I also reporesent Empak Corporation. Al asked me to come out tonight and chat and there are a 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 54 number of areas I can dwell on but it's getting late and I'm sure all of II you would like to get home as I will so I'll make it short and sweet. Al is concerned about the IOP designation itself if the area is to a conditional use or another type of use. What will it lead to next? If yoll open the door to this type of use, you can be assured that other people will be knocking on the door. I was asking Al some of the other exceptions .I thought people could come along with and I'll just cut it short there. look at the IOP which the Chanhassen area has as a clean technology industrial park. Everyone who is there is quite clean. There is light manufacturing going on. High technology. A number of sophisticated groups of people lead to our quality of life as our governor speaks about. I II called the city employees this past week, or the first part of this week and chatted with them and suggested to them I thought there were a lot of other areas this type of a station could be placed next to. My first II thought I had was next door to city hall itself. I thought that would be an ideal place since people could take care of their city business here as well as anything else they have to do. Possibly along TH 5. Maybe somewhere inbetween Chanhassen and Eden Prairie itself along TH 5. I was II politely told that they really felt that the lots along TH 5 were more for commercial business use. I look at the problems of coming in, not only the zoning problems itself but that the property values will be going down. II asked the city employee if they had ever been to a vehicle testing station themselves. I guess they had not they really said. My parents reside in Delaware and they have a number of vehicle inspection stations there. I know that when my dad and I take our car down, we like to be first ones down and at 8:00 they will have anywhere from 20 to 100 cars lined up. I was looking at the summary here, but I'm talking massive lines of cars. I don't think this is really what the IOP was planned for. The clean technology look of looking at people coming and going out. I checked with some of the other residents on Audubon Road. They were talking about the traffic congestion and some of the other problems and the lack of stop lights on TH 5. I personally know one person, myself on TH 5 who was in all serious accident there a couple of years ago and I would hate to see a large pile of bodies form. The highway itself I think is congested at thil point and it just can't handle this type of traffic going through an industrial park. I think between 8:00 in the morning and 5:00 at night, between the trucks that do egress and ingress in and out of the park, there is enough traffic going in and out right now that you don't need to II significantly add to it. Something I've found was interesting myself is that the people said they're going to be submitting a summary tomorrow. I thought it would have been more timely to have submitted a summary in advance so everyone could inspect the documents along the way. I'll go ahead and not dwell on the legal issues tonight but I fell it's a Pandora's Box. You rezone one parcel in the IOP, what's it going to do to the other parcels along the way and you really have, what they're asking for is potential change of the whole characterization of the IOP and what will that do to the property values along the way and when the IOP was established was that really the true intent of the zoning of the IOP. I II don't really think it was if you look at the existing buildings going up. It's devoted to clean technology, not vehicle repair stations. Even though this is not going to be a vehicle repair station, it's going to be vehicle testing but vehicle testing means vehicles coming and parking. Lines. 1 People and all of the other sundry things that go on. With all due respect to our city employees who have checked with other vehicle testing stations in other surrounding communities, I think if you go off to the 1 Planning Commission Meeting ' October 3, 1990 - Page 55 east coast and look at vehicle inspection stations there, especially those run by the State, even though they're not run by private contractors, it's a very much more different story than I've seen protrayed myself and I just see that that would do nothing but devalue the property here and I don't ' think the intent is there. I'll skip a lot of my other arguments for a later time or reserve those for submission at a later time. I'm sure we all want to get home. Thank you. Erhart: Thanks Hugh. Anybody else? Walter Rockenstein: Mr. Chairman my name is Walter Rockenstein. I'm an ' attorney representing Systems Control and I'd like to respond to a few of the points that have been made and try to confine myself to the issue of the zoning ordinance and the change that's being proposed. I guess I'll work backwards. First of all a few of Mr. Jaeger's comments as rapidly as I can. His reference to the long lines and problems with testing stations in the east where I went to law school and lived for a number of years, almost uniformity those testing stations are safety testing stations and are State run. They are not emissions testing stations only. That's a very different process. A much longer process to go through the safety test than it is here. The time to do one here is 2 minutes on the average to handle one of these. In terms of whether it's a clean technology, the building basically has two types of equipment. Computers, which read the exhaust and dynanometers for making sure that those cars that fail the test ' the first time are warmed up properly to take the test the second time and if they fail it the second time, they have to go get the car fixed someplace else. Not on the site. There's no vehicle repair done on the site. As to the issue of cleanliness and noise, we have provided you with ' studies by Dr. Breslau who does this regularly. He has provided you with, specifically with noise contours based on the State Noise Codes which show that the noise contours permitted in this type of zone do not reach outside ' the property lines of this property. He's also provided you specifically with information on the impact on air quality. Not on the site but actually on the PMT site which shows that those levels are far below the State standards. The State standards are a health based standard based on the impact on people who are susceptible to carbon monoxide pollution so we are talking about a facility which is technologically quite advanced and quite clean. When we get to the specific site issues, our traffic engineer ' will be happy to discuss the traffic flows, the capacity of the streets in the area and I think he will demonstrate that the streets do have the capacity to take the traffic and we will avoid the problem of people looking for it by signage. Frankly I drove out here tonight. I've never been in that industrial park. I drove out in the dark. I did not have my map in front of me. I knew only the names of the streets and I hit the testing station on the first try in the dark. It is not a particularly difficult place to find. You come down TH 5 from the east, you go down CR 17 and across park and you're there at the testing station. If that is supplemented by clear signage on the State Route and on the County Route, ' it should be a fairly easy place to reach coming from either the east or the west. Our appraisal which we will provide the full report. We simply couldn't get it assembled for tonight's meeting. We'll provide the full l report to the City tomorrow. Our appraiser reviewed this carefully in terms of other comparable uses that vehicle testing stations, license testing stations and he determined that there would not be an adverse impact on property values for making this kind of change to the zoning. In 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting , October 3, 1990 - Page 56 short we disagree with the points raised by Mr. Jaeger and Mr. Iverson. WEl believe this can be a good neighbor and we have provided for you information which is in your packet I believe from other, both from II Illinois and Maryland which indicates that around those testing stations there has been a continued growth of industrial districts where they're located in industrial districts. In office district districts where they're located in office districts and indeed where they're located adjacent to residences, there's even been increase in the amount of residential development around these testing stations. Mr. Krzywicki just told me that in fact one of their ones in Illinois is located on a small , lake immediately across from a professional building and there's not been an adverse impact on the professional building so we do not agree with the characterization of this as something that's going to have an adverse impact on the ability to develop the surrounding land and we think Mr. Uball made that clear in his presentation. We will be more specific about the site plan when that comes up. Thank you. Erhart: Okay, thanks Mr. Rockenstein. Anybody else ?,. ' Sue Krienke: I'd like to comment...regarding the signs. We're not so muc concerned that people are going to have trouble finding the station. The roads are going to be well marked like you said but what about what other things are they going to be looking for while they're in there? How many times are they going to knock on our door looking for McDonald's or II. downtown Chanhassen or use the telephone or use the restroom facilities? Erhart: Thank you. Anybody else? ' Stan Krzywicki: May I comment to that? Since we are, my name is Stan Krzywicki. I'm the implementation manager. Since we're going to be a State run operation fully signed with an information office, you're not going to be getting those calls, we will. We're going to have a phone. We're going to have a public restroom there so the people that have been coming off the street will be more likely to come to our facility than. Sue Krienke: One phone and one restroom can handle how many people? Erhart: Okay that's, I think we'll discuss that here if we've got any morel questions on it but I guess a procedural discussion here. I guess my point here was to essentially leave open the public hearing for the ordinance change and I guess what I was thinking of doing is closing that and discussing that and I guess passing on that before we proceed to the site II plan or to the conditional use permit. Is that the way you see it Paul or the other commissioners? Is there a reason to go ahead and treat them all" in lump? Emmings: I have a feeling we can do it either way and it doesn't matter II but I think we'd probably save some time if we got comments on everything because I think we've probably heard just about everything. Erhart: Alright. Is there any other comment then on the conditional use II and the specific site plan that we're looking at? Gary Welch: I'm Gary Welch. I'm Tim's partner. I run IIC. In one of the" gentleman's comments he was saying that it would take 2 minutes to check II Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 57 our car. Is the traffic then 1 car every 2 minutes going down the road? Is that a correct assumption? At least? I mean you know that would be no back -up right? ' Erhart: If I remember the report right it was 800 cars a day. ' Ellson: 400. Krauss: They have their traffic consultant here who I think would respond to that. Dennis Palmer: Can I address that? ' Erhart: Sure. Dennis Palmer: Each lane is capable of testing an average of 1 car...so that's the capacity of the station... Number of vehicles will be somewhat less than that. We build our stations to exceed the capacity. This . particular station is over 250% capacity of the average daily volume so ' there won't be that much so we can service cars as they come in. Gary Welch: I guess my comment would be that I kind of agree with the people from PMT that the industrial park is a nice, relatively quiet park. ' I was just in here on zoning on our building and I have to say that Chanhassen as a whole has done a real good job on making the industrial park look good and if you go around to the other surrounding communities, and compare them, you'll see that Chanhassen Lakes is probably one of the best looking and well planned industrial parks in the area. To put a car every 2 minutes on all the roads I think would greatly diminish the industrial park. Why everyone is out there. It is kind of a nice location ' to go to work to. There's ponds. There's trees and I don't think that amount of traffic, I mean why would you build a station that can test 3 cars every 2 minutes if you're not planning in the future of having 3 cars every 2 minutes go through the thing? That to me is an awful lot of traffic to be diverting off of and down those roads. That's all I had. ' Erhart: Thanks. Anybody else? Dick Hellstrom: Maybe just a little follow -up here. On the say it was 800 cars a day and if it was spread over...it wouldn't be such a significant ' impact but what kind of guarantee or assurance do we have that it is spread . out over a whole day? ..they all come in at 8:45 and 8:50 all the way down through the day? It doesn't work that way. I would think people are ' going to go when they're good and ready to go and there's no guarantee when the 800's going to impact. It would seem to me also that at the end of the month when everybody now knows that it's November 30th and before I can get my new tabs I've got to get in there and I forgot to do it. I've been putting it off. Then I would expect an inundation of maybe a couple thousand cars a day. What kind of assurance that this is not going to happen and what kind of affect it's going to have on access to TH 5 from ' 17 Erhart: And your name is? 11 Dick Hellstrom: Dick Hellstrom. 1 Planning Commission Meeting 1 October 3, 1990 - Page 58 Erhart: So we're going to get the traffic report. 1 Dennis Palmer: Yeah, I'm Dennis Palmer. The assurance you have sir is th references that Paul Krauss and Sharmin received from the other locations. We do, and I am here to address the traffic, since we are on the use question. I do want to say for the record that Systems Control accepts the conditions that the staff has recommended. We also agree to the 5 foot setback. We've extended our berm and we've provided more than adequate screening on the west side of the property. And let me address traffic if I may. Before I introduce Al Klugman from Westwood Professional Services, he's here. He's a traffic engineer and he'll address it further" but I do want to say that our studies are based on peak demands. We do realize that people do not come in in even intervals. These are peak demands based on experiences. 1998 levels. However peak demands don't occur very often but all the studies are noise studies, our air quality studies, our traffic studies, everything is based on the worse case situation. We spoke a bit to air quality last time. I think we've addressed that adequately. I won't get into that. With respect to traffic, we do concede that there were problems in the Illinois program. Let me say that as the report indicates, that there were problems with the mailings. It's a fundamentally different program here in Minnesota than ill was in Illinois. In Minnesota the appointments or the times that people were supposed to come in for their tests were not tied to registration renewal. They were tied to the State's distribution of notices. What had 1 happened is the notices weren't distributed evenly. That can't happen. This program is better. It's more balanced here with registration renewal and they're evenly divided over the 10 month period. There was also a Problem with openings. Not all stations opened immediately the first date 1 of the program had begun. That's the reason why some stations were over burdened. It's the MPCA's position and they're here tonight to say that first hand that no station will open until all stations are ready to open. II With respect to the Florida program. The Florida program was a State run program. It was safety inspection and it was grossly undersized. The stations were small and there weren't enough of them. It was a State run program. What Florida did was cancel the program for that reason and they put out a request for proposal and awarded Systems Control a contract to do the emission testing and do it right. With respect to California, that's an entirely different program. I think someone mentioned last time that II there was a problem in California. California's a decentralized program. There's not a contractor that tests vehicles. They're done in garages and gas stations so it's just a different program. With that, I know it's getting late. 1 apologize. Mr. Kiugman from Westwood can take a minute and talk about traffic. Alan Klugman: Thank you. My name is Alan Kiugman. I'm a traffic engineer" with the firm of Westwood Professional Services in Eden Prairie. We have Prepared a traffic study for this project which we're submitting tonight. I have a number of graphics which I've summarized on overheads. Is it possible to use those? Maybe I'll do these out of order because they'll II somewhat respond to the comments that we've already heard tonight. Before I begin my more formal remarks I guess I'd like to talk to four specific issues that were brought up tonight. The chart that I'm starting with which would have appeared later in our presentation represents the projected service volumes for this site during the lifetime of the program As presently contracted, it is a 7 year program running from 1991 thru 19911 11 Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 59 and as you look at the numbers you'll see growth in the program throughout that period. Our analysis will focus on the final year which will be the highest traffic year, both for the subject site and the surrounding area. ' And to run through this table, what we see, we've heard the number 800 mentioned today. If we look at the top figure there, the average day in 1998 we see a number of 405. That represents 405 vehicles served on a typical average day throughout the course of the year and I believe that's where the 800 number is coming from in that yes, it does represent 400 vehicles into the site and 400 vehicles out of the site. Traffic engineering, we call that 800 trips. It's 405 trips that are being served. To step back a bit and see where that 800 or that 400 number comes from. As part of their contract with the State of Minnesota and the proposal for this project, SC developed a program which involves 11 testing sites spread 11 out throughout the metropolitan area. It's a very sophisticated program that they go through. It's obviously computer based. It's based on population statistics and growth. Vehicle registrations and locations of those vehicle registrations and so forth and the required service times, how far vehicles need to drive to each of the sites. When all that is analyzed and worked through, they developed a system that in order to meet the requirements of the State guidelines, the State request for proposal, a system of 11 testing sites spread throughout the Twin Cities with the projected service volume in each of those sites. 