Loading...
CC Staff Report 10-03-2016 c_ - i IOW CITY OF MEMORANDUM CHANHASSEN TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager 7700 Market Boulevard PBox 147 FROM: Kate Aanenson,AICP, Community Development Director Chanhassen,MN 55317 DATE: October 3, 2016 Administration Phone:952.227.1100 SUBJ: Paisley Park Museum—Planning Case 2016-24 Fax:952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone:952.227.1180 PROPOSED MOTION Fax:952.227.1190 Engineering "The Chanhassen City Council approves the rezoning of Lot 11, Block 1, Phone:952.227.1160 Chanhassen Lakes Business Park from Industrial Office Park (IOP) to Planned Fax:952.227.1170 Unit Development(PUD), and adoption of the attached PUD Ordinance, Site Improvement Performance Agreement, and Findings of Fact." Finance Phone:952227.1140 City Council approval requires a majority vote of City Council. Fax:952.227.1110 Park&Recreation Phone:952.227.1120 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Fax:952.227.1110 Recreation Center The applicant, Bremer Trust National Association, the Special Administrator of the 2310 Coulter Boulevard Estate of Prince Rogers Nelson,has formed Paisley Park Facility, LLC to operate a Phone:952.227.1400 museum at Paisley Park. They are requesting a rezoning to Planned Unit Fax:952.227.1404 Development(PUD)to allow a museum as a permitted use in the zoning district. Planning& The staff is recommending the PUD rezoning for the following reasons: Natural Resources Phone:952.2271130 Fax:952.227.1110 • Provides for limitations on how the building can be used including hours of operation and traffic flow and parking. Public Works • Preserves the existing building. 7901 Park Place • Limited expansion preserves the existing trees. Phone:952.227.1300 • Creates additional jobs. Fax:952.2271310 • Tourism generated supports the existing businesses. Senior Center Phone:952.227.1125 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY Fax:952.227:1110 The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 20, 2016 to review the Website proposed rezoning. The Planning Commission voted six for and none against a motion www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us recommending approval of the rezoning request. Chanhassen is a Community for Life-Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Paisley Park Museum—Planning Case 2016-24 October 3, 2016 Page 2 The Planning Commission requested that City Council consider the following: • Review the proposed transportation plan. • Consider bus routes only on Highway 5. • Require a Pedestrian Safety Plan. • Require a time frame for the completion of improvements. The September 20,2016 Planning Commission minutes are attached to this staff report. Following is a summary of the changes to the application since the Planning Commission meeting: 1. Offices were added as a permitted use. 2. A Site Improvement Performance Agreement has been added as a part for the PUD Ordinance. The applicant must submit a$25,000 escrow or letter of credit as a financial security to ensure the installation of the following improvements: a) Re-stripe Audubon Road to include left turn lanes at the intersection of McGlynn Drive/the southern access to the site by October 5, 2016. b) Stripe the parking stalls by October 5, 2016. c) Install a paved connection between the northern and southern parking lots on the site by October 5, 2016. d) Relocate the northern access of the site 220 feet south of Highway 5 as shown in the September 15, 2016 SRF Traffic and Parking Study Option 1 by October 3, 2017. This relocated access shall be restricted to a right-out of the site. e) Sidewalks shall be installed within the site by October 3, 2017. I) A traffic study shall be completed within one year, as directed by the Public Works Director, and shall include a level of service analysis of the intersections of Audubon Road at: the northern access, McGlynn Drive, Coulter Boulevard, and Park Road. The study shall also analyze the pedestrian movements across Audubon Road at Highway 5 and McGlynn Drive. If the level of service at any number of the intersections fails, and/or if the study identifies a pedestrian safety issue, the applicant shall install and pay for the recommended improvements such as a rapid flash crosswalk to the roadway system and/or the site. 3. The PUD has been revised as follows specifying the development and regulations for the museum: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Paisley Park Museum—Planning Case 2016-24 October 3, 2016 Page 3 e. Development Plans and Regulations. The PUD must be maintained in accordance with the following development plans which are on file with the City and which are incorporated herein by reference: 1. Site Plan—SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Parking Study dated 9/15/2016, Figure 5, Option 1, with a north access right-out only, relocating the Paisley Park north access to a minimum of 100 feet south of its current location. 2. The tent identified on the Site Plan may only be used for sale of food,beverages and memorabilia. 3. A hotel may only be in the round building on the Site Plan and may not exceed 35 guest rooms. 4. Site Improvement Performance Agreement approved by the Chanhassen City Council on October 3, 2016. • . POTENTIAL N. FUTURE PARKING CLOSE ACCESS ` 'I :. Il.iii;_� . ,1111 ' _ii"r -/-1/ 1 I IP 3 Q _ 1111.` 010 1 ,.. . "Mr EvfH7 y� i "3e SPACE. 1‘.1 i s MCGYNN RJ oi tr N E i } _ "ate �I s. /, 1.Eo!.No ® •Numbs,Ed Peking Spaces i 1;4 i Site Plan Reconfiguration(Option 1) 7801 Audubon Road Traf iicand PafkInp Study — Figure 5 C ..tmy Group,Inr. Cly of ClurI'n w :fliffi,,r SnAnW 2C•E Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Paisley Park Museum—Planning Case 2016-24 October 3, 2016 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the rezoning of Lot 11, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park from Industrial Office Park(IOP)to Planned Unit Development(PUD), and adoption of the attached PUD Ordinance, Site Improvement Performance Agreement, and Findings of Fact." ATTACHMENTS 1. PUD Ordinance. 2. Site Improvement Performance Agreement. 3. Findings of Fact. 4. SRF Traffic and Parking Study dated September 15, 2016. 5. Amended Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 20, 2016. 6. Planning Commission minutes dated September 20, 2016. 7. Emails. \\cfs5\cfs5\shared_data\plan\2016 planning cases\2016-24 paisley park museum\executive summary.doe AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE,THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code,the City's zoning ordinance,is amended by rezoning the following described property("Subject Property")to PUD,Planned Unit Development: Lot 11, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, Carver County, MN Section 2. Paisley Park Planned Unit Development a. Intent The purpose of this rezoning is to create a PUD zoning district for Paisley Park. The uses, development standards and regulations of the IOP, Industrial Office Park District shall apply subject to the following modifications: b. Permitted Uses. Only the following uses are permitted: 1. Museum. 2. Recording studio. 3. Hotel. 4. Retail sales of products stored or manufactured on the site provided no more than twenty percent(20%) of the floor space is used for retail sales. These sales may include food,beverages and memorabilia. 5. Twelve(12) indoor concerts per calendar year. A concert-specific seating plan must be filed with the City at least ten (10) days in advance of each concert. 6. Private events. An event-specific seating plan must be filed with the City at least ten (10) days in advance of each event. 7. Office. 8. Multiple buildings on a lot. c. Prohibited Uses. The following uses are prohibited: 1. All conditional and permitted uses not listed as permitted uses. 2. Outdoor events. 3. Liquor sales and consumption. d. Materials and Design Fence: Fences shall comply with City Code requirements including the Buffer Yard requirements, except that fences may be opaque to provide security screening. 1 189087v3 e. Development Plans and Regulations. The PUD must be maintained in accordance with the following development plans which are on file with the City and which are incorporated herein by reference: 1. Site Plan— SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Parking Study dated September 15, 2016, Figure 5, Option 1, with a north access right-out only,relocating the Paisley Park north access to a minimum of 100 feet south of its current location. 2. The tent identified on the Site Plan may only be used for the sale of food,beverages and memorabilia. 3. A hotel may only be in the round building on the Site Plan and may not exceed 35 guest rooms. 4. Site Improvement Performance Agreement approved by the Chanhassen City Council on October 3, 2016. f. Parking 1. Parking lots and parking spaces shall comply with city code requirements. 2. If guests only arrive to the site by a shuttle bus the tour size shall be limited by the maximum occupancy under the Fire Code. 3. If guests use on-site parking and the north and south parking lots are not connected: a. Audubon Road must first be restriped to include a left turn lane, and b. The number of on-site parking spaces for guests who arrive by a personal vehicle is limited to 105 spaces. 4. If guests use on-site parking and a connection between the north and south lots is paved: a. Audubon Road must first be striped to include a left turn lane into the southern access. b. All required permits, including from the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District,must be obtained prior to installing the pavement. c. The north access shall be limited to a right-out of the site. d. The traffic signal at Highway 5 and Audubon Road must first be optimized based on the SRF study. 2 189087v3 e. The number of guests allowed on the site shall be limited so that there are a sufficient number of on-site parking spaces to accommodate guests who arrive by a personal vehicle. 5. If guests park on-site and site improvements include expanding the parking area to 230 spaces and connecting the north and south parking lots: a. Audubon Road shall first be re-striped for left turn lanes for north- and south- bound traffic at McGlynn Drive. b. The northern access shall be right-out only. c. The traffic signal at Highway 5 and Audubon Road must first be optimized based on the SRF study. d. The number of guests allowed on the site shall be limited so that there are a sufficient number of on-site parking spaces to accommodate guests who arrive by a personal vehicle. 6. If the on-site parking is inadequate, the maximum allowable tour size shall be reduced to a level where the on-site parking is sufficient, or the PUD and the site plan must be amended to provide more parking. Any changes to the site plan are subject to review and approval by the City and other agencies with regulatory authority over the site. Section 3. The zoning map of the City of Chanhassen shall not be republished to show the aforesaid zoning,but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the zoning map on file in the Clerk's Office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this ordinance, and all of the notations,references,and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this ordinance. Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of October, 2016,by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Denny Laufenburger, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on ) 3 189087v3 (reserved for recording information) SITE IMPROVEMENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT PAISLEY PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT dated October 3, 2016, by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation, and Paisley Park Facility, LLC. 1. BACKGROUND. A. The City has approved a rezoning of Lot 11, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park to Planned Unit Development ("PUD"). The PUD requires the Developer to enter in this Site Improvement Performance Agreement. 2. REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS. The Developer shall construct the following improvements by the dates indicated: A. Re-stripe Audubon Road to include left turn lanes at the intersection of McGlynn Drive/the southern access to the site by October 5, 2016. B. Stripe the parking stalls by October 5, 2016. C. Relocate the northern access of the site 100 feet south of Highway 5 as shown in the September 15, 2016 SRF Traffic and Parking Study, Figure 5, Option 1 by October 3, 2017. This relocated access shall be restricted to a right-out of the site. D. Sidewalks shall be installed within the site by October 3, 2017. 188055v1 1 E. A traffic study shall be completed within one year, as directed by the Public Works Director, and shall include a level of service analysis of the intersections of Audubon Road at: the northern access, McGlynn Drive, Coulter Boulevard, and Park Road. The study shall also analyze the pedestrian movements across Audubon Road at Highway 5 and McGlynn Drive. If the level of service at any number of the intersections fails, and/or if the study identifies a pedestrian safety issue, the applicant shall install and pay for the recommended improvements such as a rapid flash crosswalk to the roadway system and/or the site. 3. LICENSE. Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors a license to enter the Subject Property to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the City in conjunction with site development. 4. SECURITY REQUIREMENTS. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Agreement, the Developer shall furnish the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit in the form attached hereto, from a bank ("security") for $25,000.00. 5. MISCELLANEOUS. A. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement. B. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement. C. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not be a waiver or release. D. This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the Subject Property. The Developer covenants with the City, its successors and assigns, that the Developer has fee title to the Subject Property and/or has obtained consents to this Agreement, in the form attached hereto, from all parties who have an interest in the property; that there are no unrecorded interests in the property; and that the Developer will indemnify and hold the City harmless for any breach of the foregoing covenants. E. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such 188055v1 2 order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. F. Breach of the terms of this Agreement by the Developer, including nonpayment of billings from the City, shall be grounds for denial of building permits and certificates of occupancy, and the halting of all work on the property. G. The Developer represents to the City that the development complies with all city, county, metropolitan, state, and federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to: subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances, and environmental regulations. If the City determines that the development does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow construction or development work in the development until the Developer does comply. Upon the City's demand, the Developer shall cease work until there is compliance. 6. DEVELOPER'S DEFAULT. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer, except in an emergency as determined by the City, is first given notice of the work in default, not less than forty-eight (48) hours in advance. This Agreement is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part. 7. NOTICES. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified mail at the following address: Paisley Park Facility, LLC, c/o Bremer Trust, National Association, 1100 West St. Germain St., St. Cloud, MN 56302. Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Manager, or mailed to the City by certified mail in care of the City Manager at the following address: Chanhassen City Hall, PO Box147, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317- 0147. [The remainder of this page has been intentionally left blank. Signature pages follow.] 