5o the 405 vehicles that we see represents the expected amount, maximum amount using the Chanhassen site in the final year of the program. I think it's important to say that if a question comes up, will that number grow? Can it be under projected? Because of the flexibility of the distribution of the sites throughout the metropolitan area, for example there's a site in Minnetonka. We're not 11 going to have people driving from Minnetonka, from St. Paul, from Bloomington, etc. to come into this site. There's not unlimited potential for growth but moving down through those numbers and carrying them out to the end of the table, the 405 vehicles represents a typical average day. Based on the other sites that SC operates throughout the country and typical driver behavior, I think many of us have done it ourselves, more ' people tend to renew towards the end of a licensing period. Towards the end of the month so the last 5 days of the month when they know the registration is due. Therefore, if we look at the peak period day we see an increase that represents the last 5 days of the month. They're designs ' for internal operations are based off of those numbers. All our analysis for traffic operations on the surrounding area are based on that as well. If we then carry that down to the 10 hour working day we see that the 1998 ' final year, 632 trips in a day represents 63 in a typical hour. If we look at the peak hour we would have 88. That represents a peaking characteristic within this site. I know you've all reviewed many traffic studies for various types of developments and it's very important to keep daily traffic away from or separate the issue of daily traffic from peak hour traffic. In any traffic study we try to accurately define what is the peak hour and what component of daily traffic does it represent? In the case of the testing sites and Systems Corporation has a wealth of experience and background data on that, they found that the peak hour averages between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m.. It does not coincide with the peak hour of the area roadways and in fact the peak hour of the area roadways is typically about 40% of the peak hour that we would see there so we're talking in the neighborhood of about 40 vehicles served during the traditional roadway peak hour which is 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. so it's definitely complimentary use in that respect. Stepping back to some of the other 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 60 1 issues that were raised. One more issue regarding rates. The rate of 2 II vehicles served per minute. In no way does that imply that throughout the day every 2 minutes a vehicle shows up is served and then leaves. That states that that is how long it takes to perform a test. I believe the number approximate 250% -258% over capacity is what this site is because it is not in fact a case where every 2 minutes a vehicle arrives and is serve but in the busiest hour in the busiest time of the day in the busiest portion of that hour, the busiest 15 minutes that ability to serve a vehicle in 2 minutes is what makes this site function without backing up II onto the adjoining roadways. I believe that responds to some of the questions. I would just like to very quickly, I understand it's late but II very quickly go through some additional material we have regarding the surrounding area roadway sites and I am going to edit down what I originally had so certainly I'd be open to questions on the material. I 11 have slides for some of this so I will not show them now for the sake of time. Presently I think as we all know this site is served in a major fashion by Th 5 with corresponding access from County Road 17 and Audubon Road. we've all talked about the signing program and how that will insure" efficient access to the site. There's been reference made to possible dangerous conditions on Park Drive where it intersects TH 5. Yes in fact that is a way that vehicles can access to the site. In none of our calculations have we assumed that vehicles had to access that way. We've II assigned vehicles out to CR 17 and Audubon Road where they'd be signed knowing that possibly some local people would use Park Drive but those would be the people familiar with the roadway. Using these assumptions in ' future traffic growth which could appear in the area, fact I would like to show graphics for that. This graphic represents existing traffic volumes in the area. Sources are the Minnesota Highway Department, city II data and additional studies that we've done in other traffic counts in studies done in this area. We can see that presently TH 5 carries approximately 12,600 cars on a daily basis. County Road 17 is at about 4,600 and Audubon Road is at about 2,000. If you recall back to the previous graphic we showed 568 vehicles using the site on a daily basis. If we split those to the two main approach roadways and given that this site is centered in a geographic area that it's due to serve, we expect II approximately an even distribution each way. We've rounded our 568 to 570 of course and representing that as trips in, we see approximately 570 vehicles added to both County Road 17 and to Audubon Road. That's a total II of north and south so half of that, about 280 in each direction. In regards to the Park Road, since the site is located on Park Road I think it's important to remember that the traffic is split. Only half of it passes any one parcel or any one location on Park Road. In terms of roadway widths, Park Road is a 44 foot road presently striped for one lane of traffic in each direction. Maybe if we go to the next slide. That shows the addition of traffic from the testing site on top of 1998 projected traffic based on the eastern Carver County Comprehensive Transportation and Land Use Study which prepared traffic projections all the way out to the year 2010. In summary, at the end of the testing perio the 7 year contract period for this site we feel that there's adequate capacity on the roadway systems to serve these volumes both with the growth that will occur due to other parcels in the area and this specific parcel, whether it develops as a Systems Control testing site or any other use in 11 this area. We want to comment that TH 5 as you recall has been expanded from 494 out to Eden Prairie Road. That was completed this year and by 1992 will be completed out to and through the intersection of CR 17 Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 61 ' providing additional capacity there. There's been comments on operations at Audubon Road and at Park Drive. In other studies that we've conducted in this area, we've anticipated traffic signalization on Audubon Road in ' the very near future, certainly by probably 1992 and that will alleviate some of those concerns. Again in summary we feel the surrounding roadway system can carry the traffic. I would like to talk to one last item and if you could, it's the very last graphic we have there and that represents the ' circulation on the site and ability for the site to handle it's projected demand. As part of their submittal to the State of Minnesota, SC did a very deatiled computer model of what we call cueing or stacking, service ' rates, times in cue, etc. to prove that their site had adequate capacity and as they stated, has about 2 1/2 times the capacity. The model they use is a proprietary model that they've developed. Since we were not able to use that we went to our standard traffic engineering source books which ' also have cueing models applicable to any type of site, drive in bank, fast food restaurant, etc.. We took the projected 1998 data for this site. We took the busiest 1 hour on the businest month. The busiest day of the busiest month. Busiest 1 hour so this is when everyone's doing their registrations on the last day and we said with this given capacity, could this site handle the expected demand? I set my parameters very tough. I said in that busiest 1 hour how many cars would we need to be able to cue on the site so that we had only a 1% chance that at one time during the hour, not for the entire hour but at one time the back -up would occur in all the lanes to the back cueing area of the site. If you run those ' calculations, I did this independently. I came out with the need to store 23 cars on site. That's a maximum that you would have to for the given demand at the very peak time. Measurement of the site indicates that we could store 54 cars at a rather. generous 25 foot storage per car which is what we typically assume at signalized intersections. I think on a site like this where traffic is not moving fast and so forth, we could stack ' them even close but the point is, with my calculations on cueing theory, standard cueing theory accepted in the traffic engineering profession, we show that the site itself could handle, could store twice the maximum anticipated demand at the end of the contract period. So again, to ' summarize the site itself we feel there's adequate stacking distance and operational distance on that site. As I said when I began my remarks, I did have more material. I did want to keep it brief. I hopefully left out any questions anybody has but I can address those as well. Erhart: Okay, thanks very much. Al, you had somethin g quick? ' Al Iverson: Real quick: He's showing 10% growth in 7 years. Tim, this morning we were talking about a lot more growth than that. 10% growth in 7 years, I don't believe it. Their peak periods are right during my break 1 periods. I mean this is really going to be rough. Erhart: What, the 10:00 to 11:00? Is that what you're saying? Al Iverson: We break 10:00 to 11:00. My break's right there and I think it's quite explanatory. Dick Hellstrom's been working on buildings for 23 years. In my opinion is, my personal opinion is that that's really going to affect property values in our business. Erhart: Tim, have you got something? Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 62 ' Tim Raschlager: I guess I have a couple concerns. One is we came tonight to worry about a little border around a dumpster. The scope of this is uncomprehenable. To not know about it I'm also, I don't know what to make of that actually. ' Erhart: Excuse me Tim, that's a good point. Who did we notify? Did we II notify everybody in the Industrial Park? Al -Jaff: Within 500 feet of that site. ' Erhart: To me that's not appropriate. Tim Raschlager: To me, our investment in that park, for someone like us our life. We personally for example aren't unusual to like the radiator company on the corner there or the two little shops next to him or the people across the street and on a bigger scope these people but we've invested a million dollars into that piece of property. Our whole life. And I love the people that own it. I love Roman and it's a nice area but I'm shocked as I sit here tonight. I'm shocked. I'm devastated. The figures on the highway, I don't need to put a piece of rubber across the road to do a highway count on Park Drive. 3,000 cars is, it's off a digit. It's off a 0. Park Drive is a very quiet road that runs there. There's II not, he had 3,000 cars there and he had some other ratio on TH 5 that the numbers make no sense at all. The people do all walk out on break. In fact I envision the day on that park when we take that little pond which is a beautiful site and maybe put a little walking path around it. There's a very high density of people there during the day that aren't moving except for to maybe take a lunch break. Take a walk down the road. Several of our people take a walk every day. His very figures pointed out 1 car a minute on the peak days. He's arguing 2 but his very figures on the board are 1 a minute. I think the park was never intended for that. We're devastated to have ended up in a meeting that we weren't expected to be involved in and I think there's lack of preparation here on the part of aljl of us and I think the seriousness of this matter, the scope of the matter and the investments of the people in that neighborhood need to be strongly ' considered. Erhart: Thanks Tim. Anything else? Anybody else? Dave Kelso: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name ill Dave Kelso. I'm with the Pollution Control Agency. Also is Barb Jackson from the Pollution Control Agency and we are here tonight primarily to mall ourselves available to the Commission to answer any questions you have about the program. I would like to restate what Mr. Palmer said earlier that it is the Pollution Control Agency's position that the Chanhassen facility would not open until the rest of the facilities in our network aril operational. When the formal presentations are done I'd be glad to answer any questions. Erhart: Thanks Dave. Appreciate your coming out tonight. ' Wildermuth: Are these numbers that are offered for carbon monoxide II consistent with what you know to be the case? They seem awfully, awfully low. 5 parts per million. 7 parts per million. 11 • Planning Commission Meeting ' October 3, 1990 - Page 63 ' David Braslau: My name is David Braslau. I'm the one who did the air quality studies. Typically at the carbon monoxide monitor in downtown Minneapolis, back in the 70's we were getting readings about just over 9 ' ppm. Now we're down to about 3 ppm in downtown Minneapolis and that's on Hennepin Avenue. Generally in suburban areas when we look at concentrations next to heavy intersections, we get somewhere in the order of 4 and 5 ppm. So it's really for a suburban area, it's quite a high concentration but yet it's well below the 9 ppm standard. And again, I should point out that the 9 ppm standard is an 8 hour standard. Is a concentration that you can be exposed to, that an inferim person can be exposed to for 8 hours a day on a regular basis without any harm and the 1 hour concentration is 30 ppm and we're far, far below that. Wildermuth: Do you look at carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide as well? David Braslau: No we don't. That's carbon dioxide is not considered generally a micro pollutant. That might be a macro pollutant in terms of global warming. Wildermuth: It's just that you can't survive in it right? David Braslau: But carbon monoxide is actually, in high concentrations can be lethal and therefore it is considered a pollutant. ' Erhart: Thanks. Anybody else? If not, I'd entertain a motion to close the public hearing for the ordinance amendment. ' Emmings: Okay. That wasn't the public hearing for whole? Erhart: I'll have to open that and close it quick again but I never did ' open it for that. Emmings: I'll move that it's close. 1 Elison: And I'll second it. Emmings moved, Elison seconded to close the public hearing for the Zoning ' Ordinance Amendment to amend Section 20 -714 and Section 20 -814. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. The public hearing was closed. Erhart: Okay, let's just talk about the ordinance change first and make a recommendation on that and then we can quickly, if it's allowed, then we can move quickly onto the conditional use permit itself. 5o with that, ' let's see, Joan do you want to start? Ahrens: I just had one question on that. And this is addressed to the ' gentleman...how often are the things that...checked for compliance? Are you the ones that test for compliance? Dave Kelso: Our agency does a lot of work continuously throughout the Metroplitan area of carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, particulates and a few other minor pollutants. Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 64 , Ahrens: But this is a new deal we're dealing with now. I mean are you going out on a regular basis? Once every 6 months or once a year? Dave Kelso: Well we have a permanent in place monitoring that continuously monitors. We don't go out to specific locations unless there's an actual II reason to. Unless I'm misunderstanding your question. Ahrens: Well, maybe Paul can answer this. Part of the conditional use permit standards we have to get a State and Federal air and noise standar shall be complied with. How do we know that? Dave Kelso: I'm sorry, do you mean at the proposed test facility itself? Ahrens: Yes. Dave Kelso: There is a carbon monoxide monitor at the facility itself thali will monitor the indoor levels of carbon monoxide. Ahrens: But that's like the fox...chicken coop a little bit. I mean how II do we know? Dave Kelso: It's a requirement of OSHA. ' Wildermuth: But who monitors that? Dave Kelso: Monitors that? , Wildermuth: Yes. Ahrens: i mean it's not automatically transmitted to some office at OSHA. Dave Kelso: Oh I see. No, the data is collected and will be stored in a II computer system at the Pollution Control Agency. Through our normal auditing procedures we'll be checking that data and that information on a routine basis. 1 Ahrens: What is your routine basis for a new type of operation? Dave Kelso: That hasn't been fully established but at this point we envision visiting each facility once a week. Ahrens: And you're going to be visiting each station once a week to check 11 and make sure that state and federal air and noise standards are complied with? Dave Kelso: No, we will not be checking to see if the outdoor air quality!' standards or the outdoor noise standards are being complied with. We'll be checking whether or not the facility is running in conjunction and in compliance with the contract and that the carbon monoxide levels in the II building are meeting OSHA standards. I think you're asking whether we're going to be monitoring the affect of the program and we'll be looking at the affect of the program but the specific carbon monoxide levels at every test facility that point up or down depending on the area. i ' Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 65 ' Ahrens: Paul, maybe you can explain this. It's 11:30. Am I missing something or am I hearing... . Krauss: I think I know what you're driving at. As a condition of the conditional use permit they're required to maintain a certain quality of air and noise emissions and not exceed that. Who's going to monitor that? The proposal as it now stands is that we could require them to do ' monitoring if we believe a problem exists. Ahrens: How do you know a problem exists though? ' Krauss: Typically it's because we're either made aware of it through complaint or it's something that we experience ourselves. Ahrens: So it won't be a monitoring process? Krauss: No. It will be a response to an issue. I suppose one could be ' more proactive at least at the outset and require a 6 month update or something like that. ' A` I would think that that would be necessary...because that seems to be the big concern of everyone. I don't have anything else. Wildermuth: First of all I'd like to see some calculations as to how many ' tons of carbon monoxide will be produced. I'd like to see some isop -ots for carbon monoxide concentration around this immediate area. I guess I'd like to hear from a State ...ologist regarding the affects that different levels of carbon monoxide concentration. I'd like to know what the direction of the prevailing wind is and what the velocity is in that location as to how the pollutants will be carried away. I don't know what ' the investment is in the Systems Control testing station but I suspect that it is nowhere near PMT's investment or Paisley Park's investment and I think our first concern with the industrial park has to be with those people who are already there and who are already paying taxes. On the ' other hand I do think that we need to find a location for a vehicle test station in Chanhassen. This just is not the location. I don't know if you've looked at a number of other locations or what kind of effort you put ' into finding a location but I don't think this is one. We've got an excellent industrial park. We've attracted some first class occupants in that park and I would not want to do something that appears to be so contrary to their wishes. In terms of ordinance changing, in terms of ' zoning changing and I don't know how to do that without letting something like this into our existing industrial park. Business Highway and IOP seem to be logical places for a facility like this to be located. The problem ' is how do we pass an ordinance to allow that but keep them out of a particular location they're looking at and keep them out of this particular industrial park. That's the question. I think a facility like this should ' be immediately adjacent no more than probably 200 yards from a major arterial. I think it ought to be very readily accessible. It ought to be near a signaled intersection. I agree with, I don't recall your name but I agree with you. If there hasn't been a fatality up there on Audubon, there probably will be soon or around that mini golf course. Those are definitely problem areas. If the test facility has to go into the location that we're looking at, I think one of the conditions absolutely has to be that there's a signal on TH 5. ...I think that our homework has really 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 66 been done here in locating this thing. I'm not convinced that a facility like this doesn't present a health hazard and I think that there are some strategic issues that you look at in siting something like this. Like for example pollutant isoplots and prevailing wind velocities and things like that. You look at the same kinds of things when you site something like 1 this that you do when you site a power plant or a sewage treatment plant and that hasn't been done. Erhart: Okay, thanks Jim. Annette? ' Elison: Actually I'm concerned about the air quality. I picture this, yoll know we were talking last time about the drive thru at McDonald's or something like that and I was the one before that thought the Business Highway was probably the most appropriate just because of the convenience they were trying to get and the in and out access and things like that butt the more information that's coming forward, the more I'm less opposed to i being here. I guess I don't see a lot of homework on the other side. Maybe before it gets to City Council there would be but there's a lot of fears that haven't been verified and maybe I would suggest that those opposed try to get more facts before it goes to City Council. Maybe that one in Delaware was just an emission only and we could find some concrete examples of emission only type testing that has you know failed and hasn't" served the community well. I need more of a shadow of a doubt than I had last time. Before "I was totally against it because I pictured the volume like a McDonald's you know breakfast meal or whatever and I didn't see thail being here. Now they're saying the average wait is 6 cars and you can get more than that at a McDonald's easy so it just doesn't seem like it's quite as much but this would be a conditional use and when I look up what we allow right now, I can see the exact same complaints by the same people in the industrial parks complaining if it was a motor freight terminal going in which is perfectly allowed right now. They wouldn't want people welkin with freight vehicles around and yet lumber yard we say we can do. Concrete mixing-plants we say we could put in without them even having any say so I don't think this is so overly different than some of the ones that obviously be complaints for the exact same reasons. I don't quite understand the idea of people asking questions and I don't know that this I would necessarily increase that. I think if a person is going here and they're waiting anyway, that probably would be where they're getting their information as well as their bathroom stop so I guess I don't see that as II big negative but I'm leaning towards allowing it more because now all the data's coming in and the property values haven't been proven to go down and unless I start seeing more things that say that they have, and again maybe' we'll find that out by City Council but I don't see it in -front of me that the fears are confirmed but I would suggest that that kind of homework be done before it gets there. I think it would be more readily allowed. So , at this point I'm leaning toward approving it although I think the Business Highway is perfect but I'm less opposed to the IOP but I would be if I could see more evidence. I mean I just need more shadow of a doubt that it hurt 2 or 3 people's property's then I'd be all for probably II allowing it only in the business highway but I'm not seeing anything that says that except for people that think it's going to happen and then not very much proof. So that's where I'm at. Kind of on the fence. 1 Erhart: Thanks Annette. Steve. 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 67 ' Emrnings: Well this isn't easy. We've heard a lot of stuff here tonight and some of it was kind of silly I think but to me there's only, and there I'm referring to people worried about people coming to use their bathroom. ' I don't regard that as being a very substantive comment but you know it almost fits in the BH but that's highly oriented commercial development. That's what the intent statement says and this really isn't that. And the ' office industrial intent section, where's the IOP? Ellson: Here. ' Ernmings: The IOP is large scale light industrial which just doesn't quite seem to fit and commercial planned development and I don't even know what that is. I've never really looked at that one before but as Annette said, ' when you read down through the uses we permitted and the conditional uses we've designated, it does kind of seem to fit in both those areas so I think we've targeted the right ones and I think it can go in either. And ' when you collect all the data by the way that Jim wants, make sure you give My copy to Jim because I have interest in reading it I wouldn't urderstand it anyway. I assume that our city engineer can evaluate that stuff. He's going to have to for me because I can't. What I hear in this ' room tonight is the same thing we hear over and over again and that's I think just a standard problem in a developing community. Here we've got neighbors who are content to have the property next door be empty or just ' like theirs but really don't want it to be different and we hear that when we do rural subdivisions. The farmers don't want the houses in there and then the big lot developments come,in and then they want a smaller lot I development next door and the folks with the big lots don't want the small lots and it's just endless and nobody seems to realize that if the zoning hadn't been changed in the first place, they wouldn't have been able to build there either. It's also kind of amusing that everybody that's ' against everything here tonight so far has piled up dead bodies on the highway. This is the third one where we've had dead bodies on the highway and maybe they're right. I don't know but it seems to be one of the most popular tools for trying to argue against something. I was impressed by the things that the staff found out from other communities that have these fi3cilities. That's real meaningful and what they found out there was they had problems with these places for the first year and then • things weren't ' so bad. The other thing that they found out from these other governmental units is that this particular outfit, Systems Control has been very easy to work with. I'm quoting from the staff report, they move fast to resolve ' and eliminate problems and are readily available to work with State and City staff to meet demands" so that's impressive to me. They sound like they'll be good neighbors even though you don't want them and in fact .have ' threatened to sue the city over...which I think is a little strong. But in any case, to me there's one issue and that's traffic. That's the only thing that seems to me to be a substantive issue and so far we've only heard their side of that and what I hear there sounds reasonable to me. It ' doesn't seem like it will over burden the loads or anything else in that area so I have no problem either with the, I know I'm supposed to be talking about the condition use permit but these things seem to get woven I together and you can't really take them apart so I would support the conditional use permit. The one thing I don't like about them, I frankly don't like (f). First of all it says the State and Federal air and noise standards will be complied with. Well they don't have any choice anyway. Panning Commission Meeting 11 October 3, 1990 - Page 68 :gauss: No, that's not true. I mean you shouldn't exceed those standards" but things occasionally do. Emmings: But they have to whether we say they do or not. Our saying that they have to doesn't add anything to the fact that they have to. ' Krauss: What we're saying is that we want to be in the loop so that we can have an additional way of monitoring. ' Emmings: So you want to be able to enforce it from here? Krauss: Yeah. I mean the PCA's a very cooperative agency with these type of issues but they deal with a very large area and at times a community can act more, be more responsive. Emmings: The one thing is if problems are found to exist, the property owner is required to pay for testing deemed to be required by the City to clarify the situation. I don't know how somebody else said, how are you II going to know you have a problem until you test and find out? It seems kind of around in a circle. I don't understand it real well. That's the only one that seemed kind of odd. Otherwise I support it. , Erhart: Okay. In dealing with the ordinance, I guess I don't like tabling things but I think this is one that it does everybody justice by tabling it. I started out pretty neutral on this and I guess I shouldn't have bee"' running a business in the industrial park. Since that time I've become very strongly opposed to having these types of uses in the industrial park. And I say park, I see this as an issue of the Chanhassen Lakes Industrial ' Park as opposed to perhaps what you view it as just another use and where you best fit it. I think the City, we put together the Chanhassen Lakes Industrial Park and we defined it as an entity with certain uses and restrictions and we sold it to businesses coming into Chanhassen that this ' wai, going to be a park with certain expectations. I think going back and then changing that, in the first place I don't think that we should make any ordinance change that deals with that park without notifying everybody in that park. - I mean that would be the most unfair thing I could imagine to sit here and not have a complete public hearing without inviting all the people that are in the industrial park. Everybody got the same sales pitcl about why they ought to go in the industrial park and what they could expect in there. Second thing is, if they do come in and we've heard two and now I guess I'll throw my ring in there too, I'll take it back: I'm not a building owner so I won't say it from that standpoint but when you hear from the existing tenants and the existing owners in that park that they object to a new use, I don't think, I disagree with Annette. I don't think it's up to the building owners and the people in that park to prove I to us that it's a non - compatible use. It's up to them, it's up to this nevi' use to prove that they're a member of this park. A member of this association and I think by the fact that we've got some people and I would" venture to say that there's not many people in the park are very aware of what we're talking about doing, is that it's not acceptable and I think we're going against the commitments that we've made to the users and existing people in the park by making a change that they're against. I think this is not, we've had someone come up here and tell us that this is not a commercial use. It doesn't make any difference whether the State's Paying for the service or the person's writing a check. Somebody's paying ' ' Planning Commission Meeting Oct ober 3, 1990 - Page 69 - for some individual to drive in and get a service. Is it any different than a gas station? Is it any different than a post office? Would you put a license center in the middle and right smack in the middle of an ' industrial park? I think it's clearly a commercial use. It's people come in, get a service and leave and it's not like some industrial parks where you have a gas station that the intent of the gas station is to serve ' generally the people in that park. This use is intended to serve people from a broad area. And so it is clearly in my mind a commercial use and lends itself specifically for the BH district. Dealing with the traffic in my mind, that's not the biggest issue. It's the park issue but a bigger issue is the people walking around in there. Now I think we made some mistakes in this park and one is not putting sidewalks in but our employees and my window faces out there and essentially during the middle of the day ' people are walking up and down that street. That is their, you know the Park has no restaurant in it. Okay so people like, I assume these employers they have lunchrooms and then people go in and bring their bag ' lunches or machines and then they go out walking for their half hour or 45 minutes. People are walking on the streets. There's-no sidewalks there and I would recommend that in the future for industrial parks we do put sidewalks in. So adding a whole bunch more traffic at this point I think I dc.e` interfere with that and will significantly change the way this park is used and so I oppose it for that reason. On the other hand the BH district 5y it's nature is designed to use retail traffic. It's got the stop ' lights.- It's designed to deal with the kind of traffic that comes with the c'c.,imercial use and this is clearly a commercial use and the traffic use I t'link proves that out. I think the point is, you know this is a pollution ' station but once you allow that in the park, as soon as the State regulates we'■e got to have a safety inspection and they come in here, you're not going to say no to the safety inspection. I mean they're all somewhat the same use and so I think that, someone mentioned that well pollution stations don't require because they only require 2 minutes and the safety stations is longer, that argument actually supported my opposition to this thing. In general I've been in this park for 5 years. Going on 6 years ' and initially the first buildings that came in the park were not the greatest. Over the years as the park has I don't know if the City's done A good job selling the park to people or whatever, the quality has improved dramatically in the newer buildings that have gone in. The PMT building is ' really beautiful. Some of the things are improving. We do have some old buildings across from me like the Auto Unlimited building and so forth, they don't fit anywhere and I think this is a step backwards in our ' industrial park to put in essentially a specialized gas station. Lastly I also look at this as a temporary use and I think there's a real danger that you could put this temporary, this specific gas station in. It's ' cslled a service station and it won't quite offend as many people but where this use all of a sudden they lose their contract or somehow all of a sodden you have a building standing with a bunch of overhead doors in our industrial park. Where you can lease other office buildings like ours and ' =IC's to other people quickly, this is a very specific use building and I don't think if it's use discontinues, you're not going to lease it to arybody. It's going to sit there until someone develops that, really tears ' it down and does something else with it. So I think it's an issue. I think we have a commitment to the people in the industrial park. Certainly have a commitment to notify them at least because you're dealing with something that we sold these people and right now we're talking about changing the product and the people say they don't want it. The current Planning Commission Meeting 1 October 3, 1990 - Page 70 Participants in this agreement don't want it changed. And so I'm opposed" to it. With that I guess I would invite a motion on the issue dealing with the, oh there's one last item. The staff had an argument that we don't have any room in the BH district, therefore we ought to put it in the IOP. II Well, you know we don't have any room in the industrial parks either. Krauss: No, we're running short. ' Erhart: Okay, so to me that, when we look at our Comp Plan which we're doing right now, if we don't have room for this kind of thing, are we goini to have this and we're going to have a quick oil change thing, I mean we have just, the community and I agree with the Pollution Control people. We have for these things. We have to find provisions for them in the right place and this is not the right place. Anyway, I'll entertain a motion for that from anybody who'd like to strike out. Ahrens: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment allowing vehicle testing stations as conditional' uses in the IOP and BH districts as stated except for (g)...to read vehicles, second line, vehicles stacking in fire lanes, parking areas end other drives. Emmings: Second. Erhart: Okay, the motion's been made and seconded that we approve the , change in the ordinance for both IOP and BH districts. Is there any discussion? Ahrens moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment allowing vehicle testing stations a conditional uses in the IOP and BH districts amended to read as follows: Section 20 -293, Conditional Use Permit Standards, is added (amended) to read as follows: , emissions Control Testing Stations - Authorized to undertake emissions and /or safety monitoring required by the State of Minnesota provided that: ' a. the operation is under contract agreement with the State of Minnesota to provide these services; h. no repairs are performed on the site; c. no gas or parts are sold on the site; ' d. no outdoor storage of vehicles or related materials; e. no diesel testing to be allowed at the site; ' 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 II pay for any testing deemed to be required by the City to clarify the situation; 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 71 ' all vehicle stacking shall be provided on -site in designated lanes. Vehicles stacking in fire lanes, parking areas and other drives shall be prohibited. ' Section 20 -814. Conditional Uses in the Industrial Office Park District is amended to read: (15) Emission control testing stations. Section 20 -714. Conditional uses in the BH, Highway Business District is amended to read: (9) Emission control testing stations. 1 Ahrens, Emmings, and Ellson voted in favor. Wildermuth and Erhart voted in opposition and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. ' Erhart: Jim, do you feel you need to add any more comments on your negative vote? I don't either. So with that then I think we'll have to move ahead to the conditional use permit and preliminary plat. I'll open the public hearing. If we don't have, if there's nothing new I'd like to move on with it. No new comments then I'll ask for a motion to close that cublic hearing. Ellson moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing for the Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Plat for the property zoned Ior. Industrial Office Park and located at the intersection of Park Road and Park Place. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' Erhart: Steve, do you want to start with that one. Emmings: I don't have anything additional. ' Erhart: Annette? Ellson: No. Erhart: Jim? Joan? ' Ahrens: Well I only spoke to the conditional use permit before and I just wanted to say that, or the zoning ordinance amendment. That we asked these people to come in with this information and they did it and from what they presented to us, I can't see how we can deny them. We didn't get any evidence at all, concrete evidence from the people who were opposed to it and I agree with Steve there were a lot of silly statements made that I don't think we should even consider. A lot of statements that I think are, ' I mean I understand the concerns. They don't want the park changed but I think that, I don't think this is a brand new use that is so offensive that we should deny it. I think it's a new type of a use and we've never had this in Minnesota before but I think that it can fit within the ordinance. I think we should recommend approval. That's it. ' Erhart: Okay. I guess given that we're going to permit this use in the Industrial Park, I guess I have no, I mean I think the plan is fine. It's II Planning Commission Meeting II October 3, 1990 - Page 72 a good plan, I just think it should be somewhere else but if it's a II Permitted use, then I guess I support it as well. Is there a motion? Emmings: I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plat #90 - as shown on the site plan dated August 10, 1990 subject to the conditions contained in the staff report. Ahrens: Second. I Erhart: Any discussion? 1 Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded to approve Site Plan *90 -9 as shown on the plan dated August 10, 1990 subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must provide roof top equipment screening for approval b J I staff. Screening must be of materials compatible with the building. 2. The applicant must submit revised screening for the masonry trash 1 enclosures compatible with the building exterior and additional landscaping around the proposed dumpsters. 1 3. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. 4. The applicant must revise the landscaping plans as recommended in the I report to provide improved screening. Provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required II financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. 5. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District. E. Type III erosion control shall be used along Park Road and added to thil north and east portion of the site. Slopes steeper than 3:1 will require wood fiber blankets and Type III erosion control. The applicant's engineer shall submit 10 year storm flow calculations for I the site. This may regulate the location of the cbnnection to the existing storm sewer facility. 7. A concrete industrial driveway apron with a minimum radius cut of 20 I feet shall be constructed at the entrance off of Park Road. 8. Revise the plans to provide an additional 5 foot setback on the west II property line while extending the berm and landscaping to the north. All voted in favor except Wildermuth who opposed and the motion carried I with a vote of 4 to 1. ' Erhart: The reason opposed? Wildermuth: The reasons previously stated. II Erhart: Okay. Do we have one motion on the preliminary plat as well? II 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1990 - Page 73 Krauss: No. Emmings: We've got to withdraw the original. 1 Krauss: Yeah. Erhart: Okay, so that takes care of that issue and I guess this will go to City Council. E :mings: No, we've got 2 more to go. On page 7. We've got to do III and IV. Erhart: Withdraw original site plan. Emmings: I'll move the Planning Commission recommend withdrawal of approval of Site Plan 89 -8 for the Rome Office building concurrently with 1 the approval of Site Plan #90 -9. The applicant should file a notice of withdrawal against the property at Carver County. Ahrens: Second. Eilson: What is this one doing? I'm confused. ' Emmings: We're withdrawing the site plan that was approved for that property previously. Ellson: Okay. Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the withdrawal of approval of Site Plan No. 89 -8 for the Rome Office Building, ' concurrently with the approval of Site Plan No. 90 -9. The applicant should file the notice of withdrawal against the property at Carver County. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Erhart: Would someone like to make a motion on the Conditional Use Permit? Emmings: I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of the ' Conditional Use Permit for the vehicle testing station subject to conditions contained in the staff report altering (g) to conform to the changes made by Joan. Just in that second sentence. Erhart: The wording? Emmings: Yeah. Erhart: Is there a second? ' Ahrens: Second. Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the conditional use permit for the vehicle testing station subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with conditions of Site Plan #90 -9. 1 Planning Commission Meeting f October 3, 1990 - Page 74 2. Emission control testint stations - Authorized to undertake emissions II and /or safety monitoring required by the State of Minnesota provided that: a. the operation is under contract agreement with the State of Minnesota to provide these services; b. no repairs are performed on the site; c. no gas or parts are sold on the site; ' d. no outdoor storage of vehicles or related materials; e. no diesel testing to be allowed at the site; 1 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; g. all vehicle stacking shall be provided on -site in designated lanes Vehicles stacking in fire lanes, parking areas and other drives shall be prohibited. All voted in favor except Wildermuth who's vote was silent and the motion II carried. Erhart: Okay, that's the end of that and now can I say that will go to II City Council on Sharmin, what date? October 22nd. Okay, thanks for coming ir. 1 PUB'_IC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT A PORTION OF AN OUTLOT IN CHANHASSEN MALL ADDITION AND PLACEMENT OF MARKET BOULEVARD. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST II SOUTH AND WEST OF CHANHASSEN BOWL AND NORTH OF THE SOO LINE RAILROAD TRACKS, EASY RIDER ADDITION. 1 Vice Chairman Erhart called the public hearing to order. Erhart: Does any commission member need a staff report on this? 1 Apparently not. Is there any public input? Is there any issue. Krauss: It's a good plat. Please approve it. ' Emmings: Oh, the City's the applicant? Erhart: That ought to make you suspicious. Okay, any public input? 