188055v1 3 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Denny Laufenburger, Mayor (SEAL) AND: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2016, by Denny Laufenburger and by Todd Gerhardt, respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC 188055v1 4 DEVELOPER: PAISLEY PARK FACILITY, LLC By: Its: STATE OF ) (ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2016, by , the of NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL, KNUTSON Professional Association 860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone: 651-452-5000 AMP/cjh 188055v1 5 IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT No. Date: TO: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317-8363 Dear Sir or Madam: We hereby issue, for the account of (Name of Developer) and in your favor, our Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of$ , available to you by your draft drawn on sight on the undersigned bank. The draft must: a) Bear the clause, "Drawn under Letter of Credit No. , dated , 2 , of (Name of Bank) "; b) Be signed by the City Manager or Finance Director of the City of Chanhassen. c) Be presented for payment at (Address of Bank) , on or before 4:00 p.m. on November 30, 2 . This Letter of Credit shall automatically renew for successive one-year terms unless, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date (which shall be November 30 of each year), the Bank delivers written notice to the Chanhassen Finance Director that it intends to modify the terms of, or cancel, this Letter of Credit. Written notice is effective if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, and deposited in the U.S. Mail, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date addressed as follows: Chanhassen Finance Director, Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard, Chanhassen, MN 55317-8363, and is actually received by the Finance Director at least thirty (30) days prior to the renewal date. This Letter of Credit sets forth in full our understanding which shall not in any way be modified, amended, amplified, or limited by reference to any document, instrument, or agreement, whether or not referred to herein. This Letter of Credit is not assignable. This is not a Notation Letter of Credit. More than one draw may be made under this Letter of Credit. This Letter of Credit shall be governed by the most recent revision of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 600. We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this Letter of Credit shall be duly honored upon presentation. BY: Its: 188055v1 6 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA In Re: Application of PRN Music Corporation FINDINGS OF FACT for a Rezoning of Property legally described as AND DECISION Lot 11, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park Planning Case No. 2016-24 On October 3, 2016, the City Council met to consider the application of PRN Music Corporation to rezone property from IOP-Industrial Office Park to PUD, Planned Unit Development. The City Council of the City of Chanhassen hereby makes the following Findings of Fact and Decision in the above-captioned matter: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned IOP-Industrial Office Park. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Office Industrial. 3. The description of the property is: Lot 11, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 4. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. 5. The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. 6. The proposed use conforms to all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. 7. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. 8. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the City's service capacity. 1 189252v1 9. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. 10. The museum will create new jobs in the City and the tourism will support the existing business. 11. The Planning Report No. 2016-24, dated September 20, 2016,prepared by Kate Aanenson, et al, is incorporated herein. DECISION The City Council approves the rezoning to Planned Unit Development. Dated: October 3, 2016 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Denny Laufenburger, Mayor AND: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager 2 189252v1 114 ENGINEERS 110 PLANNER S DESIGNERS Memorandum Consulting Group.Inc. SAF No.0169371 To: Paul Oehme, PE Public Works Director/City Engineer City of Chanhassen From: Matt Pacyna, PE,Senior Associate Tom Sachi,EIT,Engineer Date: September 15, 2016 Subject: 7801 Audubon Road Traffic and Parking Study Introduction SRF has completed a traffic and parking study for the proposed Paisley Park Museum at 7801 Audubon Road in the City of Chanhassen (see Figure 1: Project Location). The main objectives of this study are to review existing operations within the study area, evaluate traffic and parking impacts of the proposed development, and recommend any necessary improvements to accommodate the proposed development. A review of the proposed access, circulation, and overall site operations was also completed.The following information provides the assumptions,analysis,and recommendations offered for consideration. Existing Conditions The existing conditions were reviewed to establish a baseline in order to identify any future impacts associated with the proposed development.The evaluation of existing conditions includes intersection turning movement counts, field observations,and an intersection capacity analysis. Data Collection Intersection turning movement counts were collected at the following locations between Thursday, August 25 and Sunday,August 28, 2016. • Audubon Road and MN Highway 5 • Audubon Road and Coulter Boulevard • Audubon Road and Park Road These periods were selected as they include the weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours, as well as the Saturday midday peak period. Supplemental traffic counts were collected along Audubon Road on Saturday, September 3, 2016 to understand impacts associated with the adjacent AutoMotorPlex facility,which holds a Saturday event between 8 a.m. and 11 a.m. once a month.Annual average daily traffic (ADT) volumes within the study area, as well as historical MN Highway 5 turning movement counts from 2013 were provided by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). ONE CARLSON PARKWAY,SUITE 150 I MINNEAPOLIS,MN 55447 1763.475.0010 I WWW.SRFCONSULTING.COAI 44•4k.i-- 4.•-,t- R. ►ig r -7k....';'i. : /' • q �� t 7 (11y, �/1=\ � /� iJ{ ~s4 � S JiiSf 1 ,{ , z f; iT ` _ rY ` _ - ,, IL .4, . ...x . ... . 1 • 40te... ! .: . ,. ..,. ., v. . . ei ''t a 1t1 y1 of 7 h s ' I1gYu.. ,. l_.` ' .. ....... ..-.P1 r .fax ! "� ]!�`�^•Rt tq, 7 1 „ „„4.,,,, r ( i , ,. • r rf; ct '. ' 'i '^ "3 .. , ,. .....4.,..„,...,,,, ?lit�y , t.: .f (k \ �'� -•\ • tit • i , '',(Kr- 'fr Ale,„ *•i:}Y�` k•T 7n + e F• `. ', , ` - I I._ � ,,. fif �f . ,�y 1.�1N,ti:. hie j i r. � � { , -_ E� if =4 h A@JL fi..,-:,W.f • '•r• it ", ^� . • i iqM s � s :.'4 • ,Ti i. ,,,"� Ili a �A #.4,0i„,,:.; . ;117:sr' ♦ ` _ i O @.''�.' a • ; i‘• p.% .i.:; S _, ., a-"' ,'-.1 -•may. i ,}.t '7'•7eh. i .i1\ - ITT 1 v '� ,I ,� • iet•M \ II _ t P $ r 1--1? • ig 7. o . 4e :'n tea. , %J .. y. i o sso .- f yam' ,,J v.%A- .-) _Arlie a ctn. s1;,I Project Location g Fi ure 1 Consulting Group I,,,.. 7801 Audubon Road Traffic and Parking Study City of Chanhassen 00169371 September 2016 Paul Oehme,City of Chanhassen September 15,2016 7801 Audubon Road Traffic and Parking Study A summary of the traffic volumes collected are illustrated in Chart 1. Review of the data collected indicates that traffic volumes along MN Highway 5 generally peak during the weekday a.m. (7:45 to 8:45) and p.m. (4:30 to 5:30) time periods. Traffic volumes along Audubon Road also generally peak during the same time periods, albeit at much lower levels. On Saturday, traffic volumes along MN Highway 5 peak during the midday(11:45 to 12:45),while volumes along Audubon Road remain relatively steady throughout the day. It should be noted that there is a noticeable traffic volume peak along Audubon Road that coincides with a Saturday AutoMotorPlex event. Chart 1 Existing Traffic Volume Profiles — • Weekday:Highway 5 --• Weekday:Audubon Road — • Saturday:Highway 5 —S Satuday:Audubon Road ••••:: •••Saturday(Car Show):Audubon Road 800 700 600 I z11e-fil.4\ 0 , 500 C i J 400 v 300 2 0 o a) 200 ' : ;n.4:•::;�;•; ;ii• '. `S. 100 0 P- P- P- P- Q2 Q2 Q2 Q2 Q2 Q2 Q2 Q2 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 Time of Day 00 00 00 00 00 V Observations were completed to identify roadway characteristics (i.e.roadway geometry,posted speed limits,and traffic controls) within the study area. MN Highway 5 is a four-lane divided roadway with left- and right-turn lanes at Audubon Road. The posted speed limit along MN Highway 5 is 55 miles per hour(mph).Audubon Road,Coulter Boulevard,and Park Road are two-lane undivided roadways. The posted speed limit along Audubon Road is 45 mph while the remaining study roadways are posted at 30 mph.The Audubon Road/MN Highway 5 intersection is signalized. All other study intersections are unsignalized with side-street stop control. Mcglynn Road and the existing Paisley Park access locations were not reviewed as part of the existing conditions due to limited activity. Existing study area geometrics,traffic controls, and traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2. Page 3 , • 4 :,...,1)11 NI Illi---- 1 t lii rte 30 (13) �.. it, ., i 1' 1 til r N N _ . rfr, ' �r I 4—1529(911) ' Y ~80 (74) MNH 5 ik c3) 3 '1 t f' (1053)976 N N �, \\ t•e. �. (35) 31 7,1 " 7.J.-t,: .---`----_ o O ,i- ,,tfix \ 1 c• �.. lc 27,900 _ 4. '4:r, \��__ ^�*r__ 7� 5 28,700 V ';'.. Y 4,400 1+ CV CO LoO)ec t CO rn l�ocati o yr .1`*. Coulter Boulevard ..._ 1, a ' { 111111/241:- * .. (37)59lit fG ` 1 (19)47 .p o lit .. ..W.:3+4ai , &24" .'( Wil il.A; re B N , -Will. ' Q - < :.4 I t t}f"g , cam. �. �,:._; :�*a s Coulter Boulev tid 7:200. �, -. . - 11 • - p-,,- -,.- _ \ •• • i „,41, r z w f y a r C f o �' c . 71(25) 'j *45 o 2 I. t_ . �. t r 39(11) .. ' t� I yJ A t C .i P.rk Road vv �_r• ` yCV 4111114 fr � � Roams V r ... , �"' LEGEND I „14Ah ,tl 't .. c.•r }' . Y`'' XX - Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Volume te 1,1,4-i' '"� '` ' ` p , (XX) - Saturday Midday Peak Hour Volume t X,XXX - Existing Average Daily Traffic Volume A , F 6. Q ,r Q - Side-Street Stop Control tr `ti Signal Control x _- :_:tea _ 2',F e, '>• .fail. - il iN g Existing Conditions Figure 2 (onsulfing croup,Inc. 7801 Audubon Road Traffic and Parking Study City of Chanhassen 00169371 September 2016 Paul Oehme,City of Chanhassen September 15,2016 7801 Audubon Road Traffic and Parking Study Intersection Capacity Analysis An existing intersection capacity analysis was completed for the weekday p.m. and Saturday midday peak hours to establish a baseline condition to which future traffic operations can be compared. The weekday a.m. peak hour was not reviewed since the proposed development is expected to have minimal impact during that time. Saturday event conditions at the AutoMotorPlex were not reviewed given the limited impact. Intersections were analyzed using Synchro/SimTraffic (Version 9). Capacity analysis results identify a Level of Service (LOS),which indicates the quality of traffic flow through an intersection. Intersections are given a ranking from LOS A through LOS F. The LOS results are based on average delay per vehicle,which correspond to the delay threshold values shown in Table 1. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation, with vehicles experiencing minimal delays. LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity, or a breakdown of traffic flow. Overall intersection LOS A through LOS D is generally considered acceptable in the Twin Cities. Table 1 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections LOS Designation Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection Average Delay/Vehicle(seconds) Average Delay/Vehicle(seconds) A <_ 10 <10 B > 10-20 > 10- 15 C >20-35 > 15-25 D >35-55 >25-35 E >55-80 >35-50 F >80 >50 For side-street stop controlled intersections,special emphasis is given to providing an estimate for the level of service of the side-street approach. Traffic operations at an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control can be described in two ways. First, consideration is given to the overall intersection level of service. This takes into account the total number of vehicles entering the intersection and the capability of the intersection to support these volumes. Second, it is important to consider the delay on the minor approach. Since the mainline does not have to stop, the majority of delay is attributed to the side-street approaches. It is typical of intersections with higher mainline traffic volumes to experience high levels of delay (i.e. poor levels of service) on the side-street approaches, but an acceptable overall intersection level of service during peak hour conditions. Results of the existing intersection capacity analysis shown in Table 2 indicate that the study intersections currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS B or better during the weekday p.m. and Saturday midday peak hours with the existing geometric layout and traffic controls. Side-street delays along Audubon Road are relatively minimal. I-Iowever, northbound queues along Audubon Road extend beyond the existing Paisley Park North Access approximately 50 percent of the weekday p.m. peak hour (-185 feet). The 95th percentile westbound left-turning queues along MN Highway 5 during the weekday p.m. peak hour extend approximately 160 feet. Page 5 Paul Oehme,City of Chanhassen September 15,2016 7801 Audubon Road Traffic and Parking Study Table 2 Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis Weekday P.M. Saturday Midday Intersection Peak Hour Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay Audubon Road and MN Highway 5 B 17 sec. B 12 sec. Audubon Road and Coulter Boulevard i11 A/B 12 sec. A/B 10 sec. Audubon Road and Park Road (1) A/B 11 sec. A/A 9 sec. (1) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control,where the overall LOS is shown followed by the worst approach LOS.The delay shown represents the worst side-street approach delay. Proposed Development The proposed development is expected to convert Paisley Park Studios into a Museum. Opening is currently planned for October 2016. Based on discussion with project stakeholders, the following information with respect to the Museum operation was assumed: • Hours of Operation: 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. • Days of Operation: Everyday (except Thanksgiving and Christmas) • Maximum Guests per Tour: 65 people (50 General Admission; 15 VIP) • Tour Start Times: Every 10 minutes • Tour Duration: General Admission - 70 minutes;VIP- 100 minutes • Employees: Up to 60 but no more than 20 on-site at any given time (except special events) • Existing Parking Spaces: — 165 spaces (105 North;42 South; 18 Garage) The two existing Paisley Park access locations along Audubon Road are expected to remain. The Paisley Park South Access, located across from Mcglynn Road and approximately 500 south of MN Highway 5, would serve as the employee entrance. The Paisley Park North Access, located approximately 125 feet south of MN Highway 5,would serve as the guest entrance.The guest entrance would be staffed at all times to manage/control access to the site. Existing + Museum Conditions To identify potential impacts associated with the proposed museum, traffic forecasts were developed for year of opening conditions. Since the museum is planning to open in October 2016, existing conditions with the addition of the proposed museum were reviewed. Therefore, the following sections provide details on the estimated trip generation and intersection capacity analysis. Trip Generation To account for traffic impacts associated with the proposed development, a trip generation estimate for the weekday p.m. and Saturday midday peak hours as well as on a weekday daily basis was developed. Given the unique land use, data provided by project staff was utilized. For purposes of this study,a worst-case approach was assumed in which full capacity tours (65 guests) at the museum would occur starting every 10 minutes throughout the peak periods of the adjacent roadway. Page 6 Paul Oehme,City of Chanhassen September 15,2016 7801 Audubon Road Traffic and Parking Study The average vehicle occupancy was assumed to be 2.5 guests per vehicle. All employees were assumed to arrive and/or depart outside of the peak tour timeframes. No shuttle service/transit reductions were included as part of the analysis, although it is reasonable to assume approximately 10 to 15 percent of guests may arrive via a shuttle or transit. Results of the trip generation estimate indicates the proposed development is expected to generate up to approximately 312 peak hour trips during a sold out condition. If each tour was sold out for the entire day, the site could generate up to 4,000 daily trips. Although it may be not be likely that tours are completely sold out throughout the day, it is reasonable to assume that tours may be sold out during the peak periods. Therefore, the analysis focused on the peak hours of the adjacent roadways assuming sold out tour conditions during the peak periods. Table 3 Trip Generation Estimate Weekday P.M. Saturday Midday Sold Out Event Condition Size Peak Hour Trips Peak Hour Trips Daily Trips In Out In Out 65 Guests per Paisley Park Museum(1) 10-Minute Tour Start 156 156 156 156 4,000(2) (2.5 Guests/Vehicle) (1) Based on data provided by project staff (2) Represents the maximum amount of trips expected to be generated(assumes sold-out tours throughout the day). Trips generated by the proposed development were routed throughout the study area based on the directional distribution shown in Figure 3. The distribution was developed based on a combination of data provided by project staff,existing travel patterns,and engineering judgment.The resultant year 2016 build peak hour conditions,including sold-out conditions, are shown in Figure 4. Year 2016 Build Intersection Capacity Analysis To determine if the existing roadway network can accommodate the year 2016 build conditions, a detailed intersection capacity analysis was completed. Results of the year 2016 intersection capacity analysis shown in Table 4 indicate that the study intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS D or better during the weekday p.m. and Saturday midday peak hours with the existing geometric layout and traffic controls. However,as westbound left-turn vehicles from MN Highway 5 access Audubon Road and eventually the Paisley Park North Access,the lack of a left-turn lane along southbound Audubon Road results in queues extending to MN Highway 5 during the weekday p.m. peak hour. These types of queues create a safety issue, as well as a reduction in the overall efficiency of the MN Highway 5/Audubon Road intersection operations. Signal timing improvements alone would not address the operational and queuing issues associated with the proximity of the Paisley Park North Access. Therefore, relocating the Paisley Park North Access to a minimum of 100 feet south of its current location should be considered (Option 1). However, the best operations would occur if the Paisley Park South Access was the primary entrance/exit and the Paisley Park North Access was closed or converted to partial access (Option 2). Page 7 0 . . , Jr_NIL �. # +Z r 1, R •,,. «fitr— ii. ,., t r ' - , ...4... „ � ..