1 ,lay .Tohnson: Southwest Metro's all for it. Emmings moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in II favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. 1 CITYOF 1 1 40 1°11 ‘ . I 6 90 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 9 37 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 I MEMORANDUM TO: Planning g Commission FROM: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I DATE: September 28 1 28, 1990 SUBJ: Conditional Use Permit 1 BACKGROUND FOR VEHICLE INSPECTION STATION On September 5 I Plan #90_g 5, 1990 the Planning Commission tabled action on #90 -1p to allow testing facility and Zoning Site Industrial Office Park District vehicle g Ordinance I Industrial to testing station in the IOP, further research the matter as a Permitted such facilities and find and to contact cities Staff was d were also instructed to out what their ex that had I have vehicle testing revise the experience has been. use and g stations conditional ordinance amendment We to also allow for as conditional rather than dment to district. The following their placeent Permit additional The to g constitutes in the its at providing review the re II attempts on i to staff's efforts at site Provide more information Bluest as well as the applicant's providing plan to accommodate concens raised propose adjustme owner. to the II Y an adjoining property ACTIONS BY OTHER COMMUNITIES f contacted t several cities which included I Staff of Chicago Heights and Wood River, were contacted seemed to , Illinois. Skokie had contacted stations s have All of the Cicero, located in one similar theme to them. cities that hhd first year locates their city anywhere from 3 They years. people were not used g seemed to be the to 5 y go get their vehicles to such facilities most troublesome time as tested. I first nor did they know when to year, but it seems that There was traffic congestion the All of the cities seems that all of the cars lined up there problems y were worked out. cars has a pproximately been in a lane and the is normally not more maximum waiting time at the than 6 II problems with the y 15 minutes. The city busiest spoke to the emission station was the City that had the sp to the Traffic c Engineer and the City Y of Cicero, most 1 had the y Clerk. Staff station Cicero has a for 5 years. The II 1 Planning Commission Vehicle Inspection Station Page 2 first year did create some congestion on the streets but bugs were "ironed out ". The second city that had problems during the first year was the Village of Skokie. The Traffic Engineer for the Village of Skokie stated that there was some traffic congestion the first year. He stated that the main problem with that was that the State had mailed out notices to residences in the village to get their vehicles tested. A large number of notices were mailed out which was much more than what the station could handle. The State did officially apologize for that and admitted that it was their fault. The State created a breakdown of the number of vehicles within the City and notices are being mailed out accordingly. The testing station in Skokie has been there for 3 years and has a population of 60,000. When the station first opened, there was a 45 minute wait in line and today it takes an average of 5 to 6 minutes to get the vehicles tested. The other problem that Skokie was facing was that their station opened prior to the other 15 stations within the State of Illinois. This forced the majority of the vehicles to be tested in Skokie and the demand was much higher than what the facility could offer and as time passed, other stations opened which reduced the number vehicles being tested at Skokie. Minnesota does not anticipate such a problem as it is one of the state's recommendations that all stations must open on the same day or else no station will be permitted to operate. Staff also contacted state officials from Washington, Illinois and Maryland. All state officials from Departments of Ecology, Pollution Control and Environmental Services admitted that they had problems with traffic the first year but all of their problems have been ironed out and all the stations are operating efficiently today. All states and cities agreed that System Controls has been very easy to work with, they move fast to resolve and eliminate problems and are readily available to work with state and city staff to meet demands. The majority of the officials also agreed that it takes approximately one year to get used to the facilities, that there were problems during the first year and that there are no problems at the present time. All cities that were contacted were asked as to where the facilities were located. The majority of the stations were located in light industrial areas. Attachment #1 shows the location of the stations in Maryland and Illinois. Staff also contacted cities in Minnesota where other facilities are being proposed to be located. The following is a list of cities and status of actions taken by each city's respective Planning Commission and City Council. ' City Action White Bear City Council - Approved the site plan as a conditional use permit. • Oakdale City Council - Approved the , 1 1 Planning Commission Vehicle Inspection Station 1 Page 3 site plan as a permitted use. Savage City Council - Approved the site plan as a permitted use. Minneapolis Planning Commission - Approved ' the site plan as a permitted use. Minnetonka Have not held public hearings Bloomington as of this date. They are Coon Rapids going to them in October. ' Brooklyn Park Nonetheless, these cities were Roseville contacted and all cities were Eagan certain that they will be approved with no foreseen problems. The only city that has denied the application has ' been the City of Richfield due to the close location of the station to a residential area and also because the road ' capacity cannot handle the amount of traffic that would be generated. 1 SIGNAGE /FINDING THE SITE Another issue that was brought up at the Planning Commission was the possibility of people entering buildings within the vicinity asking for directions to the emission control testing site. To avoid this problem, the state will mail out directional maps with the notices. MnDOT will also provide off premise directional signs on their public right -of -way. MAXIMUM VEHICLE SIZE The Planning Commission asked staff to find out what size /type of vehicles are required to be tested. Attachment #2 compares the size of vehicles that need to be tested. If the total gross weight of the vehicle is 8,500 pounds or under, it must be tested. The pictures illustrate that only the smallest trucks will require testing. 1 1 1 Planning Commission 11 Vehicle Inspection Station Page 4 1 REVISED_ ORDINANCE Staff was also asked to develop an ordinance to allow emission 1 control testing stations in the IOP, Industrial Office Park Districts and BH, Highway Business Districts as a conditional use. Conditional use permit standards have been expanded based upon the Planning Commission's direction. Section 20 -293, Conditional Use Permit Standards, is added (amended) to read as follows: Emission control testing Stations - Authorized to undertake emissions and /or safety monitoring required by the State of Minnesota provided that: a. the operation is under contract agreement with the State of Minnesota to provide these services; b. no repairs are performed on the site; ' c. no gas or parts are sold on the site; d. no outdoor storage of vehicles or related materials; - e. no diesel testing to be allowed at the site; 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; g. all vehicle stacking shall be provided on -site in designated lanes. Fire lanes, parking areas and other drives shall be prohibited. Section 20 -814. Conditional Uses in the Industrial Office ' Park District is amended to read: (15) Emission control testing stations. ' Section 20 -714 Conditional Uses in the BH, Highway Business District is amended to read: (9) Emission control testing stations. Staff continues to have reservations with the potential of locating emissions testing facilities in the BH district. Fundamentally we believe that the IOP district is the appropriate one to accommodate these uses and this belief has generally been backed up by 1 Planning Commission Vehicle Inspection Station ' Page 5 information obtained from other communities. Our findings are further supported by our contention that there are relatively few ' available sites in the BH district in Chanhassen. These tend to have high visibility and are located at major entrances into the central business district. They represent high value commercial ' sites and we believe it would be inappropriate to in essence lose one of these sites to accommodate the testing station. ' Air Quality and Noise Analysis Based upon discussions with staff, the applicants had their consultant undertake noise and air quality studies of the ' Chanhassen site to ascertain specific impacts on the adjacent PMT property. The studies are provided in an appendix to this report. The analysis concluded that Minnesota PCA Noise Standards for ' commercial uses would not be exceeded. Noise analysis relies on a fairly complex set of scientific formulas that need not be explained in detail at this time. However, the state noise standard of 70 dBA will not be exceeded with an expectation that ' the predicted noise level is 60 dBA. The commission should note that noise is measured on a log rhythmic scale, thus a 10 dBA difference is significantly large. Likewise, an air quality ' analysis was done for carbon monoxide. The analysis attempts to ascertain a worst case scenario of air quality impacts from the site by projecting long ques of cars waiting to get into the ' facility. The overall CO concentration at the closest portion of the PMT building is 5.2 ppm which compares with a one hour standard of 30 ppm and the 8 hour standard of 9 ppm. Thus projected levels are well below allowable standards. 1 Traffic Analysis ' An additional traffic study has been done to ascertain the impact of this site on area roads. The applicant will have their transportation consultant at the meeting to respond to questions from the Planning Commission. However, data being submitted indicates that traffic levels on area roadways and contributions to turning movements are quite low given the fact that there are three means of accessing the site. The site can be approached from the ' west via Audubon Road, the east via County Road 17 and the north via Park Drive from Highway 5. ' Site Plan Amendments The applicants are preparing a revised site plan that is designed to afford slight modifications in the interest of improving site screening and buffering for the PMT property to the west. Plans call for shifting the stacking lanes some 5 ft. further to the east to provide additional setback area. This setback area will be used to allow for an expanded berm which along with a dense hedge 1 Planning Commission Vehicle Inspection Station Page 6 , planting will provide a 5 -7 ft. high screen for the PMT property. Summary , Staff continues to support the approval of the vehicle inspection station in the Chanhassen Business Park as requested by the applicant. The additional data we have gathered confirms our belief that the IOP district is the appropriate one for this type of use, that it can be accommodated with little or no off -site impact and that concerns raised regarding this use have proven to be largely unfounded based upon the experiences of other communities. We wish to note that the applicants have been extremely cooperative in working with staff to provide additional information to resolve the issues that were raised. Based upon the foregoing, staff is again recommending approval of requests associated with this application. Fortunately when this application was initially reviewed, staff anticipated that it might be required to come in as a conditional use permit and was accordingly published as such in the official newspaper. Thus the city is in a position to act on the CUP, the site plan, and the ordinance amendment. At this time, staff has not yet received an application for subdividing the parcel. There is no requirement that the property be subdivided since at this time the site is one large lot. However, we do believe it is the current owner's desire to split the property in two so that an office building can be built on the future lot created to the east. Staff expects to see a subdivision request processed as a follow up to this action in the near future. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ' Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: ' I. SITE PLAN REVIEW "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #90 -9 as shown on the site plan dated August 10, 1990, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must provide roof top equipment screening for approval by staff. Screening must be of materials compatible with the building. ' 2. The applicant must submit revised screening for the masonry trash enclosure compatible with the building exterior and additional landscaping around the proposed dumpsters. 3. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. 1 1 1 Planning Commission Vehicle Inspection Station ' Page 7 4. The applicant must revise the landscaping plans as recommended 1 in the report to provide improved screening. Provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. 1 5. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District. 1 6. Type III erosion control shall be used along Park Road and added to the north and east portion of the site. Slopes steeper than 3:1 will require wood fiber blankets and Type III erosion control. The applicant's engineer shall submit 10 year storm flow calculations for the site. This may regulate the location of the connection to the existing storm sewer 1 facility. 7. A concrete industrial driveway apron with a minimum radius cut ' of 20 feet shall be constructed at the entrance off of Park Road. 8. Revise the plans to provide an additional 5 foot setback on ' teh west property line while extending the berm and landscaping to the north. ' II. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment allowing vehicle testing stations as conditional uses in the IOP and BH Districts." III. WITHDRAWAL OF ORIGINALLY APPROVED SITE PLAN 1 "The Planning Commission recommends the withdrawal of approval of Site Plan No. 89 -8 for the Rome Office building, concurrently with 1 the . approval of Site Plan No. 90 -9. The applicant should file the notice of withdrawal against the property at Carver County." 1 IV. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the vehicle testing station subject to the following 1 conditions: 1. Compliance with conditions of Site Plan #90 -9. 2. Emission control testing Stations - Authorized to undertake emissions and /or safety monitoring required by the State of Minnesota provided that: 1 1 1 Plannin g Commission Vehicle Inspection Station Page 8 1 a. the operation is under contract agreement with the State of Minnesota to provide these services; 1 b. no repairs are performed on the site; c. no gas or parts are sold on the site; 1 • d. no outdoor storage of vehicles or related materials; e. no diesel testing to be allowed at the site; 1 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; 1 g. all vehicle stacking shall be provided on -site in designated lanes. Fire lanes, parking areas and other drives shall be prohibited." ATTACHMENTS 1 1. Locations of stations in Maryland and Illinois. 2. Illustration of vehicles needing testing. 3. Staff report dated September 5, 1990. 4. Letter from applicant dated September 26, 1990. 5. Carbon Monoxide Analysis and Traffic Impact Study. 6. Noise and carbon monoxide evaluation study. 7. Planning Commission minutes dated September 5, 1990. 1 1 1 1 1 1 I II ./....,\-,Ns...:v,,,,,,,,,7› , .... MEMORANDUM SC TO: Rich Tucker DATE: 7/11/90 I FROM: Rich Kubik Correa. No. s S•744 II SUBJECT: Local Business Survey II As per your request, the following is a break down (station by station) of the area immediately around our facilities. eta. #1 Waukegan: Located in an Industrial Park. Neighbors include I a Fabrication Co. & Beer Distributor. New construction completed just recently will house a Foam Manufacturer. Property across the II street from our facility has recently been purchased. eta. #2 Lincolnshire: Located in Residential area with the Village Hall bordering on the west side. Area is at capacity, no new I growth in immediate area. Sta.N3 Schaumburg: Located in Industrial Park. Area business were I present at time of facilities construction. No room for expansion. Sta. #4 Skokie: See #3 I Sta. #5 Addison: Located in Industrial Park. Area around facility has experienced rapid growth, mainly offices & small private businesses. 1 G Sta. #6 Elk Grove: Area is zoned for business. In the past year a small office complex was constructed as well as a fast oil change facility. A motel was constructed & opened for business this past • J spring. Currently a "mini" mall is under construct adjacent to our property to the west & is scheduled to open late summer /early fall this year. 1 Sta. #7 Lister: Business /Residential. Coffee Distributor located across the street with local automotive repair facility & fast food I restaurants in immediate area. Sta. #8 Forest Preserve: Located in a business /residential area. Facility is bordered by Dept. of Transportation Garage & State I Mental Center. Major shopping center is directly across the street as well as apartment complexes. I Sta. #9 Cicero: Industrial Area. Businesses present at time of facilities construction. Currently trucking /scrap metal firm across the street is doing major renovations. I Sta. #10 Downers Grove: Business /Residential Area. Station is Boarded by residential homes and a automotive body shop as well as 1 • 1 1 1 construction firm, both which were constructed after we opened our facility. Sta. #11 Bedford Park: Located in an industrial Park which consists mainly of warehouses. New Warehouse construction adjacent to our facility to the east will open this fall. 1 Sta. #12 Packers: Industrial Park. Station has a meat packing /distribution center to the west with office complex to the south. Area does have room for growth, but I am unaware of any immediate plans. Sta. #13 Corliss: Zoned for business /commercial There is a major 1 paint manufacturer, police dept., and several small business in immediate area. This spring ground was broken adjacent to our facility with current construction taking plane. This building when completed will house an animal hospital. Sta. #14 Markham: Business /Commerical Area: See N3 sta. #16 Chicago Heights: Zoned Business /Residential. Fast Food Restaurants located at end of queue with apartment complex and residential homes in immediate area. 1 • Sta. #16 Woodrivers Located in a business area with a shopping center located across the street and various small business II surrounding our facility. These business include, a sporting good store, iffy lube & doctor's offices. In the past year a bank has been built. • Sta. #17. E. St. Louis: Located in a Residential Area with no growth II taking place at this time. Sta. #18 Mitchell: Located Rural Area close to major intersection 1 which has restaurants and a construction business. Majority of land is used to grow corn. As you can see the vast majority of our facilities have experienced II growth in the immediate arse or adjacent to our property. Our presence has not stiffled growth or development. 1 1 RK:hm . 1 • 1 1 1. 1 MEMORANDUM SC TO: Rich Tucker DATE: Jul' 10, 1990 FROM: AI Johnson 1 SUBJECT: Requested information Station 1 carroll County, Finksburg, rural area, no change from opening day in 1984. ,Station 2 1 Harford county, Forest Hill, rural area. In 1984 there was a food store, doctor's office and a catalog store. There are now more office buildings within the block, 1 and recently across the street from our exit, a large one -story Nursing Home has been built. These elderly people take walks and have often stopped to tell our 1 manager how well the place looks (grass, trees and shrubs) . Station 3 Baltimore City. There was a warehouse /shipping company and a truck /crane business on the side /back of our 1 station. Since 1984, the truck/crane business has been replaced with a wholesale oil business - neat and clean. Apartments across the road have been remodeled. Within the block area there is a new McDonalds, 1 Kentucky Fried Chicken, and Convenience Store. QZ Station 4 1 Baltimore County, Salvo Road; a dead end road at the N, time of our opening in 1984, with storage building next to our station. This road is now a 4 -lane road to 1 a shopping center. Several businesses have opened since 1984; a seafood retail carry -out, Merchant's Tire and Service Center and Levitz Furniture. 1 Station S 1 Ellicott City. There was a Pontiac Dealer across the street and next door was a Manufacturing business when • we opened in 1984. A large complex for doctors, lawyers and business offices has been built beside our ' property, and two large office buildings are a block away. A US Post Office has been erected on the opposite corner from our station. 1 1 1 • 1 Station 6 Annapolis. There was, and still is, an Industrial Park in the back of the station area when we opened in 1984. since then, a large office building with a bank has been built on one corner. The shopping center across the road has purchased land to enlarge the center out to Bestgate Road. 1 Station 7 Clinton. When we opened in 1984, there was only an 84 1 Lumber Company next door, and a school across the street. Since then, there have been a motel, a Goodyear Tire and Service Center, a Convenient Store, and an Auto Insurance Claim Center built in a block = area. In the next block there is now a Shopping Center with a McDonalds, Convenient Store, Printing Shop, etc. Station8 Capitol Heights. This station has had a great growth. Our corner lot had other businesses like Coca Cola, US Postal Service, Marks (Discount Price Club), and Frito Lay. Now, next door to the right, we have a large office furniture /supply company and across the street is a paper company, a storage company, a bike shop and a beauty supply store. Behind the station is a towel supply company and a paint store. Two motels a Circuit City electronics and several fast food outlets have been built one block north of the station. Station 9 Montgomery County, Gaithersburg. This station was 1' built in open field near Route 124. SC built the road in to our test site and later turned this road over to Montgomery County after their acceptance approval. At the time of our 1984 opening, no business was in the two block area of our station. New businesses on the right are four different automotive repair shops, one large truck repair shop, two tire shops, an automotive paint shop, a transmission repair shop, a printing and copy store, an RV repair shop, a motorcycle repair shop, a glass works, a sign company and a dry cleaners. On the left side of our station and passed the Ryder truck rental is a shopping center with an Italian carry -out shop, silk flower store, Chinese Restaurant, beer and wine store, Mike's sub shop, a carpet store, a printing company, Maryland National Bank and a photograph shop. There are several other businesses in the next blocks from our station. • 1 II ' 1 Station 10 Montgomery County, Briggs Chaney. This station is in a circle Auto Park. When we opened in 1984, the circle was two thirds completed. After we opened, four more dealerships opened with BMW beside our station on the left and a car wash on the right. At the rear right is Midas Muffler, Jiffy Lube and Merchant's Tire Service. Across the road at our exit several townhouses have been built. There are plans for a child daycare center on the next corner. On the corner opposite Merchant's Tire Store is a new Exxon station ' which is the corner of a large shopping center, with Hardees, Wendy's, Montgomery Donut , banks, a pet store, restaurants, etc. ' Rich, I hope this will help. Other than our Carroll County test site, most stations have had several businesses build around the open area. Many of these stores /shops seem to ' have an increase in their business. 1 1 1 1 AFJ /jht- 1 . 1 1 1 ..., - ...., . - . 111 -1 ille t �: ;-: • - , 41 _ ,' • - • I . *-As ,a...... e ..... „...„..„ ...„,,,, ___ . . ....... .......,_ ., ____. ... _ ,.. . _ ., . _ 4 I • :.4 • - • _ '' . s '' =• > ? i • TOTAL GROSS WEIGHT 8,600 POUNDS TOTAL GROSS WEIGHT 6,250 POUNDS _ 1 DOES NOT HAVE TO BE TESTED HAVE TO BE TESTED • 1 • 1 II II II II II 1 II P.0 DATE: 9/5/90 C IT Y O F C.C. DATE: 9/24/90 I . „ � CHAHAE CASE: 90 -9 Site Plan • N BY: Al- Jaff /v 1 -......1 • II i STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1) Site Plan xeview tor - d 4, u4L bqual. ruvl. villa.= I Testing Facility 2) Metes and Bounds Subdivision to Create a 1.7 Acre from a 3.953 Acre Parcel 1 Z 3) Zoning Ordinance. Amendment to Allow Vehicle Q Testing Stations in the IOP District as a Permitted Use 1 V LOCATION: Intersection of Park Road and Park Place 1 c.. APPLICANT: Jerry Perkins Owner: System Control/ 1.1m Pope Associates, Inc. Stanley J. Krzywicki Q Suite 300 Suite 208 I 1360 Energy Park Drive 5275 Edina Industrial St. Paul, MN 55108 Edina, MN 55342 1 ' II EXISTING ZONING: IOP, Industrial Office Park ACREAGE: 1.7 acres 1 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - Wetland - vacant S - IOP; EMPAK 1 E IOP; vacant 1 rs W - IOP; PMT Q .SEWER AND WATER: Services are available to the site. 1 SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The site generally drains to the east and W g Y northeast into a wetland located to the north of the • site. Natural vegetation exists to the north of the ▪ (f site although the majority of the site is covered with field grasses. 1 2000 LAND USE: Industrial II 4 0\C vti-v v -7,t- 3 1 1 Pope Associates, Inc. September 5, 1990 Page 2 BACKGROUND , On October 4, 1989, the Planning Commission reviewed an application for Site Plan Review #89 -8 for the Rome Office Building. The same application was reviewed by the City Council and was approved on October 9, 1989. The site plan that was approved for Rome Office building showed a future expansion to the site in the form of a free - standing 17,000 square foot office /warehouse building located to the west. The application being reviewed calls for a new structure on the site of the proposed additional building. The primary structure approved by the City in October has not been constructed. The application in front of the Commission today will change the , approved proposal for Rome Office Building dramatically. The proposed vehicle inspection station site will invalidate the Rome Office Building site plan by creating setback variances, parking variances, and also there might be impervious surface coverage variances. Therefore, to consider action of approval of the vehicle testing station is dependent upon cancellation of approval for the Rome Office Building site plan approval. Staff has met with Roman Roos, the owner of the site. Mr. Roos is fully aware of the situation. He anticipates requesting approval for a smaller but similar building on the original site. PROPOSAL /SUMMARY On July 1, 1991, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) will require all vehicle owners to test the level of hydrocarbon (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO) that their vehicle produces. The applicant is working to establish 11 sites within the seven county metro area of which one is Chanhassen. The applicant's firm is contracted with the state to provide testing services for a 10 year period. They will be the sole provider of required testing services. The Chanhassen site is one of the required services areas under the state contract to adequately serve the metro area. The procedure starts by sending notices to all car owners to test their vehicles within 90 days of receiving that notice. A study was conducted by the applicant and it is predicted that 95% of the vehicles within 5 miles of the site will be using that location. The site will be built to accommodate 158% of the car population within the area. A car population forecast for the year 1998 was used for that study and a network was built to suit that. Cars will be tested by being driven into the building and hooked into test equipment. Cars that fail the test are required to be serviced and retested for compliance. Servicing will not be provided on -site. 1 Pope Associates, Inc. ' September 5, 1990 Page 3 On site air quality studies will be conducted to ensure that ' pollution' does not exceed standards. These studies will be submitted to the MPCA on an annual basis. ' The proposed building will be equipped with machines that will monitor the level of CO and a supply fence which functions as a filter to get rid of CO. The proposed building will be located north of Park Road of which access will be obtained. The area of ' the proposed building is 4,042 square feet. The parking area is proposed to occupy a portion north of the proposed building. The site plan is well designed. Access, grading, drainage and ' utilities do not pose any problems. Some minor modification to the walkway that links the parking lot with the building has been requested by staff. Site landscaping is generally of high quality, ' although staff is requesting some changes on the plan where it abuts Park Road to screen vehicles entering-the inspection facility. The proposed zoning ordinance amendment will allow vehicle testing facilities to exist in Industrial Office Park Districts as a permitted use. At the present time, the ordinance does not ' accommodate this use since it did not exist at the time it was drafted. The subdivision request is a metes and bounds subdivision. The 1 Planning Commission does not need to act on the subdivision request as it is a metes and bounds request. Staff did include the information so that the Planning Commission would be aware of the ' request. The lot split will result in creating a 74,166 square foot lot. There are no variances attached to either the site plan or subdivision requests. Staff is recommending that the requests be approved subject to appropriate conditions. GENERAL SITE PLAN /ARCHITECTURE ' The site is located north of Park Road. The building is situated parallel to Park Road where access is gained. Parking is located to the north of the proposed building. 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, east and north elevations. The majority of the site will be screened from ' off -site views by landscaping and a proposed berm to the south of the site. The building architecture meets the standards of the site plan ordinance requirements. The applicant is showing the roof top equipment extending 33 feet above the roof level. Equipment will be screened with metal panels painted to match the color of the overhead doors. Staff is recommending that the equipment be painted to match the color of the building. Picket ' fencing is not considered to be acceptable screening. It should be designed to be compatible with the building exterior. The Pope Associates, Inc. ' September 5, 1990 Page 4 applicant is showing the trash enclosure screened by a chain link fence. Staff is requiring that 100% screening be provided for the trash enclosure area. It should be constructed of masonry compatible with the building. PARKING /INTERIOR CIRCULATION ' The City's parking ordinance does not address facilities such as the proposed. The most similar• operation is vehicle service stations which requires 4 parking stalls per service stalls. This use will have 3 bays. The applicant has managed a large number of testing facilities around the country. Staff believes that the number of parking spaces provided is adequate. The applicant is planning to have 7 employees on site. Fourteen parking stalls are provided and one handicap stall. Staff does not anticipate seeing large numbers of cars parked in the area. Staff met with the applicant and was informed that the maximum time for a car to spend on site is two minutes. The Engineering Department has requested a minor change to the parking area layout. It is recommended that a sidewalk or other designated walkway system be provided with handicap ramps to establish a safe pedestrian travel way between the parking lot and the building as shown on the attached sketch. This walkway plan would eliminate one parking stall, however, the submitted site plan proposes 3 more than the minimum requirements. ACCESS , The plans propose one 26' wide curb cut to enter the site from Park Road. The driveways are proposed to be built to city standards. The radius of curbing at the entrance should be a minimum of 20'. The number of curb cuts on Park Road was an issue for staff during the approval of the Rome Office Building. Staff argued against the placement of 2 curb cuts to maintain traffic safety. Ultimately, the applicant was allowed the two cuts but the western entrance was intended to serve both buildings being proposed. The western entrance is generally located in the vicinity of the curb cut being presently proposed. Staff finds the current proposal acceptable only if the parcel remaining in Mr. Roos' control at the corner is allowed to have only 1 curb cut on Park Road. It will have a secondary access on Park Drive. An appropriate restriction should be placed in the chain -of -title of that lot. LANDSCAPING ' The landscaping plan is well conceived. Staff is requesting additional landscaping on the south and west of the site. Two berms are proposed to the south and the southwest corner of the site. Those berms are proposed to be at a height of 2 and 3 feet. Staff is requesting that those berms be extended and made 4 feet high so that they can provide better screening of vehicles waiting 1 1 Pope Associates, Inc. ' September 5, 1990 Page 5 their turn for inspection as they enter the inspection facility. ' The berms should be extended along the Park Road exposure and along the west property line to help buffer the adjacent PMT site. Under the revised ordinance, financial guarantees for landscaping and 1 other site improvements are required. 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 1 meets the ordinance requirements. SIGNAGE 1 The applicant has submitted a signage plan. -- One monument identification sign is proposed at the west of 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 applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the sign on site. One stop sign must be posted 1 on the driveway access to Park Road. GRADING /DRAINAGE - 1 The site generally drains to the northeast and north into a wetland located to the north of the site. A small area of the southeast • corner drains to Park Road. The proposed grading plan maintains a ' consistent drainage pattern with the present condition. Slopes along the north and northwest portions of the site appear to be slightly greater than 3:1. This will require special slope ' stabilization measures such as wood fiber blankets and Type III erosion control. A storm sewer system consisting of two catch basins is proposed to be constructed and connected to an existing ' trunk storm sewer extending along the northern border of the site. The majority of the site is proposed to be graded. The applicant is proposing to use Type I silt fence or erosion control to the southeast and north portions of the site to minimize erosion. Staff is recommending that Type III erosion control be used. PUBLIC UTILITIES 1 City sewer and water are available on Park Road. Fire hydrants are available on the southerly side of Park Road. The Fire Marshal indicated that those fire hydrants will be sufficient to service 1 the proposed building. 1 1 1 Pope Associates, Inc. September 5, 1990 Page 6 , COMPLIANCE TABLE - IOP DISTRICT Ordinance Proposed 1 Building Height 4 stories 1 story Building Setback N -10' E -10' N- 157'E -91' ' S -30' W -10' S -49' W -114' Parking stalls 12 stalls 15 stalls , Parking Setback N -30' E -10' N -61' E -44' S -N /A W -10' S- W -59' ' Lot Coverage 70% 49% Lot Area 1 acre 1.7 acres 1 Variances Required - none II 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. It should be noted that a future sidewalk will most likely be constructed within the north boulevard of Park Drive. The applicant should be advised that no signs or other structures will be permitted within the City right -of -way. METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide 3.953 acres into two lots. The subject site will have an area of 1.7 acres. The applicant must provide the typical utility easements of 10 feet in front, 5 on the sides and 10 feet to the rear of the site as there is an existing storm sewer line. The Planning Commission does not have to take action on the subdivision request as it is a metes and bounds subdivision and will be acted on by the City Council. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 1 Staff is proposing the following ordinance amendment that would allow vehicle testing stations in the IOP District: , Amendment to Article XXII, IOP, Industrial Office Park District. Section 20 -812 permitted uses. 13) Vehicle testing stations authorized to undertake emissions and /or safety monitoring required by the State of Minnesota provided that: i 11 1 Pope Associates, Inc. September 5, 1990 ' Page 7 a) the operation is under contracted agreement with the 1 State of Minnesota to provide these services; b) no repairs are performed on the site; and 1 c) no gas or parts are sold on the site. 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: I. SITE PLAN REVIEW "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan Review #90 -9 as shown on the site plan dated August 10, 1990, subject to the following conditions: 1 1. The applicant must provide roof top equipment screening for approval by staff. Screening must be of materials compatible with the building. ' 2. The applicant must submit revised screening for the masonry trash enclosure compatible with the building exterior and 1 additional landscaping around the proposed dumpsters. 3. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any ' signage on site. 4. The applicant must revise the landscaping plans as recommended in the report to provide improved screening. Provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. 1 5. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District. 1 6. Type III erosion control shall be used along Park Road and added to the north and east portion of the site. Slopes steeper than 3:1 will require wood fiber blankets and Type III erosion control. The applicant's engineer shall submit. 10 year storm flow calculations for the site. This may regulate the location of the connection to the existing storm sewer 1 facility. 7. A concrete industrial driveway apron with a minimum radius cut ' of 20 feet shall be constructed at the entrance off of Park Road." 1 1 Pope Associates, Inc. 1 September 5, 1990 Page 8 II. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment allowing vehicle testing stations in the IOP District." III. WITHDRAWAL OF ORIGINALLY APPROVED SITE PLAN "The Planning Commission recommends the withdrawal of approval of Site Plan No. 89 -8 for the Rome Office building, concurrently with the approval of Site Plan No. 90 -9. The applicant should file the notice of withdrawal against the property at Carver County." ATTACHMENTS 1 1. Rome Office Building approval. 2. Memo from Charles Folch dated August 30, 1990. 3. Systems control operation overview. 4. Site plan for inspection facility. 1 _ 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 Systems Control 755 N. Mary Avenue, Sunnyvale, Calif, 94086 Tel (408) 738 -7400 Telecopier (408) 733 -9255 5275 Edina Industrial Boulevard, Suite 208, Edina, Minnesota 55439 Tel (612) 897 -1232 Fax (612) 831 -0652 1 1 September 26, 1990 1 Mr. Paul Krauss & Ms. Sharmin Al —Jaff ' City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 re: Systems Control's Inspection Facility Case #90 -9 i Dear Paul: - This letter is in response to the seven staff recommendations for changes to the site plan for the Systems Controls Inspection Facility contained in your report to the Planning Commission dated September 5, 1990. I will also address other changes we will 1 incorporate to provide additional buffering between us and the PMT Property. The first item concerns screening of roof —top equipment. Systems Control will either paint the roof top units to match the buildings or provide a material screening whichever the staff recommends. ' The second staff recommendation was to provide a masonry trash enclosure with landscaping. This also will be done. The masonry will cover the three side and a chain link gate will be provided for the access. ' The third item concerns the signage on the site. We will obtain the permits required and provide the appropriate signage. ' The fourth item refers to the Landscaping. I am providing a draft copy of the landscaping plan. It will be incorporated into the landscape drawings from the architect. The addition of a longer and larger berm will shield the street and the adjacent property to the southwest. Additional screening to the southwest will come from the hedge row planted on the berm. Systems Control will provide the required financial guarantee for this 1 landscaping. The initial estimate of this cost if $15,000. As to items five and six concerning the compliance with any conditions imposed by the watershed district, Type III Erosion control, and ten year storm flow calculations, these will be performed. 1 1 * �c \ t\\ j v * 1 1 The last item, number seven, concerning the 20 foot radius cut industrial driveway apron, we shall also comply with. 1 I am enclosing: 1) The draft revised site plan with landscaping. l+)Air quality study performed by Dr. David Braslau showing compliance with State and Federal ambient air 1 quality standards which also shows some traffic impact. 2) Noise study performed by Dr. David Braslau showing compliance with state noise standards. 3) The Resolution #6363 for the White Bear Lake site. 4) A status matrix for the 11 stations network. 1 If you have any questions or comments, please call, so that we may resolve any issues. Sincerely, 1 )� Stan Krzywicki Implementation Manager 1 SK:rg 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 " 23! �- ' Vi . : I . 0 , 1 i Al. . . • :-. ... . . 1 4 4 b J1I H1Hh1j . II 1 (1 ) ,,,, 1 [Lrf fl at t, ,..„ . I N a-CT. f O { s O \� o l. � e 'O r co 1 z _ r ..--' ..."/ I *AP ------------' (3 I 1 U (' . PROPOSED ' z (� I INSPECTION ( �ACIUTY L < ,V / < ® _____ w • )\ _ Ile -1,, - k 's K 1 u e foie �u • _c dr 1 , 7 c---------.,--- a • , s.a� ��,s � ® 9 3 t IMP —• 25!.12. -- - f ( , PARK ROAD . 1 1 , ♦ 1 1 1 51 G N A G E PLA N 1.