„. „...� ,illfir. , t ..t r -Z�•yy 1. 0 • r t ' 1)41.t 1 ark s ,*t. i i � ./ Ili 1. t•*:;r,, r t.'-'.,-dc, . a•✓t" Sz. r '- sa ita, i )1.'"--'-...:-.:`•- 1 +r.' 4111111.1111111 ' , Ai.„"1..'* - '''. 'Y . t. ,. .G. '„-4 ..'' ,.) / i , , ill' 'k'44 : 1•', , • • - , L oc itiogi ' s i` J i t r -rr 't , , • •,t Sir Pi • { 1 ,"'}"'C .i+ i t :. t a 4.1'''' y„, k;,.. ..--i .... 1 it r7.-- vf„,it.;' .-Jillit, , , , , • ,.:"' �fi r s f t� J� 4 STK {„yam r •,f `w r 1 • i �• a S4:+k-'.-,,,,,, Y `. �% ♦,��,i,i •4 l.y 1 vt t�(y r _.44.::S 4147 T Y•-,', I.1 k- 7' :i ' .,0 .i 1 r. '`.i1r"+.4x1���.._•,yiy'S. •P. . ...,,� s ` .vt '1-:! � iE #►r f,. r{� ;J t at ._.9)1ndit'''13(SAa ''Tel f.1 cr y� X \ c� 1—I {: / r II _.C_" - \, t'�\ - ' 1 , moi , -, / r . i } J R' / imoi r�� � ` ;`^ • • . .lr Y':�'•� `•,fir — .. r`,`i t, h 'k. s�y[y --• .�, _ `Joe s r K a • -'. tie", , k ., „Irs1,,j1.0.,1 ' .f ' pl ith `4 _ r.,. • ,y ....� 9., .,F'.. s I... 'h,F� rte" 1.• i, NI t ? °' 1 wit,g Directional Distribution Figure 3 Consulting Group t,,,:. 7801 Audubon Road Traffic and Parking Study City of Chanhassen 00169371 September 2016 .. NIL L' 1 _ , , I , " : ' ' • -. ... ' ..- ' : r. ..__.le . C , 4 co N cot 30 (13) r A L• '' 4j l 1 Y 1529(911) s 205 (199) MNH 5 - mtl (3) 3--► N I ~ M1R, it al (1053)976 N n C ....... N 4 a N gam 28,100 .�,� N< «.«w�+,.,iQ �1�'— –_ ----_-------- ----raw : • [M"F$01 V 1111111111611.111 ' p o- .. 2 133(133) 5 31,900 Ir , 23 (23) Aft 4M?� 1 ' lir / Ai,, Paisle Park N Access -• vy• co co lig cls ' N N (.1'. 3 v'' i 7,800 L CatiOtl '1). Will �i�WWW C v N tab * R, 4" .- ' 'i - wv � { {t Q ` 'his `-R __ --__. ,, f:. ± tr M k+: • --1-i'—�y Ti.. -u; , • . ?bk ;y. ' •' ,...___,u ;, R- co I M v O— v �"t -t . _ .. _ co r 10(10) O ,, lr •��. -_C Otllter Coulter Boulevard – , 5 (5) 'ie0, 4r% • Boulevard 4} ai Palsle Park SAccess (37)59 I (30)20 + ,i (19)47 g!�� N 30,.--_ 141 i M -- _ (0) 5 B N 70, 4;1,. . i ..'2 1` ♦r he C O N U---) j. .R .. !+s v II ae •, a ui U • L`. :. - v, v --J. is (' i ..w• "' dI a 71 (25) t .;s, pT1. .I �: t Li Aft Park Road 1, , co e, `: LL C7) LEGEND N �� :( •. XX - Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Volume , k ... `' o 8 °' '` (XX) - Saturday Midday Peak Hour Volume v � X,XXX - Build Conditions Average Daily s yv Q I;'jl. I � "� ZZZZZ.. Traffic Volume o x 1 f% I \ f':;'. ,, Q - Side-Street Stop Control _•: ). '-• ' 4. - Signal Control Li tj i Year 2016 Build Conditions Figure 4 (0„,„,inti(rrru,,,Inr. 7801 Audubon Road Traffic and Parking Study g City of Chanhassen 00169371 September 2016 Paul Oehme,City of Chanhassen September 15,2016 7801 Audubon Road Traffic and Parking Study Table 4 Year 2016 Build Intersection Capacity Analysis Weekday P.M. Saturday Midday Intersection Peak Hour Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay Audubon Road and MN Highway 5 D 46 sec. B 17 sec. Audubon Road and Paisley Park North Access(1) A/B 13 sec. A/B 12 sec. Audubon Road and Paisley Park South Access(1) A/B 12 sec. A/B 11 sec. Audubon Road and Coulter Boulevard(1) A/B 13 sec. A/B 10 sec. Audubon Road and Park Road (1) A/B 11 sec. A/B 11 sec. (1) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control, where the overall LOS is shown followed by the worst approach LOS.The delay shown represents the worst side-street approach delay. To determine how the study intersection would be expected to operate if the Paisley Park North Access were closed (Option 2), another year 2016 build intersection capacity analysis was completed. This analysis assumed the traffic signal timing at the Audubon Road/MN Highway 5 intersection would be optimized, as well as restriping the segment of Audubon Road south of MN Highway 5 to include dedicated left-turn lanes at the Paisley Park South Access. Results of the year 2016 intersection capacity analysis shown in Table 5 indicate that the study intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the weekday p.m. and Saturday midday peak hours with the Paisley Park North Access closure, restriping along Audubon Road, and optimized signal timing. All queuing will be maintained within the existing turn lanes. It should be noted that northbound queues along Audubon Road at MN Highway 5 are expected to be approximately 200 feet during the weekday p.m. peak hour,which would occasionally extend beyond the Paisley Park North Access. Table 5 Year 2016 Build Intersection Capacity Analysis(Paisley Park North Access Closed) Weekday P.M. Saturday Midday Intersection Peak Hour Peak Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay Audubon Road and MN Highway 5 C 22 sec. B 17 sec. Audubon Road and Paisley Park North Access(1) -- -- --- -- Audubon Road and Paisley Park South Access 11) A/B 13 sec. A/B 11 sec. Audubon Road and Coulter Boulevard Ill A/B 12 sec. A/B 10 sec. Audubon Road and Park Road(1) A/B 11 sec. A/B 10 sec. (1) Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop control, where the overall LOS is shown followed by the worst approach LOS The delay shown represents the worst side-street approach delay. Given the anticipated museum opening in early October 2016, there may not be sufficient time to relocate/modify the Paisley Park North Access to ensure safe and efficient operations within the area. Therefore alternative access to the site, particularly off-site shuttle service for guests, should be considered until access to the site can be modified accordingly. Further discussion regarding access, site improvements, and tour operations is provided later in this document. Page 10 Paul Oehme,City of Chanhassen September 15,2016 7801 Audubon Road Traffic and Parking Study Parking Review Based on a review of the current site layout, it is estimated that there is a total of approximately 165 parking spaces on site. Of these spaces, approximately 105 are located in the north parking lot, 42 are located in the south parking lot, and the remaining 18 spaces are in the underground garage. With the assumptions used as part of the trip generation estimates (i.e. 65 guests per 10-minute tour, 2.5 guests per vehicle, 70-minute tour length, and 20 staff on site), the peak on-site parking demand is estimated to be approximately 230 spaces. This accounts for guests arriving/departing at least 10 minutes before/after their respective tours. With the estimated peak parking demand (230 spaces) and the existing parking supply (165 spaces), there is expected to be a 65 space parking deficit. Given the anticipated museum opening in early October 2016,there may not be sufficient time to relocate/modify/add parking. Therefore alternative access to the site (i.e. shuttle service) or a reduction in overall tour guests (i.e. a maximum of 45 guests per 10-minute tour) should be considered until adequate parking can be provided. Other Considerations In addition to the traffic and parking issues identified, the following other items are offered for consideration. An illustration of the potential access and parking modification options are shown in Figures 5 and 6. 1) Given the traffic, access, and parking challenges identified as well as the expected opening in October 2016, shuttle operations should be considered until adequate access and parking is provided. Potential shuttle routing is provided in Figure 7. 2) Provide adequate on-site staffing and vehicle storage to ensure queues from entering guests do not extend into Audubon Road. If adequate storage is not provided,a traffic control officer may be needed at the Audubon Road/Main Entrance. Furthermore, the addition of a northbound right-turn lane should be considered to reduce the potential for queuing issues on Audubon Road. 3) Consider the addition of pedestrian facilities (i.e.a sidewalk or trail),particularly along the east side of the site to reduce potential conflicts. Sensitivity Tests Based on discussions with project staff regarding the study results, two additional questions were posed.The first question was with respect to how many trips per hour could be allowed if there were no modifications to the site (i.e. using the existing access locations). Results of this sensitivity test indicates that the maximum guests allowed to avoid queues along Audubon Road from extending to MN Highway 5 would be 30 guests per 10-minute tour. All of the assumptions from the study apply to this determination, particularly the assumptions that the average vehicle occupancy is 2.5 people per vehicle and the MN Highway 5/Audubon Road intersection signal timing would be optimized. Page 11 U, a) L Cl) 2 U IT r Q _ co // , . C ;C * (B } a Z f' J W ZI J Zi is # Y Ct iii:' a aFw a I CL LI- I _I •_ —1 -I • IC — - I P. -Hi , > I II I . I w IC O - w a P. w0 to o � - p k :. I o I • :r ` I G 1--_________ 1°11— ►L- c O cm L DpiIfirlifIrA0 Aua c 74 U " .. as`';'maw- ->- "4+P. a71i1� ,r+ c coo N e V cc c N tt Alic a1 c °; t 1 = = atc C-) ifr. iia . CO a� LA p - ter ; ' a) o (/) Ct — co p 4--- C.) J Z ,, c. Z sum 11111 Stir p o 00 C N - 1r19 y M GG m a U ov) linoAei.6mp•i uopd0 e8S\aaVO\S116LE6\00060\sloafoJdGH .! - Co 1 c. ti p O Z h5 z .44` - t J Z R R E Y r JQ -z —tel j- O 4 ' Qa . Iwi_ , �, ii -11 —....., . Et I r I E. 0 W Q Ik• � --- -"- w � ~ Z ' 1 O� 11‘ w 8 - .�!► om_ _ 00 • _ �� N IL a • . • ° c Cn • ° ° O o) ° ° 0 co ° v 0_ • c -o 4 4. O c > R 0 rilal "e•K‘OVIII•''‘.."- of- m Lo ^ • o41rw.4..wu� 1F d 1% p •re�IM lo►..4t� C o O o $ - O 4 + iw co -p co ia aU2 \ I t� CCC = i fA r-- *c_5 (n a Z ii' �► • Z a' J ..-1 >-- iii. .� •ii, • • • . 1. c C.7 E, •� t. N N E 8 M �lit o llno%el:6mp•Z uoildp el!S\OOt/0\S1\ld\�H LE6\00060\Sloafol C 9402 Jagwaldes uessequeyn jo AI1.L£691.001.L£691.AID Apnis 6upaed pue oweal peoy uognpnb' 608L •,il,t,,,,y,,,,,l„,l., 1 aan6!A 6ui;noel sne wpaiui eldwex3 I g"Ill .. E -Ti r, paenaino euaAy `,. . s - r. o MM. y • o _ t 8 uoi}dO t.�, '� • W ,^ ' j • ;; {: , t , vii or a w i' .• ► {ill —,,.:,......... ,.. a.„,...., . A ' M +� V. �, ' • • t r 1 W 1/4 i . - j '. I ..f •1- . 1 i`. ice` �- '/' - • L f ►Z•.1. ' • _�t� � �jJ t ' .�-1r R. , �,` t� •� �^" ' -� ' r•;i. • ,r• *.o. �"Iii • r - ,r'.. •I" -, (7 • r r 7. . • , 1 •�� •/{rte Vs � .. - • . i rt 1 ' . '.: 1. • , , .� .� M- i • f ,Y G�� E r- a 't i ::'''' . •.' V- nsN'5,. • 1%.kr^ •••. .',tea.% N .:1,4,14 6 p. -"--..?„1--7t, .- 0 pod.gv dSW JO vow ;e •.. :s J �- . a.a:.•• J' �( ei ua od 'ams a o sea a h� � So; peuoi;eis eq o; pewnsse , ) ,,iik � �: ' Q .� • eau aae sal}}nyS/sasn8 :a�oN •.. riz _. _ . A, .. ,. .„ : ...,-,..dia ...... . . 11.4.7 1. 1 t ` ti` 1' 't ) \� ^• •' ► P f • `. . ,� '�► .__ r • lied Aels!ed . 4 , . ,,, d uol,dO ... T. .. 2si, .,_ - — _ -- _ • ...! 1.1,16,....2,11...i:97 . : . -___131 ,..,_ i 04 ' • -' '• iil 1� fJ) *,`••nom.• I s . �+w•=- --.— -__ 8 V gdO -'r r } •lr. 1iip • ,,.� t ._ A, . • . r , -..rl.y jti10'd . O i' fes'1�r+.�. i• s y r. Paul Oehme,City of Chanhassen September 15,2016 7801 Audubon Road Traffic and Parking Study The second question was with respect to if the tour access was moved to the Paisley Park South Access and a roadway was paved between the north and south parking lots, how many trips per hour could be allowed. Under this condition, the amount of parking spaces becomes the controlling factor. As noted in the study, the existing parking on site can accommodate a maximum of 45 guests per 10-minute tour (i.e. approximately 165 total spaces on site). Once again, all of the assumptions from the study apply to this determination,including the vehicle occupancy and expected tour length. Summary and Conclusions The following study conclusions and recommendations are offered for consideration: 1) The study intersections currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS B or better during the weekday p.m. and Saturday midday peak hours. Side-street delays along Audubon Road are relatively minimal. Northbound queues along Audubon Road extend beyond the existing Paisley Park North Access approximately 50 percent of the weekday p.m. peak hour (-185 feet). 2) The proposed development is expected to generate up to approximately 312 peak hour trips during a sold out condition. If each tour was sold out for the entire day, the site could generate up to 4,000 daily trips. 3) Results of the year 2016 build intersection capacity analysis indicate that the study intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS D or better during the weekday p.m. and Saturday midday peak hours. However, as westbound left-turn vehicles from MN Highway 5 access Audubon Road and eventually the Paisley Park North Access, the lack of a left-turn lane along southbound Audubon Road results in queues extending to MN Highway 5 during the weekday p.m. peak hour. These types of queues create a safety issue, as well as a reduction in the overall efficiency of the MN Highway 5/Audubon Road intersection operations. 4) Signal timing improvements alone would not address the operational and queuing issues associated with the proximity of the Paisley Park North Access. Therefore, relocating the Paisley Park North Access to a minimum of 100 feet south of its current location should be considered (Option 1). However,the best operations would occur if the Paisley Park South Access was the primary entrance/exit and the Paisley Park North Access was closed or converted to partial access (Option 2). a. If no access changes were made, the maximum guests allowed to avoid queues along Audubon Road from extending to MN Highway 5 would be 30 guests per 10-minute tour. 5) The study intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the weekday p.m. and Saturday midday peak hours with the Paisley Park North Access closure (Option 2), restriping along Audubon Road, and optimized signal timing. All queuing will be maintained within the existing turn lanes. The northbound queues along Audubon Road at MN Highway 5 are expected to be approximately 200 feet during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Page 15 Paul Oehme,City of Chanhassen September 15,2016 7801 Audubon Road Traffic and Parking Study 6) Given the anticipated museum opening in early October 2016,there may not be sufficient time to relocate/modify the Paisley Park North Access to ensure safe and efficient operations within the area. Therefore alternative access to the site,particularly off-site shuttle service for guests, should be considered until access to the site can be modified accordingly. 7) The current site layout can accommodate a total of approximately 165 parking spaces on site (105 north lot, 42 south lot, 18 garage). The peak on-site parking demand is estimated to be approximately 230 spaces,which results in a 65 space parking deficit. a. Given the anticipated museum opening in early October 2016, there may not be sufficient time to relocate/modify parking. Therefore alternative access to the site (i.e. shuttle service) or a reduction in overall tour guests (i.e. a maximum of 45 guests per 10-minute tour) should be considered until adequate parking can be provided. 