- 20 i 1 . [[ 1 ' 4 david breslau associates, incorporated 1313 5th street s.e. • suite 322 • minneapolis, mn 55414 • telephone 612-331-4571 10 August 1990 Stan Krzywicki • System Controls, Inc. 5275 Edina Industrial Blvd. Suite 208 Edina, MN 55439 RE: Air Quality Report for Five Epicenters in Twin Cities Metro Area 1 Dear Stan: Please find enclosed our report evaluating traffic and carbon monoxide impacts associated with the following five vehicle inspection stations in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area: - Epicenter 03 - WHITE BEAR LAKE Epicenter 05 - OAKDALE Epicenter 08 - CHANHASSEN Epicenter 09 - RICHFIELD Epicenter 11 - SAVAGE The study is based upon the absolute worst case projection of traffic volumes associated with the inspection stations. The level of activity assumed in the enclosed study is expected to occur when the end of the month falls on a Tuesday. Since the station is closed on the weekend and Monday, this day cap- tures normal end -of -month visitors as well as those who have not had an oppor- tunity for three days to come to the station. During the rest of the month, station - generated traffic volumes will be well below those assumed in the study. Therefore, the projected traffic and carbon monoxide impacts contained in the enclosed study represent worst case levels expected only once or twice per year. Please let me know if you have any questions concerning the report or the findings contained in the report. Sincerely, David Breslau President ' Encl. • 1 1 1 CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYSIS OF FIVE VEHICLE INSPECTION SITES 1 IN THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA 1 Epicenter 03 - WHITE BEAR LAKE Epicenter 05 - OAKDALE Epicenter 08 - CHANHASSEN ' Epicenter 09 - RICHFIELD Epicenter 11 - SAVAGE 1 1 Prepared for • 1 Systems Control, Inc. 1 by 1 1 David Braslau Associates, Inc. • 1 1 August 1990 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 a e 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 BASELINE TRAFFIC (1992) 2 1 3.0 STATION - RELATED TRIPS 3 4.0 TRAFFIC IMPACTS (1992) 35 5.0 BASELINE CARBON MONOXIDE LEVELS 39 1 6.0 CARBON MONOXIDE IMPACTS 43 7.0 CONCLUSIONS 45 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LIST OF EXHIBITS II a e 1.1 Epicenter 03 - WHITE BEAR LAKE (Regional Location) 3 1 1.2 Epicenter 05 - OAKDALE (Regional Location) 4 1.3 Epicenter 08 - CHANHASSEN (Regional Location) 5 1 1.4 Epicenter 09 - RICHFIELD (Regional Location) 6 1.5 Epicenter 11 - SAVAGE (Regional Location) 7 1 2.1 Epicenter 03 - WHITE BEAR LAKE (Generalized Network /Daily Traffic) 10 2.2 Epicenter 05 - OAKDALE (Generalized Network /Daily Traffic) 11 I 2.3 Epicenter 08 - CHANHASSEN (Generalized Network /Daily Traffic) 12 2.4 Epicenter 09 - RICHFIELD (Generalized Network /Daily Traffic) 13 2.5 Epicenter 11 - SAVAGE (Generalized Network /Daily Traffic) 14 1 2.6a PM Peak Hour Traffic at TH 96 /Centerville Road (The Meadowlands) 15 2.6b PM Peak Hour Traffic at TH 96 /Centerville Road (Baseline 1992) 16 1 2.6c Epicenter 03 - WHITE BEAR LAKE (Baseline Daily Traffic 1992) 17 2.7a PM Peak Hour Traffic at TH 120/Minnehaha Avenue (Baseline 1992) 18 1 2.7b Epicenter 05 - OAKDALE (Baseline Daily Traffic 1992) 19 2.8a PM Peak Hour Traffic at TH 5 /Audubon Road (Baseline 1992) .20 II 2.8b Epicenter 08 - CHANHASSEN (Baseline Daily Traffic 1992) 21 2.9 Epicenter 09 - RICHFIELD (Baseline Daily Traffic 1992) 22 2.10 Epicenter 11 - SAVAGE (Baseline Daily Traffic 1992) 23 1 3.1 Epicenter 03 - WHITE BEAR LAKE (Proposed station layout) 25 II 3.2 Epicenter 05 - OAKDALE (Proposed station layout) 26 3.3 Epicenter 08 - CHANHASSEN (Proposed station layout) 27 3.4 Epicenter 09 - RICHFIELD (Proposed station layout) 28 II 3.5 Epicenter. 11 - SAVAGE (Proposed station layout) 29 3.6 Epicenter 03 - WHITE BEAR LAKE (Station - generated Traffic) 30 II 3.7 Epicenter 05 - OAKDALE (Station - generated Traffic) 31 3.8 Epicenter 08 - CHANHASSEN (Station - generated Traffic) 32 . 1 3.9 Epicenter 09 - RICHFIELD (Station - generated Traffic) 33 3.10 Epicenter 11 - SAVAGE (Station - generated Traffic) 34 1 1 . 1 1 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION The State of Minnesota will be requiring vehicle inspection for exhaust 1 emissions beginning in 1991. Eleven (11) sites or epicenters will be located in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is requiring that an evaluation of potential Carbon Monoxide (CO) impacts associated with each of the sites be performed to ensure that no adverse impacts on air quality are created by the inspection stations themselves. The objective of this report is to evaluate CO impacts associated with the following five epicenters: Epicenter 03 - WHITE BEAR LAKE Epicenter 05 - OAKDALE Epicenter 08 - CHANHASSEN Epicenter 09 - RICHFIELD Epicenter 11 - SAVAGE While traffic data and projections must be developed to permit the evaluation of CO impacts, these have been developed for each of the site study areas. However, since the primary purpose of the report is an evaluation of potential CO impacts, traffic analyses have been performed only as needed to carry out the objectives of this report. The location of each of the above five sites are shown in Exhibits 1.1 through 1.5. These background maps are taken from Hudson's Street Atlas of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (1990). A brief description of each site is presented below. Epicenter 03 - WHITE BEAR LAKE One of the two sites in Ramsey County (Epicenter 03) will be in White Bear Lake at the location shown in Exhibit 1.1. The site is bounded on the east by the Interstate 35E Right -of -way and will access Centerville Road on the west. Private properties are located both north and south of the site. Apartment buildings are located west of Centerville Road in the vicinity of the access road to the site. Epicenter 05 - OAKDALE The Washington County site (Epicenter 05) will be in Oakdale at the loca- tion shown in Exhibit 1.2. The site is located in a commercial area in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of TH 120 with Minnehaha Avenue (or 10th St. N. east of TH 120). The site will access Gentry Avenue and be lo- cated between commercial developments on the west and a Taco John facility on the southeast. Epicenter 08 - CHANHASSEN The Carver County site (Epicenter 08) will be in Chanhassen at the loca- tion shown in Exhibit 1.3. The site is located in an industrial area along Park Road which runs between Audubon Road and County Road 17. To the west of the site is the Progress Mankind Technology Corporation. To the south of the 11 site across Park Road are Fluorware, Inc., Murphy Machines, Energy Controls, Inc. and the Chanhassen Lakes Business Center. -1- 1 1 ' Epicenter 09 - RICHFIELD One of the four Hennepin County sites (Epicenter 09) will be in Rich- field at the location shown in Exhibit 1.4. The site will be located between 77th and 78th (I -494 Frontage Road) Streets just east of 12th Avenue South. Ingress to the site will be from 12th Avenue South, while egress from the site ' will be to 77th Street. Apartment buildings are located both east and west of the site with single family residential north of the site. 1 -494 is located south of the site. ' Epicenter 11 - SAVAGE The Scott County site (Epicenter 11) will be in Savage at the location ' shown in Exhibit 1.5. It will be located on the TH 13 south Frontage Road just east of Lynn Avenue (or County Road 31). Access to the site will be from the Frontage Road. A small retail center is located just west of the site. Apartments and single family residential are located south of the site. Section 2.0 of this Memorandum presents the baseline traffic conditions • expected in 1992 (one year after the stations become operational). Section 3.0 describes the trips associated with each station. ' Section 4.0 addresses traffic impacts of each station at the most criti- cal nearby intersection (where turning movements are available) and discusses ' impacts - on nearby roadways. Section 5.0 establishes baseline CO levels expected in 1992 without the station. As part of this effort, background CO concentration for each station ' study area, which will be added to roadway - related concentrations to yield the overall expected CO concentration, are derived. Section 6.0 presents expected CO levels at selected receptor sites near each epicenter. ' Section 7.0 summarizes the findings of this study and addresses com- pliance with the MPCA Ambient Air Quality Standards for Carbon Monoxide. 1 ' - 2 - 1 _ 1 3 4 5 12 la iAtiiZM i'C.'o.�iiy+1 __•_[. `"+ri 4 r't• yh': Y - r',a3M1 '4 ..;.c . , n •ti ..i... fMOR cttl i . 4.!•.T.J. 4 6000 OTTER < 1 In,on roka t SE RIDGE orT(R LAKE 3 i //� Naltt 0 ,a LAKE R o SmOt a � r \ •. ' WHITE a «(, ` ,Y3. ` � tits I fBEA TWP. 111 w s E `; °`jepe A BALD ' \�\ - 1 ANDERSON U. ��Rb9f ' R N — -_ .- w ¢ � raRto[t : _ 1 ai >; EAGLE I ►ATH CT • , 5520 c JONQUIL E 1 < < < O e P. n Ir 1 - U 3 OO N R^ 1`-' ` i �NiEy • a W p �M=1=1 W y; 1 • 4 " ' • f le: 9 = �� tN• N W . - I i e �V i a Mt,NR ' ► ,O `c m ' : 0 0 4 a co xROAD H� •. .i j 3 g x oy K V y •, t•T 5 'C o.* 1 t 3 05V tt ] E . to ° I g'~ ft' u � S Yv o , 1tALN\ MAtAIR l[IMr1R Ave 1,7 • tiA ((• R W E WU R B Y • ivt[MNL .� < Al . ) Tamarack D . I „. Mrr o IIIIIE litraCA TR to tN RIDGE c 4RIO EWOOD ' 0 ..:1 i 610.13S, 3 J C - [RI•[, MTA t- T GARDEN LA p W _ 5040 i _ AMMOND RD. v � J tORE[R u � � = (n I s u i COUNTY • SAD • K ,.: -' uT,tRT rn • t f s lOM (, G f J S I y ' -$C IOTN tTa ® = op Y 1 r j s4 y 9TH • y.: . .: :::..:< t ,.YRARO W t i i q + � ` 0 ��o s� ' ��` iiii ` ` `� ''/ o s g •<V• !E —_ s b- O C �+ 7 0! °o J� �� BIRCH 1ng J RR E e� I C 2ND • ;iti 1 0 3 ti LAKE : ' " v AKE ��� rdie z = Sal tr : ,. ��� Ian. uat S i .T i MEAD01Yl IN - V tU [M t Sf. � < u N(Or"N wA y frAril wiz" � mu Ri J. [iir s �a ` o Or`b`it z j ay CO. firm- ./ ®/��- A ,. t E Cr ♦ = r � }a s : • D / ARK ran.®' s u c I • I a a ` a .✓ ry F o 4. j `Sys ._ O � WHI - 4-, AVE. A r ,di . MtA,TAetCI .,. t r • t ; e ` •�46 •� �.0 Minuet et ., . -� R 1 a - _ _ _ _ _ 1 r _ � s - WHITE _ _...;� a i ,AVE •R t . BIBEAU -�j BEAR ' 1 1 � ' D GOOSE 1 ■ arum, r. ..00 . 0 . .� t1A CN • TWP , I id La 1•.><.[, o •o LAKE 1. l - f ti La 6.. EXHIBIT 1.1 T SEE MA COUNTY f Aer -e .� ""■� Epicenter 03 - WHITE BEAR LAKE (Regional Location) I -3- i , 1 29 1 2 SEE MAP 21 1 E . N r ®�� MI ®G�sl ' j 1111,, .ii�© ©= 43RD ..77N•- N li = - 3RD rr���� •TNO ¢ !T N °1 C u J _ ® ©W�i ♦ C t.ua RD . R N f y O 1 ■ ers su ; ' ,_�Y7� ILL IRI + '`f y � i ~ •0TH ST. .i 11 1: tm '1 R � ��ni U A i > •nCNIL 1 , :r ~ �' RURKE am = dry.- .e•.u• 2 rt a .. W ! t SKID MAN A.inrt ® pA .� je (} GRANADA r Ct. %4,4 „, br ER' r^ W `t 1 2 i ER // r GRANADA i CIR. R n _ • rr t” - � . ice E V. — �� — GRANADA i p1. O, u (� �e s �:� • �1�1f1�r i il 1 o v ;TSe+ t�4 I1 N� �� 2 < ).iTN 337t7 ST ! 7r.N. kb "C GIST ■ICT . H 0 - J R. I W O ° c ,.,� An i z 34TH ST. N. 7: ArI. CC � ~ ® a < .. S AVE' RVk mug IN m LL . - -LEY W AVE. W / O re•NwNr t j S2N ST . N. » �� CC , " 1680 t -• I - - -- II 14 VE ® : . R Ron! L f R is ' r °11 B ® o• r[ d1IIOTest • C LARPENTIUR AYE 0.. O I H• AVE. NfT. �� qw• •r! z / •I.CN 1Rt1 M •►r• MN I sort GcJI 3 '� mouses muse. • = f ��. IN •Tarr ut• Mit NON �.N•.rt H t t�STM ! RR I .- 00 4 • IRRASAA CMb NERRASAAAY[ 4 v ' f. • ® • f- <^ c''w z op Will n ` w 's� ` 2stNSr I N ARLINGTON AYE G I" � � ©� } s s = C ® /ilM�- rl nrN name ITN N Q �1I ® SN(RNOOD A�t ® C7N v , M1 Ef/ ` IFANVT eauiu Cr Li•� „ , atroorER � ~ COTTAGE Ad E. 1 1 W I,Am C AYI 3 I . 7rlt■[Y 1 ®'� � q 2310 1 ' ^ - MAY I 134 �:i AA" ' . -' -.. f ;E I ! N wMR � '� - 0" vot Fi, O e t R� I n 111 D �. ` � C 4.4. 22ND �+ ,n1� i Ain N I = CI ES E tr N Cr) '' '+ 22ND ST e I ,� IN .a. • :® �T��N �AYE- g 2151 ��` Sira A 1 J Nr. ■T1ue M MARYLAND UPPER 20TH IT N ,(� _ •J .of(.+( Ad F 6 O L `J S C 1 1 ®- GSRANWM AI O �T"t C T GERAN er.Nw. ±. '�* I I S 11FS * � p ►= Z MAGNOLIA i ti < • i : MAE 3� 0 J B .� 101 D(A ITN Z _' I ta A YE W Y J • • 4 1 % F f a E t a _ • • 1 ,- . c.f( A � + _ 960 YE �� _ RVES a1 o 30 i CITY ' row STILLW j ® ,Icuta,It RAN K a 04, d 15TH ST N.1 u R f ®�� BS W +' s 511149741111 ' ar•Ne MiC hAEL z O z(■TNGTN o 4,1741; M '. I ^ 7TH 5 F .... LA J 'it g a fiw � R a - I u . ! to " 1 n N � � a` + � a_ : USHAY Ce meler z L i Y L„,,,,,, L„,,,,,, F __ < L�a 720 IL rVIN OUHA An err . f . N "° I fAtt AII NN(NANA = AYE W .(V1 ; , O ��� • 1 I 10TH ST. N to 7 GIFC1, IT W r-:-', � 1- Et ` , o• ■ / MC . III ' Ela Ml 1 M RG ®� rime, Wilms MAR fCN. w= �S - E1131110L1111:1111 L' D IM�MMII i 2 H S ( c tc R rRENOrn Arc 1 -r Mil ) L .. sr S r+ D: FRE ONT II f Y • K EXHIBIT 1.2 a� 1111t1 St ,;, I 0 If Epicenter 05 - OAKDALE . a ' 7 w7T� . *I SIN 5: i (Regional Location) 3 ■ - 4 - 1 , 1 M 4 m SEE[MAP 40 0 7 o 1 G r ; e tie 17 I " mil 12 � 1 0 I Q z PI SVMn r, [ o Mol9MIA0 ! I 1 4 ' e • .ww.,• i v . � � l i ; ' S c ♦0 e \ �, oy 4 1 i . °""' ma . 1$ kilt 07.4 C SS VO1 YIf • I . t • te r ' Q ' �� °. „70 `' , •' to _ 0- f� wR•eAn, ' _ + K I >r F »re ! f� .m ! �! n > � x• • ` ° 1 - ' III i i •i oz. ` 1M e • Uii rG m i .u e ' er Y j\nll! :. ! ¢, •� nleJ.v! ^ •. 1 er 4 l• c • " \ 1 ' " "f�i_,... ° ,1611 ■ a te "' arAl W + O % .,„ „ 6 0 .4 , L + • .l u.J ` f 'AIM E ....w. ill ` ' 7 t �o °x'0 e..w� e J ' �� � �s 3 , w © ! i. i >1111 Mal C � u e , — — — - , Le �' •'r r w C � 1 ! ■ � . ! ! „ . ! .e' V 6 6 3[ e e . ; >.r., � �j h, i L i i i l ri . 1 5 ^ e o ey 1 1 ou e 'n,1, - :...•..... ` r � 0 �1 ! 0A111 !Hamad I tGE G �V ' ` • 42 >'`. 3 c.w s r X 7 1 err u7r b v . t0 _ � 311Y1 Sr111SItlHJ . a ® — ` • 1 Otl ) a, • I e 1'`� u mvoun 7 D ]i S • - ----� — u OE o3• -- • '° a W f•'1 „Z• ^ 1 - •nn, ,,, y � bs, _ p IAY NO1 -� y� g � f. M..m ; I f + .” ` ' iu Q + 1 • � • t • . d 3 C y 1 • n )1111)30a 't M W O ,s _ V __ — ikt -- W a CI S r,^ ,.. °' ' 0091 i p oa '^ L , 'f "°- � F � � 5 ra t ,°� Z 1 . N pe n onv 1 n. a a E >,> .-et i 1 tl� Y ` : a . r iagia � `"ee� 1 11) 1 1 • ...,: " .... -.- E 000Z X11 -15,171: .� S N t t ,S e. ,....... l E I H l oti j Q 1° � - a • c c 1 - 1 • R > "a'• 1 ' 0 ^)B , -- - - 1 ___ _ - -- r 0A11N1d1V9 I`, '' > • _ n v , IR` o j •r e I 1 ' . s u ® ' r `A ,,, - o rrwe. ..•a i ~7 it, I C ,1••'.1.:. - •••••' ' :r r 1 1 1 j j r {{ l ar1Ne07 •" •rreae. 1 I o - �.f ' d l j s y �e 1 z + r e i � L - 4 - i'� -- - -d+-- 0082 - - -- W i eaur + � € e f 1,1 1 K ; z �i e _� ,1 f ,•�``a *` • • 1 S p : 'gy p : 'OA1B 3N1113ZYN i 1 tii 31 i •i . • t a ` I $ Q i : . ! 0 -d YH3an3 EXHIBIT 1.3 --:---q =_o -- I • f 1. 1 ti . V e` a Epicenter 08 - CHANHASSEN �� o c•I (Regional Location) II 5 - 1 1 3 4 ' 1 5 r "sr NV'MPAN!® yallIggNAMPPWRIMI_Mill2PIPP``‘... .1 42 . . # , ,4� ♦. . 9 H•,; '! • • ;� f • '1 ►••-;•.�� 1 la i I 1 i i 11'1111111 .. . . . . ❖.• .•❖ ;. ; ► 3� • •• ;• - •- ; • ; -;•;•v i �► ❖• • ,•. :•:s• 46. , a n •...♦..... • ♦ - -- di i I i r . P. 4 - . , , • ......„.. Legion 1 I]3J- JUIIl Lake • 1111h®11 1 1 U IL "-.••.- . �, , , . l ni ii ❖- •-•• • -� . :# 1i k,i it '. ••• - iii -i- • • •• • `;' • 1 I1'331. r..a. , v, ST :::::: : * *•••• ti R YdR 1" 1111 1111 Igo N . • ❖ ❖ ❖.,.,• 4 ❖•� ...•— • f� sT : • -- . . ., q.. 4 ♦ wl A • ; EBJ IIhIiJ "1 . ❖ -• ••. : : y !��• • ❖ . i . x • c , ,‘&-)6 • B I iii , 11 1CNflfl O ,��, - • • • • � ••- •- • -• ❖•,, ••• -4 iNTI� ■ �.. �...... •..a [llY '....." 1.. .. scw • . , : ❖. . _ ifrl M r. GJf re.a . ❖.••••••••••••, : .•..•. / ■ „�,1 ��� . .❖.❖❖+•.f•►•. •. • F « t Sne ft,,4 1 IiIIII]II •: • ❖•• T . 1 �,j„1'� c.�... IE : •. ❖•.• . • • . • • • • ` � • • - • • • C<IIIl/tf� m .. . . • . •,•414...:*:• 1 mil 1 1 1 k . III I M • I i .. s .�_. ......�.... . ❖ .. i ► 0 . . w Q t: . ....... • ► � . _ 1 1111®11.11'1 M „ : ❖ • ,2 " ••... ❖. ❖. ❖. . 111k11.,11111 i H t .❖ i ., • . • ❖. ❖•❖ I 1 WA• 4” . • i i A r..4 • ...r -sue - . _ _ � � A ST. il ,. NJ „,,1 _ M ct ' r 79TH ST. E. i wne020 e 7o1 ST. 1 1.0 ii ..r iaenter _ r` 3 t ^' S eft B L •• ® E. 80 HST. 1 . h ► .. E .oTw ST 1 ' -_,; 6 w SOT E > 0 t 'tam Vl = Park 1 'Sinn 1 'I' < _f W 1 >• _ - ‚Pj119 P t C'i 11" Rlllt.RLW 0.. 10,4dl 1 110111111 °- 1 01.0 m 1 ui • 1 •' •C 1 0 D ST z _ _ . � S i S 4 86TH S ,� r m.... ) 1 W EXHIBIT 1.4 a.,,, . Epicenter 09 - RICHFIELD 1 t s I EE M, (Regional Location) 1 - 6 - 1 • 1 3 4 .' 56 - -- r -- A.. 1 - -- 141./ - • 1 g� . r / 1' ' I 1 + 1 , a "r\ ' z i 1 i • OF • 1 �U��S`VILLE A XtDC(X0C la. '' 1 -- 9 - -- ... - -- 1 1 - - -- - -- —. ∎ ∎∎u ob3I2 — — - - - - - W S 1 t a i j .* � W x o 1 7 1 • . < - , • c y 1 O W ST. fftf•�N •.Sr.1A1-�F— ' - - t - 125TH ST. e• i�txtl�� S'' - �KTON t i 1 O 1 TN R sT. C w • Vs ,i 12.11 ! - O 12iTN ST • H > < 8 t ' W V,i EI E W = < S W O r = 11 1 A4 1 .# ► W l V t • = i 127TH ST. 1 1i I- e = ° ®� § a g 9 0.3 p Itt s7 § = " HsNNt11 RD I °• R B — tp. i C � j SOWN CT • • O. `. ` e sI �5 ej" P' a :r _ soc t dtM 131TH ST. Tt4 • ti 1t. 4 1 7 " ,l' �ip ♦t5 OR1 �w s 0 1 � � A • + • .ict 4 re t. emmit o G• L a ` K � • S7 tt.. ■ate pt 7 ST. M rb SUM II ---7.: ty t ,l ; c•‘-‘ Rant IV 111NO cm . a4 I 132ND ST m 11 1 MO" 112MD ST, t txM > !t Ol,i < S r G 112. UM w i Ywta4AU O i G m p < v COMM R ; �� MIDXUND M t I Y w S A33ro ST A �. ® - n t t T . lwtt • _ Ou• 00 put' p ST. i T i i U. _ AG~ 134TH ST. I � ts °1ta 4 � » A ft W W r 1 1 ;_ tang • I . ATH ST W : :+ 17370 ST 36TH Z pl7p St• W I �,w tt !� , C "' J C ♦ , (;?t t n s ` Vitt QUM"IN ' �� • eVt1 Vol } Nta ! e�ttT ��i aS lA = 1 HtN fl., C'T ST. s " ►1x n, J ,y T :um O ow VI 1 ")i TN _ ^�7,11;44: • - YiNttM tlt. ox - T:0""51 hSS t W 000 Want fT. O St e ♦ - O v 1111 = r4 o � r ^ } 13 s a� T J OC u u t t ; � MS C ° ; ' • 130 Et eT � I' a TA. ft el' i i^ '} lt casette( 1 3 I t I o i N d Y I r X1oD[N vatuT Da. 1 39iN 1 . 4 � /, ci 1 ul • Z _ W 130TM ST. ST. ! • p ♦ . 1~ P. 1 1 ■ t► teXQU 0 t e4� / I = 140TH ST . N AT CHt2r :, us 4070 - a 140, 0 S. p S7 O § I�R �) 11� i ■ t1N - • O 1 IIfT� — t. y� - : 0 Ct- W Igatft = 1 I f i i IIIOT it 1 , t7 t?! CO. RD. 42 g tt #ND ST. c0,... s Y .1 1 14200 F ��'�tat n t 1 ,y• - 14siN s+ G. 44 ST 11 li ; g CAI X).* m 4- cr 1 C � S ►Att 14 ST j•' A+' " I - --.. ".= f7 C 01 1 g 1460 © EXHIBIT 1.5 A4 feta��, 1 4 $E Epicenter 11 - SAVAGE 1 4....�•■ (Regional Location) - 7 - 1 2.0 BASELINE TRAFFIC (1992) The generalized traffic networks serving each station are shown in Ex- hibits 2.1 through 2.5. Available daily traffic counts and intersections for which turning movements are available are shown in each of these figures. Turning movement counts for the TH 96 /Centerville Road and TH 120/ Minnehaha Avenue intersections were obtained from the East Metro District of the Min - nesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Turning movement counts for the TH 5 /Audobon Road intersection were obtained from the West Metro District of MnDOT. Current I -494 ramp data near 12th Avenue in Richfield and TH 13 traf- fic data were also obtained from the West Metro District of MnDOT. Other ' daily traffic counts were obtained from the counties or cities in which the epicenter is to be located. Epicenter 03 - WHITE BEAR The Baseline traffic for 1992 assumes completion of The Meadowlands of White Bear, a multiuse residential /commercial project to be located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of TH 96 with Centerville Road. Based upon the EAW for that project, the daily traffic volumes shown in Table 2.1 are expected. TABLE 2.1 1 DAILY (TWO -WAY) DAILY. TRIPS • THE MEADOWLANDS OF WHITE BEAR 1 - To TH 96 Eastbound 2,790 Westbound 1,740 1 To Centerville Road Northbound 870 Southbound 3,480 1 It is assumed here that 70% of the trips are directed towards the east ' along TH 96 and that 10% of the daily trips occur during the PM Peak hour. With these assumptions, the PM peak hour trips generated by the Meadowlands are shown in Exhibit 2.6a. I Applying a growth factor of 2% per year to the MnDOT 1987 traffic counts s intersection and adding the trips from The Meadowlands of White Bear yields the 1992 baseline turning movements shown in Exhibit 2.6b. Baseline 1 daily traffic in 1992 on other roadways is shown in Exhibit 2.6c. Epicenter 05 - OAKDALF 1 Applying a growth factor of 2% per year to the MnDOT 1988 traffic counts at the intersection of TH 120 with Minnehaha Avenue yields the 1992 baseline turning movements shown in Exhibit 2.7a. Baseline daily traffic in 1992 on other roadways is shown in Exhibit 2.7b. - 8 - 1 1 Epicenter 08 - CHANHASSEN Applying a growth factor of 2% per year to the HnDOT 1986 traffic counts at the intersection of TH 5 with Audubon Road yields the 1992 baseline turning movements shown in Exhibit 2.8a. Baseline daily traffic in 1992 on other road- ways is shown in Exhibit 2.8b. Epicenter 09 - RICHFIELD As noted in Figure 2.4, no turning movements are available for the inter- sections in the vicinity of this station. Thus, only baseline estimates of daily traffic along study area roadways are included here in Exhibit 2.9. Epicenter 11 - SAVAGE As noted in Figure 2.5, no turning movements are available for the inter- sections in the vicinity of this station. Thus, only baseline estimates of daily traffic along study area roadways are included here in Exhibit 2.10.• 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 ,,as ( I" 007 ; / .".d3 r '' 1 "tj N 1 -o TH 5 rt `e 78th St. W. vo ic -e / I , .sv d(igi a ) :., uoo Er-rC ,h, ► g, i 44•0 2 - � . ( „8 ,) Q ark R 1 #al • ukee RR 0 tr►' I 0 co c c I o v c cc o U II 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 EXHIBIT 2.3 II Epicenter 08 - CHANHASSEN (Generalized Network /Daily Traffic) 111 - 12 - 1 1 AUDUBON ROAD 1 SB TOTAL N -S STREET t J 1 z-4-- 19 37 ( WB TOTAL 1 / t 4 1 _ 1 1 / TH s 1 • E W STREET 1 1 19 3 zia 10 ' 1 (. is 1 EB TOTAL _12_ .- ( Zr NB TOTAL 1 EBLT = NB LT = MAXIMUM 1 WB TH = SB TH = SUM OF CRITICAL CAPACITY 1 VOLUMES LEVEL WB LT = SB LT = 0 TO 1,200 UNDER 1 OR 1 OR ES TH = NB TH = 1,201 to 1,400 NEAR I > 1,400 OVER 1 1 EXHIBIT 2.8a 1 PM Peak Hour Traffic at TH 5 /Audubon Road 1 (Baseline 1992) - 20 - 1 1 1 1 N 1 /3 , 60 TH 5 78th St. W. v ic isi - /¢.6od I v M �•Sc0 S000 0 Q ark Ra . 1 #8) ukee RR 1 C hAca Milwa 6 0 17 C OC 1 0 O g - O U 1 1 1 II 1 1 I I EXHIBIT 2.8b Epicenter 08 - CHANHASSEN i (Baseline Daily Traffic 1992) - 21 - 1 3.0 STATION - RELATED TRIPS Table 3.1 shows the five epicenters analyzed here with the number of lanes per station and capacity of the station in vehicles per hour. TABLE 3.1 STATION LANES AND HOURLY CAPACITY ' EPICENTER LOCATION NUMBER LANES HOURLY CAPACITY 03 White Bear Lake 3 103 vph 05 Oakdale 4 129 ' 08 Chanhassen 3 81 09 Richfield 4 139 11 Savage 3 71 Layouts of each of the stations being analyzed here are presented in Ex- hibits 3.1 through 3.5. ' The maximum expected traffic volumes on adjacent roadways during the peak hour of operation (which is assumed here to occur during the PM Peak hour for maximum impact) are shown for each of the sites in Exhibits 3.6 through 3.10. Also shown are estimates of daily trips on these roadways. 1 1 - 24 - • 1 . .1 . . , . . . 1 ., .: .... .. • . . . $ . • 1. . (------ .,_ <,... ...,: • .. . ., .• . .-------* . 3 3 b j 1 1 Ti [ 11 • . ., . i . . : I 1 1 1 L. in t t 0 1 1 vi Job 1 A z 1 . . - -JILL j L _ 1 :1 I • ................-- ‘ ( 3 . — I re I 0 z Aw rf I W I • ERW114 1 _ ___. ---- ii4 .. : . . I _ w I i_O 1 u Lil .1 I . . . • 1 1 . 040 3 f , • — 25t.2 I PARK ROAD . . 1 1 1 EXHIBIT 3.3 Epicenter 08 - CHANHASSEN 1 (Proposed station layout) 1 1 2vo> N 1 •- <z �e J A"(-1 I oCzo TH 5 > 78th St. W. d F rk 1 Qa 0 o `iI ' ee RR Ghic M1lWauk o CC .Q CC o +,, 1 40 Um.) C.) ,'A Alt ('T) • • 1 1 1 1 1 EXHIBIT 3.8 Epicenter 08 - CHANHASSEN 1 (Station - generated Traffic) -32- 1 Epicenter 05 - OAKDALE TH 120 and Minnehaha Avenue (PM Peak Hour) Table 4.2 shows that increases in turning movements at the TH 120 and Minnehaha intersection because of the station are projected to be small. This is partly due to the assumption that traffic can access the site from the north and east. ' Other area roadways (Daily trip impacts) Area roadway daily trip impacts are estimated to be small except for Gentry Avenue on which the station is located. This roadway already carries a small volume of traffic and the small increase due to the station shows up as a relatively large percentage impact. However, no problems are anticipated. Epicenter 08 - CHANHASSEN TH 5 and Audubon Road (PM Peak Hour) 11 Table 4.2 suggest some rather significant increases in turning movements at this intersection because of the station. However, increases in turnig movements are small compared with thru movements at the intersection. It is likely that northbound traffic on Audubon Road is higher than shown in Table 4.2 (which is based on 1986 counts), and that the impacts of the station are likely to be less percentagewise and not great enough to create any problems 11 along this roadway. Other area roadways (Daily trip impacts) ' The same type of impact shows up in the daily trip impact evaluation, since the daily trips were based upon the MnDOT turning movements. Park Road daily traffic has been estimated to be 3,300 in 1992. With this relatively small volume, the addition of 800 trips by the station has a relatively large (19.5 %) impact. However,,the absolute volume is small and no problems are an- ticipated. ,Epicenter 09 - RICHFIELD ' Area roadways (Daily trip impacts) No PM Peak Hour impacts could be made near the Richfield site. However, the evaluation of daily trip impacts shows that there is a moderate impact on ' 12th Avenue S. Total daily trips remain well below the capacities of these roadways. Epicenter 11 - SAVAGE Lynn Avenue and TH 13 (PM Peak Hour) Traffic volumes at this intersection are assumed, from available data, for the purpose of impact analysis only. They have been derived from daily trip information for TH 13 and assumed daily trip values for other roadways. The estimated 21% increase for the northbound left and right turn movements (representing 35 vehicle movements for each) does not raise these to a level that should create problems at this intersection. 11 - 36 - 1 1 1 TABLE 4.2 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS WITH AND WITBOUT STATION Baseline With Station - -Ste Traffic as X of Total -- MOVEMENT NB EB SB WI NB EB SB WS NB EB 5B BB Epicenter 03 White Bear INTERSECTION: Centerville Rd i TB 96 Left 104 86 226 329 126 86 226 417 17 0 0 21 Thru 75 909 74 673 75 909 74 673 0 0 0 0 Right - 261 138 44 451 349 160 44 451 25 14 0 0 Total 440 1134 344 1453 550 1156 344 1541 20 2 0 6 Epicenter 05 Oakdale INTERSECTION: Hinnehaha i TB 120 I Left 43 315 129 116 43 315 129 116 0 0 0 0 Thru 934 1229 416 241 934 1262 416 241 0 3 0 0 Right 518 31 42 233 551 31 42' 233 6 0 0 0 Total 1496 1575 587 590 1529 1608 587 590 2 2 0 0 Epicenter 08 Chanhassen INTERSECTION: TB 5 i Audubon Left 10 0 0 51 50 0 0 91 80 0 0 44 Thru 0 488 0 929 0 488 0 929 0 0 0 0 Right 15 6 0 0 55 46 0 0 73 88 0 0 Total 25 493 0 980 105 533 0 1020 76 8 0 4 111 Epicenter 11 Savage INTERSECTION: TB 13 i Lynn Avenue Left 135 0 0 244 170 0 0 279 21 0 0 13 I Thru 0 1494 0 1632 0 1494 0 1632 0 0 0 0 Right 135 244 0 0 170 ' 279 0 0 21 13 0 0 Total 271 1738 0 1876 341 1773 0 1911 21 2 0 2 I 1 1 1 - 37 - 1 1 • 1 TABLE 4.3 1 IMPACTS OF STATIONS ON AREA ROADWAYS (DAILY TRAFFIC) II STATION BASELINE TOTAL STATION ROADWAY TRAFFIC ADT ADT PERCENT II Epicenter 03 White Bear 1 TH 96 W of Centerville 220 15,700 15,920 1.38 TH 96 E of Centerville 80 21,100 21,180 0.38 - Centerville Road 1,100 7,200 8,300 13.25 II Epicenter 0 p 05 Oakdale 1 Minnehaha W of TH 120 330 18,900 19,230 1.72 10th St. N. E of TH 120 495 25,200 25,695 1.93 Gentry Avenue 495 2,200 2,695 18.37 II Epicenter 08 Chanhassen 1 Audubon Road 800 2,300 3,100 25.81 TH 5 E of Audubon Road 400 13,600 14,000 2.86 Park Road 800 3,300 4,100 19.51 II Epicenter 09 Richfield II 12th Ave. from 78th to 77th 840 5,300 6,140 13.68 12th Ave. from 77th to 76th 560 5,300 5,860 9.56 1 • 1 1 1 1 II -38- 1 II 5.0 BASELINE CARBON MONOXIDE LEVELS Baseline carbon monoxide levels are the projected levels in 1992, includ- II ing background, without the vehicle inspection station. CO background levels have been developed in cooperation with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency II staff. The source and date of CO background levels for each of the epicenter study areas are identified in Table 5.1. TABLE 5.1 II SOURCES OF CO BACKGROUND DATA I AREA SOURCE LOCATION DATE DISTANCE 1 -8R 8 -8R 03 Deluxe Cheek ISP (default) I- 694 /Lexington Avenue 1989 4 miles 8.0 ppm 5.0 ppm 05 Oakdale Shopping Ctr ISP I -94 /Radio Drive 1986 3 2.5 2.0 I 08 T8 212 EIS Chaska High School 1988 2 1.3 1.2 I 09 Mall of America EIS Mall of America site 1990 1 6.3 4.2 11 I -35W Study (MnDOT) Faith Covenant Church 1989 2 2.1 1.2 II II The time adjusted background levels used in the 1992 analysis are presented in Table 5.2. II TABLE 5.2 ASSUMED CO BACKGROUND LEVELS II EPICENTER 1 -HOUR 8 -HOUR II 03 White Bear 6.4 ppm 4.0 ppm II 05 Oakdale 1.6 1.3 08 Chanhassen 1.0 0.9 I 09 Richfield 5.4 3.6 II 11 Savage 1.7 1.0 II The baseline CO concentrations (i.e. predicted 1992 concentrations without the station) for critical receptor sites near each epicenter are presented in Table 5.3 and discussed below. II - 39 - I 1 1 TABLE 5.3 • PREDICTED CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS II Baseline - 1992 Traffic CO (ppm) Background (ppm) Totals (ppm) II Receptor Site 1 Bour 8 Hour 8 Hour* 1 Hour 8 Hour 1 Hour 8 Hour ** II Epicenter 03 Centerville Rd 1 TB 96 Future Retail (NW Corner) 6.9 4.3 3.0 6.4 4.0 13.3 7.0 I Furlong Oil (NE Corner) 4.0 2.6 1.8 6.4 4.0 10.4 5.8 1 Amoco (SE Corner) 3.9 2.5 1.8 6.4 4.0 10.3 5.8 Retail (SW Corner) 4.2 2.8 2.0 6.4 4.0 10.6 6.0 II Epicenter 05 Minnehaha & TB 120 I Union 76 (NW Corner) 6.9 5.3 3.7 1.6 1.3 8.3 5.0 Freedom Oil (NE Corner) 8.6 6.8 4.8 1.6 1.3 10.2 6.1 II Amoco (SE Corner) 5.8 4.3 3.0 1.6 1.3 7.4 4.3 McDonald's (SW Corner) 7.0 5.0 3.5 1.6 1.3 8.6 4.8 1 Epicenter 08 TB 5 i Audubon II Home (NW Corner) 0.8 0.5 0.4 1.0 0.9 1.8 1.3 II Commercial (SE Corner) 2.0 1.1 0.8 1.0 0.9 3.0 1.7 Epicenter 11 TB 13 i Lynn Ave 1 Amoco (5E Corner) 12.9 7.4 5.2 1.7 1.0 14.6 6.2 . 1 Dan Patch (SW Corner) 12.0 6.5 4.6 1.7 1.0 13.7 3.6 .111■ >r. II MPCA Standard 30.0 9.0 * 8 -hour based on modelled 8 -hour times a 0.7 persistence factor II ** 8 -hour total based on 8 -hour adjusted + 8 -hour background II - 40 - 1 Baseline concentrations are predicted for both 1 -hour and 8 -hour time , periods for which MPCA ambient air quality standards have been established. Where PM peak hour traffic is available, this has been used. Where only daily traffic is available, it is assumed that 10% of this traffic occurs during the PM peak hour. To estimate 8 -hour concentrations, it has been assumed that the average 8 -hour traffic on the type of roadways evaluated is 67% of the PM peak hour traffic. This is based upon a number of studies of arterial roadways in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Roadway concentrations have been computed using the MOBILE 4 emissions 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 and that average speeds on roadways vary between 25 and 40 mph. A wind speed of 1 meter per second blowing from a _ direction to yield the highest concentration at each receptor site is assumed. Epicenter 03 - WHITE BEAR LAKE The receptor sites evaluated at this intersection are: Furlong Oil ( quadrant) AMOCO Station (SE quadrant) Retail (SW quadrant) Future Retail (NW Quadrant) From Table 5.3, it can be seen that the worst 8 -hour baseline concentra- tion is 7.0 ppm, which is relatively high primarily because of the high value assumed for background. However, this receptor and the other three are projected to have concentrations below the 9 ppm 8 -hour standard. Epicenter 05 - OAKDALE The receptor sites evaluated at this intersection are: Freedom Oil (NE quadrant) 1 AMOCO Station (SE quadrant) McDonald's (SW quadrant) Union 76 (NW quadrant) ' From Table 5.3, it can be seen that the highest 8 -hour baseline con- centration is 6.1 and that all receptor sites are well below the 8 -hour stan- dard. gpicenter 08 - CHANHASSEN The receptor sites evaluated at this intersection are: Single family residence (NW of intersection) Industrial facility (SW of intersection) From Table 5.3, it can be seen that the highest 8 -hour baseline con- centration is 1.7 ppm, well below the 8 -hour standard. ' -41- 1 6.0 CARBON MONOXIDE IMPACTS The overall CO concentrations which include the impact of station - related traffic are presented in Table 6.1. ' Epicenter 03 - WHITE BEAR LAKE ' The highest 8 -hour concentration is 7.4 ppm, which reflects an increase of 0.4 ppm due to the existence of the station. Increases at other receptor sites range from 0.0 to 0.2 ppm. ,Epicenter 05 - OAKDALE The highest 8 -hour concentration is 6.2 ppm, which reflects an increase of 0.1 ppm. Increases at other receptor sites are also estimated to be 0.1 ppm. Epicenter 08 - CHANHASSEN ' The highest 8 -hour concentration is still 1.7 ppm, since the predicted increase in concentration is less than 0.1 ppm. ' Epicenter 09 - RICHFIELD It has been assumed that four rows of 35 vehicles are queuing constantly ' during the peak hour of the station, and that the idle emissions from these vehicles are carried towards the apartment building just east of the station. Some benefit from the apartment garage structure immediately east of the sta- ll tion is assumed. This analysis yields a 1 -hour concentration of 8.6 ppm, which when added to the assumed 1 -hour background (5.4 ppm), yields an overall concentration of 14.0 ppm. When compared with the 1 -hour standard of 30 ppm, ' it can be seen that the level is well below the standard for this time period. If it is assumed, under the worst condition, that 20 vehicles queue in 4 lanes for an 8 -hour period, an 8 -hour concentration of 3.4 ppm (which assumes that the wind will not blow steadily from the same direction for eight hours) is ' predicted from the vehicle queue. Added to the background of 3.6 ppm, the overall projected concentration is 7.0 ppm which is below the 8 -hour standard of 9 ppm. Thus, even under worst case conditions, the adjacent apartment is sufficiently far below the standard that no significant impacts are an- ticipated. ' Epicenter 11 -SAVAG The highest 8-hour hour concentration at the Amoco site is 6.7 ppm, which reflects an increase of 0.5 ppm due to the existence of the station. In- creases at the other receptor site is only 0.1 ppm. • - 43 - 1 TABLE 6.1 PREDICTEC CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS II Baseline v/ Station Traffic - 1992 Traffic CO (ppm) Background (ppm) Totals (ppm) Receptor Site 1 Hour 8 Hour 8 Bour* 1 Bour 8 Hour 1 Hour 8 Hour** II Eppcenter 03 Centerville Rd & TB 96 1 II Future Retail (NW Corner) 7.5 4.8 3.4 6.4 4.0 13.9 7.4 I Furlong Oil (HE Corner) 4.2 2.8 2.0 6.4 4.0 10.6 6.0 Amoco (SE Corner) 4.3 2.7 1.9 6.4 4.0 10.7 5.9 I Retail (SW Corner) 4.4 2.9 2.0 6.4 4.0 10.8 6.0 Epicenter 05 Minnehaha i TB 120 1 Onion 76 (NW Corner) 6.9 5.5 3.8 1.6 1.3 8.5 5.1 I Freedom (NE Corner) 8.6 7.0 4.9 1.6 1.3 10.2 6.2 Amoco (SE Corner) 5.8 4.4 3.1 1.6 1.3 7.4 4.4 McDonald's (SW Corner) 7.0 5.1 3.6 1.6 1.3 8.6 4.9 I Epicenter 08 TB 5 & Audubon Some (NW Corner) 0.8 0.5 0.4 1.0 0.9 1.8 1.3 Commercial (SE Corner) 2.0 1.1 0.8 . 1.0 0.9 3.0 1.7 I Epicenter 11 TB 13 & Lynn Ave II Amoco (SE Corner) 14.4 8.1 5.7 1.7 1.0 16.1 6.7 Hotel (SW Corner) 12.4 6.7 4.7 1.7 1.0 14.1 5.7 I ' MFCA Standard * 8 -hour based on modelled 8 -hour times a 0.7 persistence factor I ** 8 -hour total based on 8 -hour adjusted 4 8 -hour background -44- 1 ' 7.0 CONCLUSIONS Based upon the above analysis, of traffic and CO concentrations in the vicinity of the proposed vehicle inspection stations, the following conclu- sions can be drawn. Epicenter 03 - WHITE BEAR LAKE ' While the increase in station - related turning movements may, along with other development traffic, require some mitigative measures at the intersec- t tion of TH 96 with Centerville Road, the highest predicted 8 -hour CO concentra- tion is 7.4 ppm, which is below the 9 ppm standard. The maximum 1 -hour con- centration is only 10.9 ppm, well below the 30 ppm 1 -hour standard. Thus, no significant air quality impacts are predicted for this site. ' Epicenter 05 - OAKDALE ' An advantage of this site is that about 50% of the vehicles may access the site from the north and south, hence avoiding the critical intersection of TH 120 and Minnehaha Avenue. The maximum 8 -hour CO concentration is predicted to be 6.2 ppm, which is below the 9 ppm standard. The 1 -hour maximum (10.2 ' ppm) is well below the 1 -hour standard. Thus, no significant air quality im- pacts are predicted for this site. Epicenter 08 - CHANHASSEN It is assumed that the site will be accessed primarily from TH 5 at ' Audubon Road. Traffic on Audubon Road is sufficiently low to accommodate the increased traffic destined to the site without problems. The maximum 8 -hour CO concentration is predicted to be only 1.7 ppm, which is well below the,9 ppm standard. The 1 -hour maximum (3.0 ppm) is also well below the 1 -hour stan- dard. Thus, no significant air quality impacts are predicted for this site. Epicenter 09 - RICHFIELD The maximum 8 -hour CO concentration is predicted to be 7.0 ppm at the adjacent apartment building. The predicted 1 -hour concentration is 14.0 ppm. ' Both of these are below the MPCA ambient air quality standards for CO and no significant air quality impacts are predicted for this site. Epicenter 11 - SAVAGE The maximum 8 -hour CO concentration is predicted to be 6.7 ppm, which is below the 9 ppm standard. The 1 -hour maximum (16.1 ppm) is below the 1 -hour ' standard. Thus, no significant air quality impacts are predicted for this site. Based upon the analysis of this report, none of the five proposed ' vehicle inspection sites examined are predicted to have significant adverse impacts on air quality in the vicinity of the stations or at critical receptor sites located near intersections which serve these stations. ' ep10890.rep 90017 -01 - 45 - ) 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX A I 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II I 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT II ************************ ******************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * INTERSECTION TH 96 /Centerville d AREA TYPE OTHER ANALYST dhh II DATE 08/06/90 TIME PM Peak 1992 COMMENT w/o EIM Station I VOLUMES • EB GEOMETRY WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 86 329 104 226 : L 12.0 L 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 I TH 909 673 75 74 : T 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 TR 12.0 RT 138 451 261 44 : T 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0: R 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 II 12.0 ' 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS II 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 50 N 19.8 3 II WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 "N 19.8 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 • N 31.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 N 31.8 3 I - SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH - 106.0 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4 PH -1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4 EB LT X - X NB LT X X I TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X II WB LT X X SB LT X X TH X TH X .RT X RT X PD X PD X I GREEN 45.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 25.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3 :0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0- 3.0 0.0 0.0 II LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY • LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.192 0.613 6.9 B 14.8 B I T 0.701 0.425 17.0 C R 0.156 0.660 4.4 A WB L 0.920 0.613 35.6 D 16.8 C T 0.519 0.425 14.8 B R 0.510 0.660 6.3 B IINB LT 0.582 0.236 24 :7 C 13.0 B R 0.293 0.660 4.9 A I SB L 0.763 0.330 37.0 D 31.8 D TR 0.332 0.236 21.8 C INTERSECTION: Delay - 17.1 (sec /veh) V/C - 0.822 LOS - C II 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS II SUMMARY REPORT ******************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** II INTERSECTION TH 96 /Centerville d AREA TYPE OTHER ANALYST dhh II DATE 08/06/90 TIME PM Peak 1992 COMMENT w/ EIM Station VOLUMES GEOMETRY II EB WB NB SB : ' EB WB NB SB LT 86 417 126 226 : L 12.0 L 12.0. LT 12.0 LT 12.0 II TH 909 673 75 74 : T 12.0 T 12.0 R 12.0 TR 12.0 RT 4160 451 349 44 : T 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 12.0 • RR 0 0 0 0: R 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 II 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 50 N 19.8 3 II WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 N 19.8 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 N 31.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 50 N 31.8 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH - 106.0 II PH -1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4 PH -1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4 EB LT X X NB LT X X II TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X II WB LT X X SB LT X X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD X PD X II GREEN 45.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 25.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE II LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS , EB L 0.192 0.613 6.9 B 14.6 B II T 0.701 0.425 17.0 C R 0.181 0.660 4.5 A WB L 1.166 0.613 129.0 F 42.6 E T 0.519 0.425 14.8 B II R 0.510 0.660 6.3, B NB LT 0.663 0.236 26.5 D 13.1 B R 0.392 0.660 5.4 B II SB L 0.810 0.330 42.0 E 35.1 D TR 0.332 0.236 21.8 C INTERSECTION: Delay - 28.3 (sec /veh) . V /C - 0.945 LOS - D 1 II '1 . SEP 27 '90 11:31 FROM DAVID BRASLAU ASSOC PAGE.001 1 david braslau associates, incorporated I 1313 5th street s.e. suite 322 minneapolis, sn 55414 .teiephonet 612 - 331.4511 FAX 612 331-4572 I XF • , ,, F AXFAXFAXFAXFAXFAXFAXFAXFAxFAXFAXF A XF AXFAxFAXFAXFAAXFAXFAXFAXFAXFAXFAXFAXFAxFAxFAxmxFAXFAXFAXFA XFAXFAxfAX 1 . 1 FAX TRANSMITTAL ' II ATTENTION: Stan Krzywicki II s COMPANY NAME: Systems Control Inc. PHONE #: 897 -1232 ' FAX #: 831 - 0652 1 Number of pages to follow this cover sheet ( -10 -) 1 FROM: Dave Breslau DATE: 27 September 1990 1 SUBJECT: Chanhassen Site - Noise Evaluation /Supplemental CO Memo Attached are 'the following: • (1) Memo evaluating noise emissions from the site .. 1 (2) Memo evaluating CO levels at the PMT building Walter Rockenstein has reviewed both of these and,made a few 1 suggestions which have already been incorporated, Please let me latow if you have any corrections or changes. 1 - IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PACES, PLEASE CALL US BACK AS II SOON AS POSSIBLE! . 1 . ,� ` ,: 6 SEP 27 '90 11:32 FROM r'AVID BRASLAU ASSOC j PAGE.002 • • • davld brealau :, associates, Inoorporeted 1313 5th street a.e. • suite 322 • rr rrin. 85414 • telephone; 61 2- 331.4571 27 September 1990 ■ • 1 ''1 MEMORANDUM • : , • I T0: Stan Krzywicki, Systems Control Inc. FROM: David Breslau RE: Chanhassen Vehicle Inspection Station - Noise Impact Evaluation This memorandum describes and quantifies the noise levels and noise emissions expected from the proposed Vehicle Inspection Site in Chanhassen, Minnesota. • 1 The following sources of noise can be expected: (1) Vehicles entering and leaving the facility ` 1 (2) Vehicles waiting in queue at the facility i ' (3) Vehicles on the dynamometer Within the facility Each of these are addressed in this memorandum. I and Use Classification of Receiving Properties • The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has established noise standards I for receiving land uses. The MPCA Noise Standards (NPC -2) are included in Ap- pendiA A for completeness. Individual categories of land uses are listed within each of the land use'classifications for which noise standards have. been established. The closest adjacent land use (PMT Corporation) falls under Code 35 Professional, scientific, and controlling instruments; photographic and optical goods; watches and clocks - manufacturing. Therefore the noise standards shown in Table 1 apply. • TABLE 1 i APPLICABLE NOISE STANDARDS - CLOSEST RECEIVING LAND,.USE METRJQ • DAY 0700- _ 220Q1 PIGHI (2200 -0700) I L10 70 • 70 1 ISO 65 65 • II ' t t t. I L L.I,1I�.L11LI 1IJ..1'Jl.. 1 11'.IL . LIL1,J II Stan Kryzwicki September 27, 1990 Page 2 II For this land use classification, both daytime and nighttime standards are identical, although the station will not be operating during the nighttime hours. II (1) Vehicles entering and leaving the facility • • II Vehicles will be entering the facility from Park Road. The projected peak hour volume is 81 vph. If all of these vehicles enter from the west and depart to the west, the projected sound levels at the entrance to the PMT Cor- poration building are shown in Table 1. Also shown are the MPCA noise atan- II dards for commercial (NAC -2) land uses. ' METRIC RREDICTEDLE'1EL STANDARD L10 60 dBA 70 dBA . • II L50 55 dBA 65 dBA - • • It can be seen that, even during the peak hour of the facility,. noise from ( II vehicles travelling to and from the site will be 10 dBA below the standards. Normally, it will be well below this level. The level of noise from other traffic on the roadway, which includes soma trucks, will be higher than that associated with the station, and hence no noise .impacts from these vehicles II are anticipated. 