8) Other considerations include: a. Development of a shuttle routing plan. b. Provide adequate on-site staffing and vehicle storage to ensure queues from entering guests do not extend into Audubon Road. If adequate storage is not provided,a traffic control officer may be needed at the Audubon Road/Main Entrance and/or the addition of a northbound right-turn lane should be considered. c. Consider the addition of pedestrian facilities (i.e. a sidewalk or trail),particularly along the east side of the site to reduce potential conflicts. H:\Projds\09000\9371\TS\RrpoN\9371_FINAL 7801Andi1bonRond Tmffir PnrkilgSbidj_160915.dorx• Page 16 PC DATE: September 20, 2016c*. B CC DATE: October 3, 2016 - CITY OF CHANHASSEN REVIEW DEADLINE: October 26, 2016 NA' Hq CASE#2016-24 BY: AF,KA,TJ, JS, JM PROPOSED MOTION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motions: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the rezoning of Lot 11 Block 1 Chanhassen Lakes Business Park from IOP to PUD and adoption of the attached PUD Ordinance and Finding of Fact." SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant Bremer Trust National Association,the Special Administrator of the Estate of Prince Rogers Nelson has formed Paisley Park Facility, LLC to operate a museum at Paisley Park. They are requesting a rezoning to Planned Unit Development(PUD)to allow a museum as a permitted use in the zoning district. LOCATION: 7801 Audubon Road (Lot 11, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park) APPLICANT: PRN Music Corporation 1100 West St. Germain Street St. Cloud, MN 55447-4443 AAHauck@Bremer.com PRESENT ZONING: Industrial Office Park(IOP) 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Office Industrial ACREAGE: approximately 9 acres LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION MAKING: The city has a relatively high level of discretion in approving or denying a rezoning because the city is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A PUD must be consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The site is currently zoned Industrial Office Park(IOP). A museum is not a permitted use in this district. A museum is permitted in the Office Institutional District zoning district however,this district would not permit other uses that are currently contained or proposed at Paisley Park including the recording studios, special events or boutique hotel. By rezoning the property to PUD the city can set the standards for use of the property. The staff is recommending rezoning the site to PUD with the IOP as the underlying district except as amended. Paisley Park Museum September 20, 2016 Page 2 of 20 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 20 • Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District • IOP District Standards EXISTING CONDITIONS The site is bordered by TH 5 on the north,Audubon Road on the west,the city's public works on the south, and wetland with a stream running through it on the east. Access to the site is gained via two drives off of Audubon Road. Paisley Park was built in 1986 as a recording studio. The 9- acre site contains an existing building with a footprint of 46,150 square feet. Location Map 11 Kaa- saaaczna ..,.., .. 4 Li: f- - . '-•. N ,+r„` YY � •r> d . )‘ t III l�, 4 , 7/ t )fi , .. r- 1 i j r i ��-. ,. r,, , r : , - �y' . t S J 'Ill ~ * —_ - at;AV 114. Paisley Park Museum September 20, 2016 Page 3 of 20 VAh HM'F __ __ MINE(4416 11Y,-,), _ i i,'41;40::',/-044,.._)40 , ''''. A,46L, ( 4‘ ''' * :10°1 ~� r.ye 11 : mai / \ : ,, ,__.- _ .pati L %f \ qi y imp I ,no �el'wIlk I mom ort t 0'4 a i mss ft m_nbE r , jf tnTh Wm /. y 1986 Site plan BACKGROUND Paisley Park Facility has entered into an Exhibition Operating Agreement with PPARK Management, LLC, a subsidiary of Graceland Holdings, LLC to operate the Exhibition. The operations of the museum based on the Business Plan include: • No exterior construction other than relating to the parking lot and perimeter fencing. • Plan to be open October 6th • Hours of operation will be from 9 am to 9 pm on weekdays and 9 am to midnight on the weekends (hours will vary depending on ticket sales). • Tickets will only be sold on line and cannot be purchased at the site. • Tours will be in 10-minute increments and each tour would have 25-30 guests. • Anticipate a total of 1500 to 2000 guest a day on the peak days. • Intended to have internal circulation to check in guest on the premises. • The museum will have 24/7 security. • Food and beverage will be sold at the conclusion of the tour. There will be a tent located near the kitchen for guests to sit and eat. Paisley Park Museum September 20, 2016 Page 4 of 20 • No alcoholic beverages will be sold or permitted on the property. • There will be merchandise for sale. • The recording studio will be used for special sessions. • There will be no events held outside Paisley Park Museum. • Concerts will continue in the performance hall. These events could be up to 1500 people and will be coordinated to ensure they don't conflict with the museum tours. • In the future, the round building may be developed into a boutique hotel. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The 2030 Land Use Plan has this property guided Office Industrial. The proposed zoning is consistent with this land use. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT INTENT Sec.20-501. Intent. "Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other,more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the city's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria. Planned unit developments are to encourage the following: 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes,mature trees, creeks,wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Analysis: The changes to exterior of the site include additional parking and more capacity for storm water. 2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. Analysis:Not applicable to this proposal. 3. High quality design and design compatibility with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. Paisley Park Museum September 20, 2016 Page 5 of 20 Analysis: The building's architecture is unique. No changes to the exterior are planned. 4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. Analysis:Not applicable to this proposal. 5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: The subject site is guided Office Industrial. The development is consistent with the comprehensive plan for industrial use. 6. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail plan. Analysis: Not applicable to this proposal. 7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Analysis: Not applicable to this proposal. 8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and siting and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Analysis: Not applicable to this proposal. 9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Analysis: A detailed traffic and parking study was prepared by SRF. Based on this study, staff has provided a detailed analysis of the traffic level of service and parking scenarios. Implementation of these options shall reduce the potential for conflicts. SITE PLAN REVIEW City staff will administratively review improvements to the site including parking lot expansion and new perimeter fencing. Sec. 20-108 of the city code permits administrative review of changes to a site plan. If the changes are less than ten percent of its gross floor area,provided that there is no variance involved and also provided that the community development director has conducted an administrative review pursuant to site plans standards. Paisley Park Museum September 20, 2016 Page 6 of 20 The intention of the operator is to install a new perimeter fence. The fence may be opaque and will limit visibility of the building. In addition, it will discourage things from being attached on the fence. The fence will be required to follow the city fencing ordinances. A tent is proposed in the northwest side of the building. Per the building code, a tent is a temporary structure and shall not be erected for more than 120 days in a 12-month period. This tent must comply with building and fire code requirements. Sales, including merchandise, food and non-alcoholic beverages shall be limited and comply with the city code that states "Retail sales of products stored or manufactured on the site provided no more than 20 percent of the floor space is used for retail sales." ENGINEERING COMMENTS Grading The submittal did not contain a grading plan. Prior to any site disturbance a grading plan must be submitted for review and approval. Utilities The site is currently served by municipal sanitary sewer and water; upgrades to these facilities are not required at this time. The applicant shall submit the proposal to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services division (MCES) for a new Sanitary Access Charge(SAC)unit determination. If the MCES determines that the conversion to a museum results in additional SAC units, City SAC and Water Access Charges (WAC) and the MCES SAC charges must be paid. Future surface improvements such as driveway and parking lot expansion will require storm system improvements such as storm sewer installation and best management practices as required by the city and the watershed district. Traffic The property is located in the southeast corner of Trunk Highway 5 and Audubon Road. Highway 5 is classified as an arterial roadway and is under the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Department of Transportation(MNDOT). Approval of the PUD and Site Plan are subject to MNDOT's conditions. Audubon Road, a two-lane major collector is identified as an"Important Transportation Facility" in the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan, which states: This route connects TH 5, a major arterial, to Lyman Boulevard, another major arterial road. This route, in conjunction with Lyman Boulevard and Audubon Road south Paisley Park Museum September 20, 2016 Page 7 of 20 (CSAH 15), provides extended north-south transportation between communities. Audubon Road serves both residential and industrial development. A traffic study by SRF Consulting Group, Inc. was commissioned to evaluate the following: • Review existing operations of the study area, • Evaluate traffic impacts of the proposed development, • Evaluate the parking impacts of the proposed development, • Review the proposed access to the development, • Evaluate the site circulation and overall site operations, and • Recommend any necessary improvements to accommodate the proposed development. A copy of the study is attached to this report. The traffic study estimates that the site will generate 4,000 trips per day based on the proposed tour size and schedule(65 guest/tour with a tour beginning every 10 minutes). The study estimates approximately 312 peak hour trips, meaning during the busiest hour on the adjacent routes, the proposed development would see 156 trips into the site and 156 trips out of the site. The existing(2015 traffic counts) and projected 2016 average daily traffic(ADT)volume is shown on Figure 1. As noted in Figure 1 the traffic on Audubon Road between Highway 5 and McGlynn Drive is estimated to be 7,800 ADT. As a comparison the 2015 ADT was 7,500 on West 78th Street between Great Plains Boulevard and Highway 101, a two-lane major collector roadway. South of McGlynn Drive an additional 600 trips per day are estimated in the traffic study. In Figure 1 the"Build"volumes shown on Audubon Road south of McGlynn Road assumes that all southbound Audubon Road traffic out of the site will continue to Lyman Boulevard. It is possible that a portion of this traffic will turn at Coulter Boulevard, Park Road or Lake Drive therefore the projected volumes on Audubon Road south of McGlynn Road are conservative. The weekday PM peak on Audubon Road south of McGlynn Road is estimated to increase by 47 trips, which equates to less than one additional vehicle per minute between 4:30 pm and 5:30 pm, Monday through Friday. Paisley Park Museum September 20, 2016 Page 8 of 20 . ? _111* v It• A .,7..`ab\ ` Highway 5, Highway 5, 41, a, ,' � + r Westbound Eastbound ;-�:. ;.,; �' tk T"-�,. } + `1 . :t r-. __ .µ4r '" '4 .! : .-,l_ - Existing: 28,700 Existing: 27,900 A.- • ' ` . I ,..A- - ,v_. >, /, , _ Build: 31,900 Build: 28,100 44 r,"�,..f t - % Audubon Road, I ' " -{, . 5: ' ,, Highway 5 to * . . � { McGlynn Drive -r''• A`: •4.4 , Audubon Road, .' �•* ' y. McGlynn Drive Existing: 4,400 •<'. ' . r ,`\\ I.. "' Build: 7,800 t' to Lake Drive \ West f.y'; •. 4 Existing: 4,400 Ti',, \` •- A Build: 5,000 i ) t = Sunset / ; '1•. 1. \ ,• Ridge tJ , i� . , �,t- , ..., , 1.� '- Pack }1c' 113 t A ', .; Lek , s' r = xM \ r / Audubon Road, ! ` ,a ;� ,.,� ' Lake Drive West ,` ,t ' to Valley Ridge • u -ir Trail South n J 1 'A'� .1 • T? i� 4, Existing: 4,400 , ;`; `�Y' ; Build: 5 000 : .••-, , .+ ,, ;; , , 1 ��yr`f.A :..,1. r • Audubon Road, Ce Th , : Park Valley Ridge s � ;, Trail South to 2 a , . Lyman .' , -- Boulevard •1. .}al,r C 175 r ,..“ ' Existing: 3,300 - y� M: r18 ", .,:7;. ., Build: 3,900 ., ,, ```` : Figure 1. Average Daily Traffic Volume Paisley Park Museum September 20, 2016 Page 9 of 20 Tours will operate from 9 am to 9 pm every day except for Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. The traffic study analyzed two peak trip generation scenarios: the PM weekday peak(4:30 pm to 5:30 pm) and the Saturday midday peak (11:45 am to 12:45 pm). The AM weekday peak was not analyzed as it does not correspond to the operating hours of Paisley Park. Supplemental traffic counts were taken on Audubon Road during the Saturday, September 3, 2016 Auto Motorplex event as the facility hosts a monthly event on a Saturday morning between 8 and 11. The Saturday event conditions were not reviewed as there would be limited impact on the system. The study observed the existing and projected the proposed traffic operations of the intersection of Audubon Road at Highway 5, Coulter Boulevard and Park Place. The existing and projected Level of Service(LOS, an indication of the quality of traffic flow)through each intersection was identified. The LOS designations range from A to F, with"A"representing an average delay less than 10 seconds/vehicle and"F"representing a delay greater than 50 seconds/vehicle (unsignalized intersection) or 80 seconds/vehicle(signalized intersection). The graphics below show the existing and anticipated traffic volumes and levels of service at the Audubon Road intersections at Highway 5 and the northern access; information on the McGlynn Drive, Coulter Boulevard and Park Road intersections can be found in the traffic study. The analysis assumed no improvements to the roadway system, guests would access Paisley Park from the northern access, and employees of Paisley Park would use the southern access. evel of Service Existing: / __ Forecasted: / . Existing: / ' Existing: l' Forecasted: / Forecasted: / r, 4* e s _ Figure 2. Existing and forecasted conditions at Highway 5 (weekday PM peak volume/Saturday midday peak volume) Paisley Park Museum September 20, 2016 Page 10 of 20 7 = = Level of Service -11 Forecasted: / . ,kif-4 . t- IF',;. 4/, / i a I . / / Oh A 4101 O CI Figure 3. Forecasted conditions at the northern access to Paisley Park (weekday PM peak volume/Saturday midday peak volume) The study results identify the following queues under the forecasted conditions: ~tom`` Northbound Audubon Road traffic queues extend bey3nd w the.northern.access to Paisley ____1111,111111111__ Guests traveling .4.4 southbou don Audubon ,, „g • Road i pining lift into the noirn access will queue in to Highway 5 I ,. during the weekday PM r 4 1 .: NI e t.' i, Figure 4. Forecasted queuing assuming no improvements to the system. These queues would be a safety concern and would reduce the level of service at the Highway 5/Audubon Road intersection. Altering the timing of signal at the intersection would not remedy Paisley Park Museum September 20, 2016 Page 11 of 20 the situation due to the proximity of the northern access to Highway 5. This access lies 100 feet south of Highway 5; per Figure 7-12 of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan the access should be a minimum of 220 feet south of Highway 5. The study presents two options to address the queuing: ' POTENTIAL \ '- - FUTURE PARKING CLOSE ACCESS fl_.IR.e J. _ "'.1 1 r 0 ,F r..F + 6 - '15 01 • - �lAr EVENT w ,r SPACE :w 5. r a 1' ` _ V MCGLYNN RD -71" ^ I 1 — 1• I ( J II LEGEND , iti p -Number of Parking Spaces lik. .. ' 1 Figure 5. Option 1: Relocate the northern entrance a minimum of 100' south of the current location 7 POTENTIAL \ POTENTIAL EXIT ti' FUTURE PARKING ONLY(RIGHT—OUT) !" L!!_! __ aIi_ I1� 1 OR SHUTTLE - —ENTRANCE/EXIT O . s: 1 ',rY 0 iw 1O11- 1 1L .Lwuwii I- - 1 I ©) Io a • • �•' `'Ji* EVENT s a SPACE I r a 1 _ MCGLYNN RD - ,` a_ \ l CHECKPOINT LEGEND - _ p iNumber of Parking Spaces Figure 6. Option 2: Utilize the southern entrance as the main access to the site; close or limit the northern entrance to a partial access Paisley Park Museum September 20, 2016 Page 12 of 20 The study indicates that Option 2 would result in the best traffic operations. Table 1 summarizes the current and projected levels of service of the affected intersections assuming: • Implementation of Option 2, • Traffic signal timing optimization at the Highway 5 intersection, and • Restriping Audubon Road to include a left turn lanes to the southern access and McGlynn Road. Highway 5 and Paisley Park North Access and Audubon Road Intersection Audubon Road Intersection Weekday PM Saturday Midday Weekday PM Saturday Midday Existing Level of Service B Level of Service B n/a n/a Condition 17 second delay 12 second delay Proposed, Level of Level of Level of Service D Level of Service B current system Service A/B Service A/B 46 second delay 17 second delay 13 second delay 13 second delay Proposed, system Level of Service C Level of Service B n/a n/a changes 22 second delay 17 second delay implemented Staff prefers a hybrid of Option 1 and Option 2: shift the northern access such that it is 220' south of Highway 5, limit the northern entrance to a right-out of the site,utilize the southern entrance as the full access to Paisley Park, and restripe Audubon Road to include a left turn lane into the southern entrance and McGlynn Road. Staff will work with MNDOT with regards to the signal timing at Highway 5 and Audubon Road. There is a traffic camera on the Highway 5 signal at Audubon Road. MNDOT's traffic operations center will monitor the intersection upon opening of the museum and adjust the westbound Highway 5 left turn signal as necessary. Parking Analysis and Site Plan The SRF study included a site plan with proposed parking as shown in Figures 5 and 6 of this report. Based on the Paisley Park proposal for 65 guests per tour, tours departing every 10 minutes, and limiting the time guests stay SRF determined that 230 spaces are required to accommodate on-site parking for all guests. Due to the timing of Paisley Park's application and the impending end to the 2016 construction season construction of the parking expansion this year is not feasible. The following scenarios summarize the options available to operate tours of Paisley Park: SCENARIO 1: Shuttle bus only for guests • This option would allow Paisley Park to operate tours with no improvements required to the Highway 5 signal system or Audubon Road. Paisley Park Museum September 20, 2016 Page 13 of 20 • Minor site improvements would likely be necessary to accommodate the turning movements of the busses. • The tour size would be limited by the maximum occupancy per the Fire Code. SCENARIO 2: On-site guest parking allowed,no site improvements • Audubon Road would be striped to include a left turn lane. • The number of on-site parking spaces for guests who arrive by a personal vehicle is limited to 81 spaces. • The parking spaces must be striped prior to October 5, 2016. SCENARIO 3: On-site guest parking allowed, connect the north and south lots • A paved aisle would connect the north and south parking areas. • Audubon Road would be striped to include a left turn lane into the southern access and into McGlynn Road. • All appropriate permits- for example with Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District-must be obtained prior to installing the pavement. • Sidewalks installed to accommodate foot traffic from the parking lot to the building entrance. • The north access would be limited to a right-out of the site. • The traffic signal at Highway 5 and Audubon Road would be optimized based on the SRF study. • The number of guests allowed on the site shall be limited so that there are a sufficient number of on-site parking spaces to accommodate guests who arrive by a personal vehicle. • The parking spaces must be striped prior to October 5, 2016. SCENARIO 4: On-site guest parking allowed, connect the north and south lots, expand parking • The northern access would be converted to right-out only. • The northern and southern parking spaces would be connected and the parking lot would be expanded. • Sidewalks installed to accommodate foot traffic from the parking lot to the building entrance. • Audubon Road would be restriped for left turn lanes for north- and south-bound traffic at McGlynn Road. • The traffic signal at Highway 5 and Audubon Road would be optimized based on the SRF study. • The number of guests allowed on the site shall be limited so that there are a sufficient number of on-site parking spaces to accommodate guests who arrive by a personal vehicle. • The parking spaces must be striped before the parking lot is used for guest parking. There are many variables and discussion points associated with the parking and site plan that are best explained by stating the assumptions of the Paisley Park Business Plan and the SRF traffic study, concerns, options to address the concerns and the limiting factors of the options. Paisley Park Museum September 20, 2016 Page 14 of 20 Assumption Concern Potential Result Options Limiting Factors Guests arrive Guests will not no earlier than adhere to the 30 minutes prior to tour requirement Tickets state it is a self-guided Offsite tour; some parking and The maximum patrons may take shuttle to impervious Length of the longer than 70 the site surface tour is 70 minutes Additional parking allowed for the minutes that was not Include site is 70%, Facility adds accounted for in the conditions which limits more rooms to study in the PUD the amount of the tour, surface increasingthe approval requiring parking on the length of the tour site. Guests will stay ongoing Guests must longer to enjoy monitoring leave within 45 the food, of and minutes of the shopping and performance end of the tour ambiance of standards Paisley Park for parking Pedestrian traffic to Guests will Some guests park the site. Currently park on-site off-site and walk there is no trail or to the site sidewalk to Paisley Park The parking will be monitored to determine the adequacy of the on-site parking. If at any time the Community Development Director or Fire Code deems that the on-site parking is inadequate the PUD shall be amended to decrease the maximum allowable tour size to a level where the on- site parking is sufficient, or the property owner must amend the PUD and the site plan to provide more parking. Any changes to the site plan are subject to review and approval by the city and other agencies with regulatory authority over the site. The applicant must submit a$25,000 escrow or letter of credit as a financial security to ensure the installation of the following improvements: • Re-stripe Audubon Road to include left turn lanes at the intersection of McGlynn Road/the southern access to the site by October 5, 2016, • Stripe the parking stalls by October 5, 2016, Paisley Park Museum September 20, 2016 Page 15 of 20 • Install a paved connection between the northern and southern parking lots on the site by October 5, 2016, • Relocate the northern access of the site 220 feet south of Highway 5 by October 3, 2017. This relocated access shall be restricted to a right-out of the site, • Sidewalks shall be installed within the site by October 3, 2017, • A traffic study shall be completed within one year, as directed by the Public Works Director and shall include a level of service analysis of the intersections of Audubon Road at: the northern access, McGlynn Road, Coulter Boulevard, and Park Road. The study shall also analyze the pedestrian movements across Audubon Road at Highway 5 and McGlynn Road. If the level of service at any number of the intersections fails, and/or if the study identifies a pedestrian safety issue, the applicant shall install and pay for the recommended improvements to the roadway system and/or the site. The applicant shall submit engineered site plan drawings for review and approval. The site plan drawings must meet or exceed the requirements set forth in the Chanhassen City Code and the Chanhassen Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The site plan shall also meet or exceed the requirements of agencies that have jurisdiction over the site, such as MNDOT and Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. Recommendation The Engineering Department recommended conditions for approval of the Paisley Park PUD and site plan are as follows: 1. Prior to any site disturbance a grading plan must be submitted for review and approval. 2. If the MCES determines that the conversion to a museum results in additional SAC units, City SAC and Water Access Charges (WAC) and the MCES SAC charges must be paid. 3. Future surface improvements such as driveway and parking lot expansion will require storm system improvements such as storm sewer installation and best management practices as required by the city and the watershed district in effect at that time. 4. If guests arrive to the site by a shuttle bus only, then tour size shall be limited by the maximum occupancy per the Fire Code. 5. If guests utilize the parking that is on-site as of September 15, 2016 (ie. no site improvements are installed): a. Audubon Road shall be striped to include a left turn lane by October 5, 2016, b. The number of on-site parking spaces for guests who arrive by a personal vehicle is limited to 81 spaces, and c. The parking spaces must be striped prior to October 5, 2016. Paisley Park Museum September 20, 2016 Page 16 of 20 6. If guests utilize the parking that is on-site as of September 15, 2016 and a paved connection is installed between the north and south lots: a. The connection between the parking lots must be installed by October 5, 2016, b. By October 5, 2016, Audubon Road must be striped to include a left turn lane into the southern access and to McGlynn Road, c. All appropriate permits- for example with Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District-must be obtained prior to installing the pavement, d. Sidewalks must be installed to accommodate foot traffic from the parking lot to the building entrance by October 3, 2017, e. The north access shall be limited to a right-out of the site, f. The traffic signal at Highway 5 and Audubon Road would be optimized based on the SRF study, g. The number of guests allowed on the site shall be limited so that there are a sufficient number of on-site parking spaces to accommodate guests who arrive by a personal vehicle, and h. The parking spaces must be striped by October 5, 2016. 7. If guests park on-site and site improvements include expanding the parking area and connecting the north and south parking lots a. The northern access shall be right-out only, b. Sidewalks must be installed to accommodate foot traffic from the parking lot to the building entrance by October 3, 2017, c. By October 5, 2016, Audubon Road shall be restriped for left turn lanes for north- and south-bound traffic at McGlynn Road, d. The traffic signal at Highway 5 and Audubon Road would be optimized based on the SRF study, and e. The number of guests allowed on the site shall be limited so that there are a sufficient number of on-site parking spaces to accommodate guests who arrive by a personal vehicle. 8. If at any time the Community Development Director or Fire Code deems that the on-site parking is inadequate the PUD shall be amended to decrease the maximum allowable tour size to a level where the on-site parking is sufficient, or the property owner must amend the PUD and the site plan to provide more parking. Any changes to the site plan are subject to review and approval by the city and other agencies with regulatory authority over the site. 9. The applicant must submit a$25,000 escrow or letter of credit as a financial security to ensure the installation of the following improvements: • Re-stripe Audubon Road to include left turn lanes at the intersection of McGlynn Road/the southern access to the site by October 5, 2016, • Stripe the parking stalls by October 5, 2016, Paisley Park Museum September 20, 2016 Page 17 of 20 • Install a paved connection between the northern and southern parking lots on the site by October 5, 2016, • Relocate the northern access of the site 220 feet south of Highway 5 as shown in the 9/1/16 SRF Traffic and Parking Study Figure 5 Option 1 by October 3, 2017. This relocated access shall be restricted to a right-out of the site, • Sidewalks shall be installed within the site by October 3, 2017, • A traffic study shall be completed within one year, as directed by the Public Works Director and shall include a level of service analysis of the intersections of Audubon Road at: the northern access, McGlynn Road, Coulter Boulevard, and Park Road. The study shall also analyze the pedestrian movements across Audubon Road at Highway 5 and McGlynn Road. If the level of service at any number of the intersections fails, and/or if the study identifies a pedestrian safety issue, the applicant shall install and pay for the recommended improvements such as a rapid flash crosswalk to the roadway system and/or the site. 10. The applicant shall submit engineered site plan drawings for review and approval. The site plan drawings must meet or exceed the requirements set forth in the Chanhassen City Code and the Chanhassen Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The site plan shall also meet or exceed the requirements of agencies that have jurisdiction over the site, such as MNDOT and Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. Stormwater When a full site plan is submitted it will be review the proposed alterations and comment accordingly. The site plan must comply with Article VII of Chapter 19. In addition, the site will be governed by the requirements of the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District. Landscaping Landscape Requirements Minimum requirements for landscaping include 1,140 sq. ft. of landscaped area around the parking lot expansion, 4 trees and 2 landscape islands or peninsulas for the expanded parking area. Applicant's proposed landscaping as compared to the requirements for landscape area and parking lot trees is shown in the following table. Required Proposed Vehicular use landscape area 1,140 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. Trees/parking lot 4 overstory 0 overstory 2 islands or peninsulas 0 islands/peninsulas Paisley Park Museum September 20, 2016 Page 18 of 20 The applicant does not meet minimum requirements for landscaping. Recommendations: 1. The applicant shall submit a parking lot landscape plan for approval that meets minimum ordinance requirements. 2. The applicant shall increase landscaping in existing parking area to meet minimum ordinance requirements: 2,280 sq. ft. of landscape area, 9 trees and 4 islands or peninsulas. Building review The proposed future uses of the existing structure(s), as outlined in the provided documents,would necessitate a change in Occupancy Classification under the Minnesota State Building Code. (The "Paisley Park"building has a Certificate of Occupancy for"B","S-1"occupancies only. The "exterior round building"was never completed and has no Certificate.) The existing building must be compliant(or be made compliant)with the requirements of the Occupancy Classification of these proposed uses: Museum(A-3 Occupancy),Food and Drink(A-2 Occupancy),Retail sales (M Occupancy),Recording studio(B Occupancy), Concert usage(A-1 Occupancy)and Storage(S-1 Occupancy). (Ref. 2015 MSBC,Chapter 3) 1. Permits must be obtained for the alteration of or occupancy use changes to any buildings on the site. (Ref.MN Rule 1300.0120) 2. Supporting documents(plans, specifications, etc.)must be prepared by and signed by the appropriate design professionals. (Ref. MN Rule 1300.0130) 3. Existing structure's physical plant(plumbing,HVAC, electrical, fire suppression, fire-rated separations, etc.)must be evaluated and approved as functioning as required by the various proposed Occupancies. 4. A new Certificate of Occupancy must be obtained before use or occupancy. (Ref. MN Rule 1300.0220) 5. A"Sewer Access Charge"redetermination is required(Metropolitan Council). 6. The"studio building"project was stopped (by the owner) sometime in 2002 and the permit subsequently expired. The building is incomplete and has no Certificate of Occupancy, therefore, cannot be used for any purpose. A new building permit must be applied for(including all related documentation) and approved for construction to re- commence. A letter advising of the expiration of the permit was sent to the contractor (Rutledge Const.) and to Fred Evans (Paisley Park Enterprises) in February of 2003. 7. Accessible parking is required; the number of required accessible parking spaces is determined by the Minnesota State Accessibility Code,Table 1106.1 (based on the total number of provided spaces, parking plan required). Fire Review Paisley Park Museum September 20, 2016 Page 19 of 20 Some consideration needs to be given to an alternative use of a concert hall which I will cover later in this document. Parking Plan Regardless of approved use, a minimum of a 20' access to areas of any part of the building must be maintained to allow emergency vehicle access and egress during hours of operation. I am not concerned about out lots at this point. A proposed site plan, to include actual parking areas, should be provided so the Fire Code can indicate fire lanes etc. Building Use In the planned use they loosely imply that the use could be as a concert hall. Historically,these concerts have been scheduled with no notice and no access. The major issue relates to the open configuration of the main sound stage. The configuration has changed dramatically and involves temporary seating. Consideration should be given to; Either require a special event permit for any event that would involve the concert use of this property to ensure appropriate stage and seating configurations,parking, are reviewed and approved by the building official, fire department, and planning department. Or; Create a fixed seating and stage arrangement utilizing an appropriate architect negating the need for permit requirements unless a deviation from the approved plans is necessary. Approved occupancy would be based on the arrangement and approved by the building official. Fire Inspections The last on-site fire inspection was conducted in 2015. I have been working with Bremer Bank representatives to correct several open violations from that inspection. It should be noted that none of the open violations are of a serious nature. The most serious relates to off hours' access to the building which is currently being worked on with an outside contractor. Prior to opening, and pending planning approval, the building will need a complete fire inspection based on the new building classification. That inspection can be conducted as soon as possible and should not dramatically change any requirements already existing for the current building classification as a B Occupancy. This inspection will also identify any work done to remedy open violations from the 2015 inspection. Storage Area Within the planned use,the document refers to a storage area. I am confused if this is indoors or outdoors. The document eludes that vehicles, including a bus,may be stored for display. I am also to understand that the viewing areas are all on the main level leading me to believe that this does not include the parking garage specifically designed for parking vehicles. If the plan is to park vehicles indoors for viewing, a fire protection engineer should review and approve the site plan ensuring the current suppression system can cover the fire load increase created by the vehicles. Paisley Park Museum September 20, 2016 Page 20 of 20 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motions: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the rezoning of Lot 11 Block 1 Chanhassen Lakes Business Park from IOP to PUD and adoption of the attached PUD Ordinance and Finding of Fact. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact 2. PUD Ordinance 3. Development Review Application 4. Business Plan 5. Chanhassen City Code, Chapter 20—Article XXII. - "IOP" Industrial Office Park District 6. Traffic Study SRF dated September 12, 2016 7. Affidavit of Mailing Notice of Public Hearing. 8. Emails from residents: a. Email from Jennifer Singer b. Email from Kristi Strang c. Email from Lynne Etling d. Email from Susan Davis e. Email from John Sparrow f. Email from Stephanie Friant g. Email and memo from Wendy()Connor h. Email from Nancy Pexa i. Email and memo from Melanie Mertes j. Email from Brian Haak g:\plan\2016 planning cases\2016-24 paisley park museum\pc staff report.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES,MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Request for a rezoning of property legally described as within Lot 11, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. —Planning Case No.2016-24 Application of PRN Music Corporation. On September 20, 2016, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of PRN Music Corporation to rezone property from IOP-Industrial Office Park to PUD, Planned Unit Development. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed Planned Unit Development preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned IOP-Industrial Office Park. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Office Industrial. 3. The description of the property is: Lot 11, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 4. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. c) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. 5. The planning report#2016-24, dated September 20, 2016, prepared by Kate Aanenson, et al is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Planned Unit Development. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 20th day of September 2016. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Its Chairman G:\PLAN\2016 Planning Cases\2016-24 Paisley Park Museum\Findings of Fact.doc AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE,THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code,the City's zoning ordinance,is amended by rezoning the following-described property("Subject Property")to PUD,Planned Unit Development: Lot 11, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, Carver County, Minnesota Section 2. Paisley Park Planned Unit Development a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a zoning district for Paisley Park. The uses, development standards and regulations of the IOP, Industrial Office Park District shall apply subject to the following modifications: b. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted: 1. Permitted uses in the IOP Zoning District. 2. Museum. 3. Recording studio. 4. Hotel. 5. Retail sales of products stored or manufactured on the site provided no more than twenty percent(20%) of the floor space is used for retail sales. These sales may include food, beverages and memorabilia. 6. Twelve(12) indoor concerts per calendar year. 7. Multiple buildings on a lot. 8. Private events. c. Prohibited Uses. The following uses are prohibited: 1. All uses not listed as permitted uses. 2. Outdoor events. 3. Liquor sales and consumption. d. Materials and Design Fence: Fences shall comply with City Code requirements including the Buffer Yard requirements, except that fences may be opaque to provide security screening. 1 189087v1 e. Parking 1. Parking lots and parking spaces shall comply with city code requirements. 2. If guests only arrive to the site by a shuttle bus the tour size shall be limited by the maximum occupancy under the Fire Code. 3. If guests use on-site parking and the north and south parking lots are not connected: a. Audubon Road must first be restriped to include a left turn lane, b. The number of on-site parking spaces for guests who arrive by a personal vehicle is limited to 105 spaces. 4. If guests use on-site parking and a connection between the north and south lots is paved: a. Audubon Road must first be striped to include a left turn lane into the southern access, b. All required permits, including from the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District,must be obtained prior to installing the pavement, c. The north access shall be limited to a right-out of the site, e. The traffic signal at Highway 5 and Audubon Road must first be optimized based on the SRF study, f. The number of guests allowed on the site shall be limited so that there are a sufficient number of on-site parking spaces to accommodate guests who arrive by a personal vehicle. 5. If guests park on-site and site improvements include expanding the parking area to 230 spaces and connecting the north and south parking lots: a. Audubon Road shall first be restriped for left turn lanes for northbound and southbound traffic at McGlynn Road, b. The northern access shall be right-out only, c. The traffic signal at Highway 5 and Audubon Road must first be optimized based on the SRF study, d. Sidewalks must be installed to accommodate foot traffic from the parking lot to the building entrance, e. The number of guests allowed on the site shall be limited so that there are a sufficient number of on-site parking spaces to accommodate guests who arrive by a personal vehicle. 6. If the on-site parking is inadequate, the maximum allowable tour size shall be reduced to a level where the on-site parking is sufficient or the PUD and the site plan must be amended to provide more parking. Any changes to the site plan are subject to review and approval by the City and other agencies with regulatory authority over the site. 2 189087v1 Section 3. The zoning map of the City of Chanhassen shall not be republished to show the aforesaid zoning,but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the zoning map on file in the Clerk's Office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this ordinance, and all of the notations, references, and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this ordinance. Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2016,by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Denny Laufenburger, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on ) 3 I89087v1 201 -ay COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division—P.O. 147, Chanhassen, CITYOFCllAMiASSEN Mailing Address— O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317Ilillg Phone' (952)227-1300/Fax:(952)227-1110 f APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW i i /2 1 to _ PC Date: 20 CC Oak..A.)1 1_017311k t `�uhr°nUal n:ti�. -- ' �, 9 � ' � ���Ji� CO-Day Review nate: --.___-- S — te appropriate Application action1, Application Type(check all that apply) (Refer the Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this application) [1 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $600 0 Subdivision(SUB) [] Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers $100 ❑ Create 3 lots of less $300 ❑ C• reate over 3 lots $600+$15 per kit 0 Conditional Use Permit(CUP) ( lots) 0 Single-Family Residence $325 ❑ Metes&Bounds(2 lots) $300 L_1 All Others $125 [l Consolidate Lots $150 C-) Interim Use Permit(IUP) Cl L• ot Line Adjustment ;150 ❑ Final Plat ;700 ❑ In conjunction with Single-Family Residence..$325 ❑ All Others $425 (Includes $450 escrow for attorney costs)* 'Additional escrow may be required for other applications through the development contract. LJ Rezoning(REZ) ❑ Planned Unit Development(PUD) $750 0 Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way(VAC) $300 ❑ Minor Amendment to existing PUD $100 (Additional recording fees may apply) Li All Others $500 0 Variance(VAR) $200 Sign Plan Review $150 ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit(WAP) Site Plan Review(SPR) ❑ S• ingle-Family Residence $150 ❑ Administrative $100 0 All Others $275 ❑ Commercial/Industrial Districts* $500 0 Zoning Appeal $100 Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area: ( thousand square feet) ❑ Zoning Ordinance Amendment(ZOA) ";500 'include number of existing employees: _ - , 'Include number of new employees: _ l NOTE: When multiple applications aro processed concurrently, ❑ Residential Districts $500 the appropriate fee shall he charged for each application. Plus $5 per dwelling unit( units) Notification Sign(City to install and remove) dd $200 Property Owners'List within 500' (City to generale after pre-application meeting) O�3 sq $3 per address ( i8 addresses)J XEscrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply) $50 per document O Conditional Use Permit ❑ Interim Use Permit ❑ Site Plan Agreement ❑ Vacation 0 Variance 0 Wetland Alteration Permit 0 Metes&Bounds Subdivision(3 docs.) ❑ Easements ( easements) ` 0•59e. 00 TOTAL FEE: $:7,543-."0.6 Section 2: Required Information Description of Proposal. Museum at Paisley Park, 7801 Audubon Road, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Property Address or Location: 7801 Audubon Road, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Parcel#:_ 25.1900110 Legal Description. See attached, • Total Acreage: 9.01 Wetlands Present? ❑Yes PI No Present Zoning: Industrial Office Park District(IOP) Requested Zoning: Planned Unit Development(PUD) Present Land Use Designation: Office/Industrial Requested Land Use Designation: Office/Industrial Existing Use of Property: Recording studio, soundstage, performance hall. office and warehouse/storage _ ❑ Check box is separate narrative is attached. Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant Information APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval,subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period.If this application has not been signed by the properly owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees,feasibility studies, etc.with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: N/A Contact: Address: Phone: _•- City/State/Zip: Cell: Email. Fax: Signature: Date: --------— PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees. feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. I' Name PRN Music Corporation, c/o Bremer Trust, N.A. Contact: Alison A. Hauck j Address: 1100 West St.Germain Street Phone: (320)258-2448 City/State/Zip: Saint Cloud, MN 56302 Cell: (320)260-1722 ~ Email: AAHauck@Bremer.com Fax: (320)259-9120 II Signature: ((-L/ c--, rt Date: 8/19/16 , This application must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by l applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements and fees. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. PROJECT ENGINEER(if applicable) Name: SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Contact: Matt Pacyna, PE Address: One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150 Phone' (763)249-6726 • City/State/Zip: Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443 — Cell: (612)382-2546 Email: mpacyna@srfconsulting.com Fax: (763)475-2429 Section 4: Notification Information Who should receive copies of staff reports? 'Other Contact Information: 171 Property Owner Via: U Email ❑Mailed Paper Copy Name: Stinson Leonard Street LLP,c/o Todd M. Phelps O Applicant Via: 0 Email 0 Mailed Paper Copy Address: 150 South Fifth St., Suite 2300 (✓) Fngineer Via: j]Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy City/State/Zip: Minneapolis, MN 55402 U Other' Via: (]Email El Mailed Paper Copy Email: • todd.phelps@stinson.com ' INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fields,then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital copy to the city for processing(required). L SAVE FORM r I PRINT FORM ` SUBMIT FORM ( CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED Todd M.Phelps 612.335.1871 DIRECT I\UST r 2016 612.335.1657 DIRECT FAX ST I N S O N todd.phelps@stinson.com LEONARD CHANHASSEN PLANNING STREET August 19, 2016 HAND DELIVERED Kathryn R. Aanenson, AICP Community Development Director 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Application for Development Review-7801 Audubon Road, Chanhassen, MN. Our File No: 3009435.0002 Dear Ms. Aanenson: This letter is submitted on behalf of Bremer Trust, National Association (the "Special Administrator'), the court-appointed Special Administrator of the Estate of Prince Rogers Nelson (the "Estate"), in support of the enclosed Application for Development Review (the "Application") for the real property and improvements owned by the Estate located at 7801 Audubon Road, Chanhassen, Minnesota, legally described as Lot 11, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park, Carver County, Minnesota, excepting therefrom that part of said Lot 11, shown as Parcel 220 on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 10-1 (the "Property"). Enclosed please find the following: 1. The Application to rezone the Property from Industrial Office Park District (IOP) to Planned Unit Development (PUD). 2. A check in the amount of $750.00, payable to the City of Chanhassen. 3. The Paisley Park Museum Business Plan, which sets forth in greater detail the proposed use of the Property as a museum to honor the late Prince Rogers Nelson. In further support of the enclosed Application, the Special Administrator submits the following pursuant to Article VIII "Planned Unit Development District" of the City of Chanhassen Zoning Code: Sec. 20-501 . Intent. The rezoning of the Property from IOP to PUD for use as a museum is supported by the intent of the PUD zoning for a number of reasons. First, the use of the Property as a museum preserves the unique recording studios, soundstage, performance hall, and artwork that was created in the City of Chanhassen over a 30-year period by a world- 150 SOUTH FIFTH STREET, SUITE 2300 • MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55402 www.stinsonleonard.corn 612.335.1500 MAIN • 612.335.1657 FAX C01217./3009435,0002/128640409,I August 19, 2016 Page 2 renowned artist, who sold over 100 million records, won seven Grammy Awards, a Golden Globe Award, and an Academy Award for the film "Purple Rain," all of which are displayed at the Property. Second, the PUD zoning will offer enhanced flexibility for the Property to allow for the museum, continued use of the recording studios, soundstage, performance hall, offices and warehouse/storage, as well as for limited food service and merchandise sales, as further described in the Business Plan. Third, the PUD zoning is consistent with the City of Chanhassen 2030 Land Use Plan, which designates the Property as Office/Industrial. Under Section 20-792 of the Code, museums are a permitted use in the "OI" Office and Institutional District. Sec. 20-502. Allowed Uses. The primary use of the Property will be as a museum. However, as further described in the Business Plan, we anticipate that the Property will continue to be used as a recording studio, soundstage, and performance hall. Additionally, limited food service and merchandise sales will be uses ancillary to the museum use. Sec. 20.503. District Size and Location. The Property is approximately 9.01 acres and thus meets the minimum size requirements under the Code. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration of the Special Administrator's Application. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (612) 335-1871. Sincerely, STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP 1f, f� Tod M. Phelps IMP/j1 CORE/3009435.0002/128640409.1 PAISLEY PARK MUSEUM BUSINESS PLAN August 19, 2016 Bremer Trust, National Association, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Prince Rogers Nelson has formed Paisley Park Facility, LLC to operate a museum at Paisley Park, 7801 Audubon Road, Chanhassen, MN, the former recording studio of Prince Rogers Nelson. The family of Prince is supportive of operating Paisley Park as a museum and believes that this is what Prince would have wanted for all of his fans. Paisley Park Facility has entered into an Exhibition Operating Agreement, with PP Management, LLC, a subsidiary of Graceland Holdings, LLC to operate the Exhibition. The management team of Graceland Holdings, LLC has been involved in the operations of Graceland in Memphis, Tennessee since 1982. Graceland has over 30 years.of experience, having handled in excess of 20 million visitors and 8 million vehicles during that time, including all aspects related to traffic and attendance management, ticket control, security, retail and food and beverage service as part of Graceland and operating a similar museum facility and tours. Graceland's experienced management team will be providing development, management, and oversight of all aspects of the museum at Paisley Park. In recent years, Graceland has over 600,000 guests per year, while maintaining an amicable relationship with the City of Memphis and neighbors of Graceland. Graceland is in the process of expanding its operations to include operation of a hotel complex a few blocks from the Graceland mansion which is scheduled to open in October 2016 and also opening up a World's Fair entertainment complex across the street from the Graceland mansion which is scheduled to be open in March 2017. Graceland Holdings is highly committed to this project and making it success for the Estate of Prince Rogers Nelson as well as the local and broader Twin Cities community. Toward that end Graceland is providing the initial funds for capital improvement and initial operating costs of the museum. The following is the proposed business plan for the Paisley Park museum operations: Building Construction — We do not anticipate any exterior construction at the site, other than items related to the parking lot. In terms of interior construction, we anticipate widening doorways, adding lighting, motion detectors, and sound systems in areas of the facility. We will also be completing various improvements required for fire safety purposes. As previously reviewed with the City of Chanhassen, we will also be replacing the existing chiller/boiler at the facility. Operations — We plan to open the Museum in early October (subject to obtaining all approvals required by the City of Chanhassen). The family of Prince Rogers Nelson has an Official Family Tribute Concert scheduled for Thursday, October 13th at U.S. Bank Stadium, and the plan is to have the Museum open in advance of that so that out of town visitors and others that attend the Tribute Concert will also be able to complete a tour of Paisley Park. We anticipate operating the Museum from 10 am to 10 pm during the week and from 9 am to midnight on weekends, although we will vary these hours based on ticket demands and may have less hours during the week or in winter months. At this time, it is difficult for us to predict peak hours, but we anticipate heavier traffic in evenings and weekends. 128637840.2 Tickets to the Museum will be sold only online and will not be able to be purchased at the site. We will not permit any walk-up entry. Tickets will be for a specific time tour and guests will be permitted to park and enter Paisley Park only 20-30 minutes early. This time frame and limited access will be strongly emphasized in ticketing and repeated messaging to guests. The length of the tour will be approximately 70 minutes and guests will be required to exit within 30-45 minutes after the conclusion of their tour. The maximum guest stay during peak times will be 2 hours. Tours will be guided tours and will start in 10 minute increments and each tour is expected to include 25-30 guests. We anticipate a total of 1500 to 2000 guests per day on peak days. Ticket prices will be $38.50 for standard tickets. A VIP Tour experience will also be offered for smaller guests groups with prices of$100 or more. Guided tours will take guests through the recording and mixing studios, video editing rooms, rehearsal rooms, Prince's private NPG Music Club, and the soundstage and performance hall. The tour will be contained to the main floor of the facility and will be indoors, except for an exit from the performance hall to the storage garage where cars and the tour bus will be able to be viewed. We will add a tent to the breezeway passage from the performance hall to the storage garage. We anticipate employing 20 to 60 people from the local area during the museum's operating hours. This amount will vary based on the tour volumes and times. We will also be engaging a substantial number of local contractors and service providers to ready the facility for operations by early October. Traffic/Parking — The facility currently includes approximately 90 parking spaces in its front parking area. We plan to further expand the parking area to the east to add an additional 40-50 spots. In addition, because we will be utilizing parking attendants we would anticipate being able to "double-park" cars based on knowing what times people will be exiting the facility and can utilize an additional 28-30 spots based on this method of parking. This will result in total parking of approximately 160 spaces. Based on Graceland's experience, we estimate that there will be 2.5 guests per vehicle, which based on the anticipated attendance and tour times equals 60 vehicles per hour and a maximum of 150 vehicles parked at any given time given the ticketed tour windows and a maximum guest stay of 2.0 hours in peak time periods. As noted below, we also anticipate as many as 20% of guests being shuttled from other locations particularly during peak hours. We will expand the front gate area to include a coned cul-de-sac area so that cars can easily exit from Audubon Road. We will have parking attendants that will immediately review parking tickets and time windows to confirm if a vehicle can enter the parking lot. If a guest's allotted time period has not yet arrived, the attendant will direct the car to exit the cul-de-sac and return during the ticketed time period. The attendants will also be patrolling the exterior fence and Audubon Road to prevent any cars from stopping along the road or otherwise causing traffic congestion. We will have parking attendants that will direct parking. We will be adding lighting to the parking lot to the extent there is not sufficient lighting currently there. In the future, we may utilize land across Audubon Road for additional parking. 2 128637840.2 A traffic study related to the facility is being prepared and will be submitted to the Planning Commission. On our current estimates, the traffic volumes will be less than the volume of cars entering the nearby General Mills facility based on observed traffic study there. We expect to utilize the back parking lot and garage for employees of the facility to park and will also utilize off-site shuttle and parking for employees. We are also making arrangements with bus companies to conduct shuttle trips from the airport and/or the Mall of America area. Security — The Museum will have 24x7 security. We will install a new security system. The Museum will hire security guards and supervisors for its operations. Food & Drink—The Museum will offer food and beverage at the conclusion of the tour. There will be no alcoholic beverages sold or permitted to be consumed at the facility. The food is anticipated to be a limited item of vegetarian items including a tasting plate, dessert, and select sandwiches. We are interviewing vendors to provide the food and anticipate that while some food would be prepared offsite and delivered daily that there would be select portions of the menu that would be prepared on site. The Museum anticipates erecting a tent connected (or semi-attached) to the exit near the restrooms in a portion of the exterior parking area where guests could sit for a brief period to eat upon conclusion of the tour. (See attached exterior map). There will be no smoking permitted at the facility. Merchandise — The Museum will include sales of merchandise on-site including apparel, guidebooks and other souvenirs. Other Events—Paisley Park will continue to be utilized as a recording studio for special sessions. In addition, we anticipate that concerts will also continue to be held in the performance hall. There would be no events outside. No events are anticipated to be held until at least March 2017 and no arrangements or bookings have been made related to future events. We anticipate that such events will be held on Friday or Saturday weekend and that offsite parking arrangements will be made. Based on square footage of the performance hall the attendees at events could be up to 1500 people at one time. Studio and concert usage of the facility will be limited in order to avoid interfering with tour attendance. Future Activities—While future plans have not been developed, some of the additional potential uses or ancillary operations for Paisley Park include additional parking and potential development and completion of the exterior round building. We may also develop onsite limited occupancy lodging in the future. 3 128637840.2 See Attached Facility Map 4 128637840,2 entrance expansion A-4. ,110 proposed lot extension an „ -0 . .,..- 1( proposed ` ,; .t tent • ' iti' 7(it C'i !'r l-,1�j 4 y / „ ti;' ..i� 1• : . 1 �- *.7t Attachment#5 ARTICLE XXII. - "IOP" INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT Sec. 20-811. - Intent. The intent of the "IOP" district is to provide an area identified for large-scale light industrial and commercial planned development. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 16(5-16-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-812. - Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an "IOP" district: (1) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. (2) Automotive repair shops. (3) Conference/convention centers. (4) Health services. (5) Indoor health and recreation clubs. (6) Light industrial. (7) Offices. (8) Off-premises parking lots. (9) Print shops. (10)Recording studios. (11)Utility services. (12)Vocational school. (13)Warehouses. (Ord.No. 80, Art. V, § 16(5-16-2), 12-15-86; Ord.No. 240, § 21, 7-25-95; Ord. No. 259, § 27, 11-12-96; Ord. No. 377, § 109, 5-24-04) Sec. 20-813. - Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in an "IOP" district: (1) Automotive repair shop. (2) Day care center. (3) Parking lots and ramps. (4) Signs. Page 1 Retail sales of products stored or manufactured on the site provided no more than 20 percent of the floor space is used for retail sales. (Ord.No. 80, Art. V, § 16(5-16-3), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 93, § 1, 7-25-88; Ord. No. 377, § 110, 5- 24-04) Sec. 20-814. - Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in an "IOP" district: (1) Contracting yards. (2) Day care centers as part of a multi-tenant building. (3) Day care centers as a separate facility. (4) Food processing. (5) Gun range,indoor. (6) Home improvement trades. (7) Hotels and motels. (8) Lumber yards. (9) Motor freight terminals. (10)Outdoor health and recreation clubs. (11)Screened outdoor storage. (12)Research laboratories. (13)Reserved. (14)Commercial towers as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. (15)Electrical distribution and underground electric distribution substations. (Ord.No. 80, Art. V, § 16(5-16-4), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 97, § 1, 10-24-88; Ord. No. 120, § 4(12), 2-12-90; Ord.No. 259, § 28, 11-12-96; Ord. No. 377, § 111, 5-24-04; Ord. No. 390, § 5, 3-14- 05; Ord. No. 527, § 4, 8-22-11) State Law reference—Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-815. - Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "10P" district subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum lot area is one acre. (2) The minimum lot frontage is 150 feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall have a minimum frontage of 60 feet. Page 2 (3) The minimum lot depth is 200 feet. (4) The maximum lot coverage is 70 percent. (5) Off-street parking shall comply with district setback requirements except: a. There is no minimum setback when it abuts a railroad right-of-way, except as provided in chapter 20, article XXV, division 3, pertaining to landscaping requirements. b. There is no minimum setback when it abuts, without being separated by a street, another off-street parking area. c. The minimum setback is 50 feet when it abuts a residential district without being separated from the residential district by a street or railroad right-of-way. d. The minimum setback is 25 feet for side street side yards. e. Parking setbacks along public rights-of-way may be reduced to a minimum of ten feet if the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city that 100 percent screening is provided at least five feet above the adjacent parking lot. The intent of this section is that the city is willing to trade a reduced setback for additional landscaping that is both an effective screen and of high quality aesthetically. Acceptable screening is to be comprised of berming and landscaping. Screening through the use of fencing is not permitted. (6) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, four stories/50 feet. b. For accessory structures, one story. (7) Minimum setback requirements: a. For front yards, 30 feet. b. For rear yards, ten feet. c. For side yards, ten feet. d. The minimum setback is 100 feet when it abuts a residential district without being separated from the residential district by a street or railroad right-of-way. In instances where existing topography and/or vegetation provide buffering satisfactory to the city,or where quality site planning is achieved,the city may reduce setback requirements by up to 50 percent. The applicant shall have the full burden of demonstrating that there is sufficient separation and screening for the higher intensity use. e. Buffer yards. 1. The city comprehensive plan establishes a requirement for buffer yards. Buffer yards are to be established in areas indicated on the plan where higher intensity uses interface with low density uses and shall comply with chapter 20, article XXV, of the Chanhassen City Code. Page 3 2. The buffer yard is not an additional setback requirement. The full obligation to provide the buffer yard shall be placed on the parcel containing the higher intensity use. 3. The buffer yard is intended to provide physical separation and screening for the higher intensity use. As such, they will be required to be provided with a combination of berming, landscaping and/or tree preservation to maximize the buffering potential. To the extent deemed feasible by the city, new plantings shall be designed to require the minimum of maintenance, however, such maintenance as may be required to maintain consistency with the approved plan, shall be the obligation of the property owner. (Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 16(5-16-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 94, §§ 1, 7, 7-25-88; Ord.No. 136, §§ 1A, 1B, 1-28-91; Ord. No. 451, § 8, 5-29-07; Ord. No. 474, §§ 14, 15, 10-13-08) Sec. 20-816. - Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "IOP" district: (1) Churches. (2) Concrete mixing plants. (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90) Secs. 20-817-20-900. - Reserved. g:\plan\2016 planning cases\2016-24 paisley park museum\sec._20_812. permitted_uses..docx Page 4 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Kim T. Meuwissen,being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on September 8, 2016 the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of a Rezoning request for property located at 7801 Audubon Road from Industrial Office Park(IOP) to Planned Unit Development IOP to facilitate the use of the building as a museum to the persons named on attached Exhibit"A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. HKim T. Meuwissen, Deputy J Subscribed and sworn to before me this Sc day of Sty-1-0,46-1,-- , 2016. g01171 - (IVAI ..,,.�' Y ��..J N IFER ANN POTTERNotary Public-Minnesota .,;,,''`' My Commission Expires Jan 31,2020 ory Public OC "0 0) N •� 0) u, m •Y a m o v o C OO 0 N ""' O O +. 0 0) u) >, m o E..- •m -o . m ani >, 7 0) to O 0) a) `o -o m^� _ O O (6 to > Y 0) Cp +U-• p l— •C g?..,n a'O .E E y o '��° N a- •o) roO C D O �° 4) 0 N co C a C O • �"'CO 0) o 0-8 6 E. a, , 2 o22,_) ,t. o a,.o ▪ C 00 C E ..Q L U (n O O U O O y co 6' 0°' 000aiy wa-EimmaNa N• a) d O 'er as s . .; t -° E (0 fn d O O) O uiNc F@ �mm > c 2,,•°,2, -c m C O N O C ` t_ U C Q ..0 0) L_ O > !n C •L C oET EmEa>`,s . 3m8 . 0 °- - N p + N 4) (p Q 0) O Oj .(22 .c) O U 0 c ' 0. O CoQ oc0T=oma co- nc mn L c' (c3 D a +�-• 0) `O N C 3 7 C C E >+ 0) m U -gym° m U E N o c o$ C ~ O (B O .O y U � Q - O - .::, Q O E � aE▪ maF� E�a�oa>immc' m U c) O E O O 0) 'V E 0)) O C . d •O c o `3 E m o v` m Po-°—2 O Q• O Y >+� .7.., C i•- -• Q O a._, � C `F" .-,co O p O 0) � a)a c d w >,m a`�w 3 aUi O� �w OY L � � .�0 N 0C O)� QCO QO 0) O 0) 7 •-• •3 - s O �s • D3 'U-sg!`oa��n2,, O 2 O .- to Q O p U �- N U (n Cp O H n c m mt ° o 2'u m L C C G Q O to .�..• O 1 a) coN ..O > (n D,o. m'`.- o . 8-0)L t Y o • .- N NmO Q 0) y ,C' C 4) p . . p C •� dr .0 .T 0,,2 mo mor¢caoa3 N N .- a ti C O C •(n O 0) � 3 Q O N 'al N Q L O L O > F' U 0) 7'.2-,c 2°1 o U a D t 3 U c B 1)°, _ £ OaNONC0 d 0vp .0 p 0) 0 U3O CD '_ 0d muw - mr-@a.3Ecom'�- () O ..a 0) fn 4- QS `y .V O O)2 L N > co C „ C 0) U Op O O.13 w C 0 C o a- m m t c o d°o?.o io U c V p O 7 - > C 0) N p Q >+ _ C :o @ a = m o o 2.17> m 'o 7 CA N m C C 0 C j L O Q U U 0- s- n" C U p OL r d O x O •- o 11'° n m c ti, ac) o zO. o U U c .g (6 -0 -c N Q@ CA = 0 () O 0) C O- O 7 0 Q r.. . 0 -0 U U o.u' @ m o°cc E a o" O.m m T Q. C O O .C (4c0 -O t " O C -C d co N to N N '27, a n m a m E En-0..,. -.U' y- '_ .0 > U j C 4-, (13 w (n •U) . O ° 3 0) 3 tq C O 0) - M O co O 3 ..,, a d o�c o o m o)U O C E N -_ 0-c) CL O p er..• N U ."CL. 0) C (a C C � N 0 C CO '' 0) - \O Q0) > o.mo- ucmE3mommmm` oco d O 0 •C U O ' O N w- 8- 4) > (0 N 'C N 0) t 7 (Q L O 7 lY E `,7", c ; E 'A c a> m 5 T am)8 s (� a Qc C .-• C OO) O),U (0 U (-130) N co O V) cpm 3E� o°m �oa o@Lro O C N O co O C in m 0) a) OL C = Q N a .O 0 OL O ° M > 4- .O O - N 4- 2 E w c o `'E� • 1 4).8 f. °o 0) CC N C u) Q ` p O- Qt co � _c t N V c (13 "p °¢° oNYmomIg.-. Z d U ,- 7 O O y a) 0 ,U 1_ C CO O (/) C m 3 3.