1 •' (2) Vehicles waiting in queue at the facilit . II Vehicles waiting in the queue will be idling. It is unlikely that a vehicle with a bad muffler would come for inspection since the vehicle would be I rejected. Therefore, noise from idling vehicles will be at or below the al- ready existing ambient level in the area. The ambient noise level in the area is caused by a number of sources including HVAC equipment and roadways traf- ' fic. • (3) Vehicles on the dynamometer within the facility , I Dynamometers are used to simulate roadway conditions during testing. The dynamometers are located approximately 15 feet inside the entrance (see Ex- hibit 1 which shows a four bay station - only three bays are planned for the • II Chanhassen site. • , 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 ex- II pected for normal tires, these levels have been used to determine noise levels in the vicinity of the Chanhassen site. The readings have been adjusted from the test site at which they were taken to the Chanhassen site. • i Two conditions are shown in Exhibit 2. The first is with only one dynamometer running for at least 30 minutes of an hour. The second is with two II dynamometers panning simultaneoual,y for the semi 30 minutes of any hour. This is the worst noise condition expected at the facility. Noise contours for the single dynamometer are shown • as solid lines, while those for the two dynamometers running simultaneously are shown as dashed lines. II bEP c. i ' JU 1 1 : dd 1 UHV 1 U bkHbLHU HbSVI. 1 . UU /I • i i • Stan Kryzwicki ! • 1 September 27, 1990 Page 3 • II It can be seen that even with the simultaneous operation of two dynamometers for at least 30 minutes of any hour and noisier than normal tires, the MPCA standard is not exceeded at the closest adjacent property line, Thus, the II facility is expected to comply with state noise standards. • i. Conclusions • Based upon this evaluation of noise emissions from the proposed vehicle in- spection site, no significant noise impacts on surrounding land uses can be expected. While some sounds from the•facility will be heard periodically during the day, the average energy level of these noise emissions will be well below state standards for the adjacent land use, • '1 • II • • • f , . 1 1 • 1 • 1; • • • • • 1 • • • . 1 1 1 1 I SEP 27 '90 11:34 FROM 'AVID BRASLAU ASSOC PRGE . 005 • • • . '1�4 1040t1S SP t 40U . stry q c /quo GAEL! 1.1.1 42110E4 tasseyue43 041- 46.0 9PN . . h . • 1 • . . _. — 1 . , 41 III -.111 .1 1 • ' 4:3 PI 4 4:3 . . , I n5 . l •74-- mult..-, -' ENC=ibirizAr I, . ei •• '—' Ns _41 1 I 5 i -1 ° 1 . -*, A im- iii'd -,_-, 17Z) ..,„, • . 1 t 44:3 - ... 8 „,,, .I t .. 1 ittzgt i "--r— r . 1 i--- 12-- fi's b Pe i - • i _;...4.1, . _ is -.. 1.1. co t.4 . 1 <=:1 i Jazawowmfg III= It 4=1 = x 11.1 1 a '** *Wit: ill T. ° zp... En 1111110ter— . sm...se • — k . • .. .— • _____ (1 I 1 11 11 ' • I 3 j:: 1 m 1 CSI MI 111 — 4 ' 1 III" 7 L_ k 1 . 1 1 ' I . • I ------'1-----. ---. L-- v . . h I • h .......•— •—. i ......... ' ..--. • — 1 • SEP 27 '90 11 : 34 FROM DAVID BRASLAU ASSOC PAGE . 006 I ! . , . , . 3. . . . 1 3 . . 3 • • 1 : I 1 1 . . I . . . I - , . i , 4 . • . . 1 - 7 • . 1 _ -, ___ . - • r- . - . ---.......--„ „,.... •Slie I". i 0 110 . D V l ip VII tr) , • ... ...,,„, 1 .0.. . . 111 bf/ i • ..1". . C5 , 'C 'e t r I ' . . : • 0 I , ..... 0 17. i ' II - - EP • .., .1 On C 1 . 9 .(;)® * i 6 . • _,- t . . •C --.— — •■■■••■.. mom •■•• m.. / i 0 IC -•""' . . : - • • !L I — 1 1„=,! 4 iie • 1-- 1- -- I 1 4 • ..--0 f=3 = Lai I • t • • • . . , ts • ... • , ...,- •,-,i ..47.....-....-J--- . • ,..„ ---,ay-- ' • 1 —...-....... grea:m.s•t ;sieges* .. , . 1 ;\ • E. s . . - : , • 1 • • , . • , . 1 • . . . . . I . = I >, 0 • 1 I . • ; : 10 0 0 I- S - 9— 0 0 •••'• ' ■ 0 S. . ft 1 C 1 I 00. : . „ i Ci... = 1-•• C...) •-•• ., ---'' 1 , I • • . 1 1 .• 1 1 1 1 :DE F' *c.: r • :du 1 1 : ;.1 5 F RUI'1 IJHU 1 D BRASLAU ASSOC • s: PAGE . 007 • APPENDIX A • • t".. . 1 NIT 2 Noise Standards ° . . . . • • • (a) These standards describe the limiting levels of sound established on I the basis of present knowledge for the preservation of public health and welfare. These standards are consistent with speech, sleep, annoyance and bearing conservation requirements for receivers within area grouped . ' • • according to land activities by the Noise Area Classification (NAC) system herein described. However, these standards do not, by themselves, identify • the Iimiting levels of impulsive noise needed for the preservation of public ' health and welfare. • (b) Noise Standards • • I Day (0700 -2200) ' Night (2200-0700) • ' NAC L.. L.. L L.» 1 60 65 50 55 . 2 6S .70 65 70 ! • I 3 75 80 75 80 �I • • • (c) Noise Area Classification System According to Land Activity et Re- • ceiver. Acceptable sound levels for the receiver area function of the in- . • • ' tended activity in that land area. The following noise area classifications • are grouped and defined by the SLUCM numerical codes and descriptions. (d) Noise Area Classification -1 (NAC -1) includes the following land ac- . tivities: NAC -1 11 Household units (includes farm houses) • b = • - '12 Group quarters • • ! I 13 Residential hotels • • : .. �'• 14 Mobile home parks or courts 13 Transient lodgings • 19 Other residential, NEC' • 397 Motion picture production 651 Medical and other health services 674 Correctional Institutions , 68 Educational services i • I 691 Religious activities , 71 Cultural activities and nature exhibitions ti 721 Entertainment assembly . • I 7491 Camping and picnicking areas (designated) 75 ' Resorts and group camps 79 Other cultural, entertainment, and recreational activities, NEC • I (e) Noise Area Classification -2 (NAC-2) includes the following land activi- ties: .. ! NAC-2 • • 4113 Railroad terminals (passenger) • I 4115 Railroad terminals ( passenger and freight) °° 4122 Rapid rail transit and street railwap passenger terminals ' . 4211 Bus passenger terminals (interdtp) 4212 Bus passenger terminals (local) • ' , *NEC --, Not thewlars coded. 1 ' 1 • • SEP ci '9x1 11:35 FROM DAVID BRASLAU ASSOC ; PAGE.008 II • •..... .._ . . • •.r •r..•.+,..:aL— . • . . • • 3 4 Fabricated metal products -- manufacturing •, - •••••■111. 35 Professional, scientific, and controlling instruments; photographic and optical goods; watches and clocks -- manufacturing • 39 Miscellaneous manufacturing, NEC (except 397) • 41 Railroad, rapid rail transit, and street railway transportation (ex- • cept 4113, 4115, 4122) 42 Motor vehicle transportation (except 4211, 4212, 4213, 429) • - • • 43 Aircraft transportation (except 4312, 4314) ► . ' • • • 44 Marine craft transportation (except 4411, 4413) • 1 • . <. ; • • 45 Highway and street right -of -way • • 47 Communication (except 4721) • • • 48 Utilities , • • 49 Other transportation, communication and utilities, NEC (except • - 492) • • • 7223 Race tracks 731 Fairgrounds and amusement parks . .. • 81 Agriculture . • 82 Agricultural and related activities • • • 83 Forestry activities and related services (including , � • • mg commercial forest land, timber production and other related activities) 1 , , 84 Fishing activities and related services •1 ' • .,. • 85 Mining activities and related services E 89 Other resource production and exeraction,.NEC • . . . c ....... All other activities i • r (g) Noise Area Classification -4 (NAC-4) Includes the following land acttvi- ''�'" • ties: - . • • NAC-4 ' 91 Undeveloped and unused land area (excluding non-commercial , • = i � ' • (, forest development) . 92 Non - commercial forest development ; ; ••••::•1 • 93 Water areas • ( :: �, 94 Vacant Boor area �'' • 95 Under construction 1 • 99 Other undeveloped land and water areas, NEC f • • at) Measurement Procedure. A measurement procedure approved by the • Director shall be used to determine the acceptability of sound levels in a • Riven area. Such measurements shall be made at the point of human activity -0 . in the receiving area which is nearest the noise source and which is typical for the Noise Area Classification category of the receiving area, except where • t% existing barbers, obstructions or reflecting surfaces prevent an accurate • measurement. Alt measurements shall be made outdoors. . (I) Exceptions • (1) The Standards of NAC -2 may apply to buildings within the follow- i ing NAG - categories: 11 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 397, 651, 68, 691, 71, 7211 if • all of the following conditions are met; • (1) The building is constructed and insulated in such a way as to c ' assure that the exterior- Interior sound level attcntuation, measured under a . , • measurement procedure approved by the Director, Is at least 30 dBA; and • 1 , - • . _.. . . •..• •.•.... �.w__......._...�. _.... r ' ..)L t• c., • �U 1 1 gib I- kuI'I bHV 1 L 13RASLHU HSSUL PH(.3E t]t:19 .� • ,ti' ' r• r' •�•'� •' • .�'•�' ', , • r.:, ..:4.s% :•'. .... •..4Q.. .•'.. , ... .r .. -!,y .. y ..:--.•. 1...-- • - - . • • ' •' ' . ' ti • u• • ' . • 4213 Bus passenger terminals (intercity and local) ' 0 429 Other motor vehicle transportation, NEC I 4312 Airport and flying field terminals (passenger) 4314 Airport and flying field terminals (passenger and freight) ' ! 4411 Marine terminals (passenger) • • • 4413 Marine terminals (passenger and fret t •• • I • 46 Automobile parking �) • • 4721 Telegraph message centers • 492 Transportation services and arrangements ' l : . • ' I .. 51 Wholesale trade • 52 Retail trade —building materials, hardware, lend farm equipment 53 Retail trade—general merchandise 54 Retail trade —food ' 1. 55 Retail trade -y automotive, marine craft, aircraft, and accessories I 56 Retail trade — apparel and accessories . ; 57 Retail trade -- furniture, home furnishings, and equipment ' • : ; • • • I 58 Retail trade -- eating and drinking , • I '', 59 Other retail trade, NEC _ • 61 Finance, insurance and real estate services , . • 62 Personal services ; 63 Business services • I , 64 Repair service - 652 Legal services 659 Other professional services, NEC 0 .. • .• . • 66 Contract construction services ' 67 Governmental services (except 674) ., • • • i 69 Miscellaneous services (except 691) 72 Public assembly (except 721, 7223) , t 73 Amusements (except 731) (� '• `' • • 74 Recreational activities (except 7491) �J 76 Parks • (1) Noise Area Classification -3 (NAC -3) includes the following land activi- • ties: NAC-3 21 Food and kindred products — manufacturing I 22 Textile mill products — manufacturing , • 23 Apparel and other finished product made from fabrics, leather, • and similar materials — manufacturing 1 24 Lumber and wood products (except furniture) — manufacturing I 25 Furniture and fixtures — manufacturing .1 26 Paper and allied products --•. manufacturing 27 Printing, publishing and allied industries I 28 Chemicals and allied products— manufacturing 29 Petroleum refining and related industries • • 31 Rubber and miscellaneous plastic products — manufacturing 32 Stone, clay, and glass products — manufacturing i ' r — ' I 33 Primary metal industries ( • 4 4� 1 SE F' c i '5u 1 1:36 F R01.1 DAU 1 D BRASLAU ASSOC PAGE .010 1 1111 . 1 devid bresteu essoolates, incorporated 1313 5th street 8.e. • sults322 • rnlnneapolis, mn. 65414 • telephone: 812.331 -4571 27 September 1990 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Stan Krzywicki 1 FROM; David Breslau RE: Chanhassen Inspection Station - Supplemental Carbon Monoxide Analysis pp xi This memorandum reports on the findings of a supplemental air quality analysis completed for the proposed Chanhassen Vehicle Inspection Station. This analysis was prepared in response to concerns from the MT Corporation just to the west of the proposed site. • The Carbon Monoxide level was projected for the area east of the PMT Corpora- tion building immediately adjacent to the proposed station site. This area is II used for vehicle perking and "picnic" tables are located at the north end of the building. For purposes of worst case analysis, it was assumed that three queues of vehicles are located along the west side of the inspection site, waiting to enter the inspection facility. This may occur only several times a year and is unlikely to last for more than several hours during each of these occur- rences. A concentration from the vehicle queue of 3.2 ppm has been predicted at the 1 "picnic" area. If a conservative background concentration of 2 ppm is added to this, the overall concentration at the east of the PMT Corporation building is 5.2 ppm. This compares with the one -hour standard of 30 ppm and the 8 -hour standard of 9 ppm. However, since persons are not likely to remain outside at this location for eight hours and the queue is not likely to last for more than several hours, the one -hour standard (30 ppm) is applicable. It can be seen that the projected levels are well below the one -hour standard. 1 The potential for high CO concentrations in the PMT Corporation HVAC system is reduced from the 5.2 ppm level, since the primary intakes are on top of the building and not located adjacent to the inspection station site. Since the CO concentration disperses further with height, is expected that the CO concentration at rooftop level will be 3 ppm or less. This is well below the 8 -hour standard of 9 ppm. It should also be noted that these predicted concentrations are based upon the average vehicle. Most vehicles coming to the inspection site for evaluation 1 wi11 likely be in better than normal condition to ensure that the vehicle can be certified. Therefore, the concentrations discussed above are likely higher than would normally be expected. 1 SEP 27 !90 11:37 FROM DAVID BRASLAUASSOC i 1 PAGE.011 II ; I, • , • •••1. . cr• • 1 . i • ., ' - ; • ' 1 1 • • ', • . , . . I , . . : 1 • .:' 1 , ( , . . On 1 4h. . • . I VP 01P Ci2) 0 . . 1 -:.:)//;-.."..'... •41.. 4... . • 4-, .0> . . ..... \ - . l igr a" ../M : (3) : I I : O 1 • I • -••• . . i Li etn_b•Gli" 0 1 ---- . cr -. , - I --... . VgitTli q iK — , ••• • 1;„ tinft.#0 - 6.,') i • -.. 4114 1 ; • A : . . , 1 cr e-, ilt i I, ' • t• • ' '.' '. ' ,...': --- '1 1 • ■ / g 41 •11.1 '1,1A'A int at • ' : . t--,t, . • : -•\....:// , * ,, , • . i - 1 . . ..E - 4.1 > .. .." . • sposi•aol•w set*,11111 . . . = 1... . - ..-. c., m . - . I -,— I . . gm. s - o ' . t._) • ( 1 1 . . 1 . . • • . • • 1 • 1 1 1 . SiSTEMS CONTKI. MINNEAPOLIS 1 STATUS AS OF 3-26-90 ' 3:iE PLI-14N CITY BOUM I UCAT1ON SELECTION COMIS5ION COUNCIL PERNii Minneapolis OK OK 10-2-90 10-15-90 Rich;isld Oi: No 10-12-90 ? Chanhassen OK 1Q-3-30 10-22-30 11-1-30 Savage De OK OK OK White Pea- La;.e 0". O' O. OK 1 Minnetonka Cli TEL TBD TED Oakdale tif nA OK OK Eagan Ci- 10-:. 11-6-3() 11-12-90 Coon Rapids OK 10-16-90 10-13-30 10-20-30 Brooklyn Park Or', 10-3-30 10-6-30 10-29-30 Roseville OK 'Bi: TBD TBD 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ 1 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ' ORDINANCE NO. DIVISION 4. STANDARDS FOR BUSINESS, OFFICE, INSTITUTIONAL AND ' INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS. ' Section 20 -293, Conditional Use Permit Standards, is amended by adding the following: ' Emission Control Testing Stations - Authorized to undertake emissions and /or safety monitoring required by the State of Minnesota provided that: ' a. the operation is under contract agreement with the State of Minnesota to provide these services; 1 b. no repairs are performed on the site; c. no gas or parts are sold on the site; ' d. no outdoor storage of vehicles or related materials; ' e. no diesel testing to be allowed at the site; 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. g. all vehicle stacking shall be provided on -site in designated lanes. Vehicle stacking in fire lanes, parking areas and other drives shall be prohibited. Section 20 -814. Conditional Uses in the IOP District is amended by adding: ' (15) Emission control testing stations. Section 20 -714, Conditional uses in the BH District is amended ' by adding: (9) Emission control testing stations. 1 SYSTEMS CONTROL OPERATIONS OVERVIEW 1 1 Systems Control (SC) is a private company contracted by the State of Minnesota to 1 measure vehicle emissions from existing vehicles registered in the state. These inspections, due to begin July 1, 1991, are required by a recently passed Minnesota law mandating a vehicle inspection program. 1 - We have over twenty year's experience in the automotive testing field as a leader in the development, certification, and application of Federal and short -cycle idle, two-speed idle and loaded -mode vehicle emission tests. SC has a proven track record as the successful operator of the large Inspection Programs in Illinois, Maryland and Washington state and has successfully performed nearly 22 million inspections during the 1980's. As part of SD- Scicon, one of the Top Ten computer systems and services companies in the world, SC has successfully married advanced computer systems technology with sophisticated vehicle inspection equipment and procedures to offer the most reliable, convenient and advanced technology vehicle emission inspection service available today. We are proud of our Inspection Program accomplishments. State Program Managers of , 1 the Inspection Programs we now operate, tell the SC story the best. According to Bruce Diehl from the Maryland Inspection Program "the success of the program is the result of...the constant consideration for service to the vehicle owner ... our experience has been that you go the extra mile...'. Frank Sherman of Illinois had this to say about SC. "We have been very pleased at the courteous and professional treatment (motorist) receive from your (SC) employees." Under the program, each vehicle will be required to take the test prior to re- registering 1 their license plates. Owners will take their vehicle to the test facility and pull directly into a test bay where an inspector will insert a probe in the vehicle tailpipe. The test results will automatically print out. 1 The entire test will take on an average under two minutes. An information office with ample parking is provided at each facility to provide personalized assistance for customers requiring additional help. Less than 10% of the vehicle owners will need to park to use the information office. Most vehicle owners will simply leave the facility after receiving the vehicle test report. 4- . 1 1 1 . 111 • OPERATIONS OVERVIEW Page Two • 1 SC's Inspection Facilities design and operation approach has been developed utilizing this experience and expertise. SC's inspection facilities and equipment provide Minnesota with the following benefits: 1 • A clean computer equipped facility designed to measure area resident's vehicle emissions using state of the art technology emission inspection system with electronic pass /fail decision making. • • Average test taking less than two (2) minutes per vehicle. • Minimal or no waiting (test facility network is designed to provide a peak 1 period average daily working time of 3.2 minutes or less to all inspection facilities). ' • Convenience of facilities are located to service over 90% of the vehicle owners residing within a five (5) mile radius. 1 ADDITIONAL FACTS ON THE STATION MAKEUP AND OPERATION: • Hours of Operation: 1 Sunday and Monday: Closed 1 Tuesday and Thursday: 7:00a.m. - 7 :00p.m. Wednesday and Friday: 7:30a.m. - 5:30p.m. 1 Saturday: 8:00a.m. - 2 :00p.m. 1 Staff: 1 Each facility will employ a staff of ten to fifteen, with half that number on-duty at any one time. The breakdown of the employees consists of; two inspectors per lane, one station manager, and one MPCA waiver inspector. 1 1 1 • 1 OPERATIONS OVERVIEW Page Three 1 • Parking: 1 Ample parking supplying more than the following; one parking ' space for each employee on duty, one additional parking space per each lane, one parking space for handicapped, and a space for the MPCA inspector. • Vehicle Through Put: Each station is equipped with the number of inspection lanes required to perform inspections based on the local population served by the station. • Vehicle Size: Only gasoline vehicles with a gross vehicle weight less than 8500 pounds are required to be tested. All heavy duty vehicles are excluded from this program, and will not come to these facilities. 1 The vehicle inspection business is SC's only business. We are dedicated to providing the 1 highest quality Inspection Program to the citizens of Minnesota. It will be convenient, reliable and cost effective. It will be staffed with courteous and well trained service oriented personnel. 1 We look forward to working in close cooperation and partnership with communities and state officials to develop and operate a noteworthy Inspection Program. We believe that SC can make a substantial contribution to improving air quality in the Twin Cities area sand to maintaining the quality of life you have come to expect and enjoy. . 1 1 1 • 1 1 1