- m.,mc v a m,. a,n ani-E N j, o _ "2 C cI- "O C Q 0) `I- o_ co u) C. 0) _ 1 O CA om uEmm c- En> m Q. n •n m-• N r. C td C = CID O 0) Q O QU +� U co .0 O >s'cl O N C_' d V c 0) 7 daN mUoc'ommruo)2 -oco L N O C 5 E V O . (n 1— U O Vr . N .� d C > c .N ' n c a, .o-o m C E m C U O1- m a) C ]-._ C L J� C 7 •"= O O 0_0 .0 >' 0) >+co Q) O •O f0 'p c 3 :g...c n E E a°' m t H too HQ0 CO � Q I— (0 (Q Q•,- NM 'CY --.4-- .....-c -0O) L c co aQ. U C C aa)ET CT--0 m U am rm ca°'i N s'6 0 a- (0 Cl) 0a m o,s L. -aUm = y.o..`4--)s' 0 (n (n . Ear o`.o. on'a)Q3 NLUoc C C Q C C j c m@m ai)2'.-50- 3 '02 of.,9.20- 0 _ d co r O C C w m a _-5 2' 8 8-2=8 w2-8 2-.2)ca.2 E_ .. r.i CL a) H) , C •E .0 Q"- >ac @dnrn-�3°'0 oca m� C �6 C >.. C R 01 C C O) U a .5..E 2� 2 `= E V0(0 cm3 n o m m ° O d U) n ; o 02152..° 2 3 aa3 � ammaNoN ,cO 0 00 tO = 2 ++ O U .+: aE U tco �2 f o-Nmws.53cr0nouTo0mu°' m-o- mO O a. CR al ..0 d YU m.rnc.m@ms.or1.coocm � rnama+ V 0 CLO C) t ++ O 0O 0 i Q. t- 0 O J Q. Q Q. J 3 J U W (>3 L`nU`mim - nNa¢ Emn Z Q u . O C O (n •D 0) n. N L_ 8- T t g, 20_ C cas a "O N "' L -p 0) C S d 0) -p v • rmoo°• cc g-2-S.2 C 7 7 0 (0 N > Y C O C O . -' C .2'z,0-. °= E E a)L 8-0 y c m a O C O _0 7 N 0 0 p Q O O C C O 0) N U ami a) E 3 o a • E c n a • o0 (Cl CO _O)= U co O O � ) C C O O a- (Clm o d o g of.N o -O 8-m _ lY - m E m °a co 0 0) _N �• w L U N m.- c m T N m _ O Q) 3 -p '� (0 fn d O t� O ur c H m `m @ -22t @ c ° N N (Cl 0 (6 O C •E s_5'V C Q O LO O - .n C •C O ° E c o-o E °m=3 o E o E c n :cL -p ^ 0) >' O (0 Q0) O 0 OWE - a. 3 ° coT 0c ncm C H• OmC � Cl; � "-' U 0) Q N-02 co 7 � Ca. OOO E0) V • Ea��EcaaOV.0°L ++ N UO �- V O E O O O •V E 0) >+ U C 'C C V d +-• _c3 E `' . maUM c ��• a) aaE coif.0° a'Umow- L p 3o �oo_ Uma mO Y o > C 9 - Q •'-' r .0 Q O 0) N U U (a O wd▪ c�mmoo= eo'un CAO t` pO O 8 p - OC 0) C .�O_• C -C._• _C 0) (U6 j cow • C _ Eom o >ami~ mo Tcr3o- L — N to m O Q 0) y UU ! I O r (a C "O .O d r., CA.- . omY 3cm m r)¢ca8-.� wd - CO C _ C N Q t O L O = > 'C, U 0) 8- d ° o° UD 72 ,co Im o s.O (� Uu fn 0) - U Cr)p +. U •� O t - +�.• Q F,'„2._ E m r.-T'm a)3 E. 8-m c= VO N �oO � NO t, c.) COCNUO Dy t E , .9, o�c c&na ° o� °Nmm °u_0VNm C 0 -O U - 0C 0) _O Q Q C O Q > 01 'a C C -0 C) c a)m n rn w L°.y' am°y~m,v>V o L C > Q L C U O _ x v 8- m.3@oNCULmooUUc 7 CA c (Q C Q C O O U U 0) 0) C Q O O L �O, .O 0) O (� U° d m a o m m `o c n y L y p Q. C CO > ..0 C O 0« N = C - '- U) C O 0) Q N L- (0 O Saw a1@° EaniEc "U ° (n 0 0) N N N) m m- 6 n rn o m m `� .0 a) 0 O a. N O (0 3 0) N 9 t O O 0:2T-5 -O d,E r=9_ 20 c n m�o ate) S)-2 5 O C E t7. O` d p 0 0) ("Jj L' 0) C (0 0) () tNE ... C `4 O �' rO,, •� Q0) � m� c::.LE� mma`>) rn`°�'o ' d CO 0) w U 0) `~ Q y 4,5 C 0) > (6 •C co 2 7 > ENami Ecom 'o rr 'rU°., Q. a.c O (0 2 C N p O_ M O U) 0)'U -' N U 015. C ( M Ti) C N m w E .(2'— =.822E-', 0-" 08.0— g° o a 22 E u m a-i a`°i o a g co O C (/) `5 O 0) Q O O U to Q ` = Q 0) .0 •O Q.0 co r- t (n ' N (� 'co (Cl 0 aa)ao oEYmoma>,rNoama, Z Ocs) > .6 _U .- C a H -0c C L 0) a) .V Q (0 (n • p (� O C. 3 CAE O ns 23os o E a m e E a?n L L (n 0 (o (n O i O •F, .0 E .Q ...?/i3 C _ O) r+ _C 0) (n )U o n E w E- cow. Tp m a1 N CI -/-_, - = C r O 0) Q ' Q U U L 0 7 0) 3 •- OE E N 7 .- d V C -p C• E °C) 8-8,.. .).,-.�m N aro °m C 0) = >+ OU "O > E Q V C = � i_ 00_ O COU 0) 0N _Q. 5 O C > .> C nmc mo,nmN.o 'anc �CLao co O O O 0) ._ C7 G ..0 Q.a 7 >. ,) O >,Lf) 0) 0) r O Q) -0 . a°i 3 a o a g E d u 8--,2 m m m .0 H N O H < O CO t-- Q I— (0 (0 O-r N M• d' `4 +'C-• (n � O) C E V) G.Q. N (a 0) 0-O m m z 2'-0)2°'E L L N 2.2 a E a rn U p (n 'c d as c£8- N2 a) ,,,tea o Ec to 6 0 0) N `van E r¢dwm'0Ea Y o acm C C Q C L 5 c o@aa,, ay a)va-- 8-3-08 otF oil 0 O •i+ 0,5 O C C m ma dt 28ocLm.Ucnccci unmcns E .. +� 0.Q d to ,�, C E L on'>ac @ ?a rnT3@g o ca mTi I— C tC C >+ C CO d C C U n• 28-1.- °) >._.`m U in c�o£-Lm.L.Lm..;,° O M ,CU t•1•�, O = 2 _O d u) (n . ; 8-L 3 an 3 .x, 2-2 @ n w o L",:„g • 7J O -) W r .•+ E (..) N N 6 C D U .) E 2.,..- 0 @ 62,0 200 a) (13 V C. •CL CL (Oj CO .0 d E > t) mDnc6) n16m- 8-'3 ai 2 U >,O m a) a)._—. O O O L , . 7 0 W U zao .cm.�tn.(7)1122E88 m8�m 0 J Q. < Q. J aV Z co U:86-._: mf- a3 > tn n¢ Em - n N Tr T' ,H1 LO c-i O m w m ,1 01 .4 N m m N 0 ,--I m I O 00 N 0 O ,1 Q) N N l LO 0 m Coo l 'O°IO OTi)'00 N V 7 0 ONO ON) ON1 01 N 71 N N 101 I N N N'4'N I N N N N N N Lf 0 1n cL 01 T m W m m m m 'c r M m m m m m .4. Tr m U m If) - If I I I n I L I n I O� I n nn If LLI n In Z In'Z Z Z Z Z Z'N Z Z Z Z Z Z,Z N >• m Z w N Z Z Z w Z U Z Z Z Z N cz ,www ,g L I< Iii C Ion VN)I N a d N J N N N V) 0 p0, 0 ill s Z < � < a'a z < a < a',a < a'H a I- • O �'Z < Z Z Z!Z Z Z z Z,Z Z,Z Z Z Z x �,a a Cl. a Q a w _Z < w a a < a _Z _Z Z_ (0 w 2 - 2 2 2 0 2 - 2 2 2 2 H Z'5. 0 01 0 0 0 w l U C7 0 0 0 0 a 0 1- tri J Q 0 cc a' m >- W W } 0 0 0 U N o'LL J ~ 3 In v) w zz J O LU; H'w v1YC Q lir O 0 ,ZIN W „6,H J1_ w H 0'0 Z H In 0 0 . w Ni 0 , v) w;V c a K U N N m 0 0 I m J Q > p , - . . u Q i 0n o . ,'Z YID O W• < 0 .< 2 0 a a'H J 00 N D a s CG X Li 00 >.IoIWIa,0i�c alo_Ioiz NI0!< 0- n. w N 0 0 0_ 0,V) 0 l0 0 0.0:v) 0 cO I H ,1 0 ,1 a1 CO Mr x 0 m m 00 N 00 0,14 c--1 00 0 0 l0 -) Tr o m L;00 <t m m ,:r In m v LO O'oo 0000 m- Tr 0 u) H ci-t0 r1 m m .-1 ,--1 ,-1 ,-1 H a N N N N -I a H I I •N N N N N N N N N N N N ,--1,-I r-1 c-i H ,-1 ,--1 .1 N N N N'N v) � ,--1 r-1 c-1 ,1 c-1- H c-7 H cr Q.m m m m m m I m m m m m'm m m m m m m In I) In 00 00 In!Vl I1') If) I ) In 111 In 00 ninny, n1 If) In If) In If) If) If) In In;In In I I) If) In ✓ z z Z z z Z z Z z,,Z z z z Z Z Z z.z N 2 2'212 2 2!21212!2 2 2 2 2 2 212 2 j, ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ a+l WI W w w L UJ w w LU w I W LIA I , LU LU LU U N N N v) V)) N In In V) V) V) v)II Ww N v) N N N O L a < a a < a'a a;a < < a'a a,a a a H 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 W Z Z Z Z Z Z!Z z,z Z Z Z:Z Z Z Z Z Z 02- a s a!a a a a a a a a a a < <I<,< Z = = = = = 2 = = = = 2 2 = = = = 2 o. U U U UIU U U 0 0 0 U U C) U UUIU 2 o m J J m } m a H H 13 Z �', Z Z w M O H w H 0 0 w Z H = 0 = CC = 0C O m -0 = 0' U oc U c a Y m DIm 0 0 0 0 m -1 Q Y Y Y 0 Y Y Y O 0 2 Y = Y Y Y Y > .�. K m K . OC m . 0 o . a' = 0 O t!a as 0s < a 01a1< 2I NIna. Q a 0a. a a < 0 p_ 0 0000100 101,--I 0 0 ,-i ,1 0 ,1 0 0 0' O N ct Cr) LI) In 00 0,N N 00 0 0 0 try 00 N O O L N M V dl- dl-'If) l0 l0 l0 CO 00 0000 00 CO O 1n 11 c-1 ,1 ,-I ci c-1 c-I ,-I ci ei N n N N N N 00 H 1 J I , W I•- U N = t0 z or 0 U'N' a s o w d J J la- -1 H I- W I Z Q U Z 2 I i < l 0,w w Z O w a ) 0 1 J J 'w 01._..1 N E,? 0;o Z nw.1,a w i_ O O w o OI J Z w Q Z J m 0 2 OIZi>'W a O U 2 J _, H'm w iiia 2 O a ala w J cc ? z O Q Z 2 mlc Q w w w H 0 2 a a v) a''< v) a > a Ql w J 0 H J w H 2 0 2 1 0 J O m x'- a a < Q 2 cc 2 U Zly m F- U m I-1• 00I0,vv)) (A C9 0 Q O0 U �1Ila,II �IOJ Y �,0 Aanenson, Kate From: Jennifer <jsinger321@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 11:30 AM Subject: Paisley Park Zoning Concerns I have heard the news that the city is considering rezoning the Paisley Park property into a museum. I have heard many things about this is what he wanted.The family and bank have reached out to a company that has run Graceland to run tours of his complex. I have a variety of concerns about this project. TRAFFIC How will this impact the traffic and noise in the surrounding businesses and neighborhoods? In the business plan,they seem to have a strict parking plan. What will happen to the people that arrive early and are not able to park on site? Do we anticipate them hanging around on the street close by? Currently,there are dozens of businesses, including two daycare centers next to Paisley Park. My concern is that it will cause more traffic on the adjacent roads, making it unsafe for those children. We currently have an issue with the traffic on Audubon from the Auto MotorPlex monthly shows. It's not safe to cross the street there and I haven't seen the community do much to help with that. How can we expect that they will address the Paisley Park museum correctly? In the months following Prince's passing, the intersection at Audubon and Highway 5 had been closed. It took quite a while for it to be opened up again to normal traffic again. During peak times like the opening, concerts, do you see this happening again? NOISE When Prince was alive and performing, we often would hear him playing his music from our house. Should we be expecting this type of noise today? Based on the business plan, they anticipate having up to 2,000 additional people come through a day and potentially have visitors as late as midnight on the weekends. How do you see that effect his neighbors? In the weeks following his death, we were kept awake at night from passing new helicopters cover over our property in hopes to get aerial shots of his house and grieving family. With the opening and other events that the museum may hold, should we be expecting this type of disruption again? COST The company that would like to run the museum doesn't feel like the best choice.They seem to be trying to find a way to maximize their profits with little regard to the community and potential guests to the museum. A fee of$37 would cost a couple almost$80 to visit. At the costs proposed, it would be hard for regular families to able to go.Their policy to only be able to purchase tickets online makes it more secure, but it is also challenging for individuals that do not have access to the internet to see his place.This model seems like a way to gain more profits, and less about giving back the community. TAXES What kind of tax revenues does the city expect to get? Where is this tax money going to be spent on?Will it be reinvested in the community and schools? Or will it help pay for additional police to monitor the additional traffic it will create?Will it be spent to update the roads around Paisley Park to assist with the additional traffic it will create? CRIME 1 Do we anticipate it affecting any crime?This will bring an additional demographic of individuals to the community. While they may have security up in the parking faculty of the museum, this is will not prevent people from committing crimes elsewhere in the community. We will see increased traffic violations, speeding, and possible accidents. MOTIVES The company that wants to run this is not local.They do not know our community. They don't live here.To them,they see it as a way to make a profit. Why did Price want his place to be a museum?So fans could see how he lived?So they could see where he threw parties and what a recording studio looked like? It seems like a way to gawk at a dead man's house, see his cars and other positions.What will people gain from this experience?Are they going to feel inspired to break the mold and become famous so they can acquire these possessions? If the price was lowered, and it was made so everyone could appreciate his legacy, instead of those with large pocketbooks, I might understand the motivation for Chanhassen to approve it. As it stands now, it looks like a way for people to make money off of his legacy. ALTERNATIVES Have they thought about renting it as a recording studio? Maybe creating some place for the community to utilize it more? Create a music scholarship with the profits, or use the studio space for up and coming artist to rent out his studio at reduced rates.This could give local musicians a chance that wouldn't normally to make their own music. Instead of creating a place to gawk at his possessions, have some functionality to it. As a museum, it is only going to gain dust. While Prince may have hoped that someday his home become a museum for his fans,that doesn't necessarily mean that it is best for the community. One of the main reasons we moved to this community was the small town feel.As soon as we got we have seen nothing but development. I respect his contributions to our community and the music industry, but I want to make sure that he is respected in the correct way. He stood up for himself and his ability to control his music. He has been an inspiration to many and I do feel that he was a gem in our community. He chose to live in this community because of its small town feel away from the craziness of the music industry. In his death, I'm not sure he would want his community he loved to be negatively impacted by him. Thanks, Jennifer Singer 8470 Pelican CT Chanhassen MN 2 Aanenson, Kate From: Kristi Strang <krististrang@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 12:39 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Paisley Park Hi Kate, I am writing to you concerning the plan to turn Paisley Park into an museum. My main concern for this plan is the traffic it will create. I live along Audubon Road and am concerned that people will use Audubon as their route to Paisley Park. I ask that in your planning you figure out ways to direct people to take Highway 5 to reach Paisley Park. I assume there will be Tourist Signs going up along the route, please place those along Highway 5 rather than directing people through the residential area along Audubon. Also, I assume there will be directions on the museum's website guiding people there. I hope you can work with the management company to provide directions via Highway 5. Highway 5 is a state highway, whereas Audubon Road goes through a residential area. Please keep in mind your citizens that live along this road. Thank you, Kristi Strang 1701 Valley Ridge Trail S. Chanhassen 1 Aanenson, Kate From: Lynnel.Etling@Eaton.com Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 10:53 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Paisley Park Museum Hi Kate, I would like to comment on the above proposed request for rezoning as I too have the same concerns as Wendy O'Connor and quite frankly many in our community. What's the rush? Let's do this right so that the citizens of Chanhassen and our surrounding communities do not feel the pain of the increased congestion on HWY 5 and 212. This was just submitted on 8/22/16, and it does not appear that the traffic study will be done in time before this will be approved. Why are we not holding Bremer and Prince's family to the same standards as other requestors? It appears as though everyone is looking at the dollar signs and not focused on serving the citizens of our community, which in my humble opinion should be their top priority. If you remember, I strongly opposed letting a variance for a drive through for the proposed Milo's sub restaurant on Century Blvd. Sadly it was passed anyway and was quickly changed to a Burger King! The citizens in this community now suffer with the increased constant smell from their grill stack, the loud car stereos from the young clientele that it attracts, as well as the mounting trash that blows all over our neighborhood because their dumpster is not big enough to handle the trash for the whole development. Also,the city has never enforced any of the upkeep of the grounds of this property as many dead bushes and trees remain missing. My point is that I feel promises have been broken by our city council and our leaders in the past and now it seems as though this museum is already a done deal. It leads me to suspect that there has been discussions in the works behind the scenes to push this through—just for the sake of an increased tax base for our city. I would like to see improvements done to Audubon and HWY 5 intersection as well as the creation of a 2"d parking lot on the property that is owned across the street from Paisley Park as well as improvements to the fencing and landscaping before this rezoning is approved and the museum is opened. Thank you for your time. Kind regards, Lynne Etling Chanhassen Resident 7681 Century Blvd Chanhassen MN 55317 1 Aanenson, Kate From: SUSAN DAVIS <sdavisl0@mac.com> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 3:48 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Cc: SUSAN DAVIS Subject: Paisley Park Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Flagged Good afternoon, I recently purchased an office condo on Stone Creek Drive to expand my mental health practice/business. I have been in St. louis Park for 18 years and decided it was time to expand to the SW Metro. I turn at Audubon and Coulter Blvd. to get to the office as will many of the clients that come to see the therapists and psychiatrists at this location. I do not support turning Paisley Park into a museum.There is considerable pedestrian congestion now. It is dangerous to have to stop to allow pedestrians who run across the road, stop traffic. Audubon is a 2 lane road. How does the city plan on addressing the traffic issues? Are clients going to have to drive to the next light, Galpin and backtrack to my office? This will negatively impact my business and truthfully the lives of people suffering from mental health issues. Imagine the anxiety this will produce when a client is stuck at the light at Audubon and as a result is late and/or too late to make their appointment. Who is going to compensate the local businesses? Where in the world are people going to park to see the museum? Oh, I see, you are going to allow"them" to tear down green space to build a parking lot. I don't get it and disagree. How much more green space are we going to tear down for people to get rich? To suggest that there will not be anymore traffic generated than General Mills? I find that hysterical. There is more traffic in and out of Stone Creek than General Mills and the museum will certainly draw more. Don't get me wrong, I like Prince. His loss is tragic and will have impact on the music world and our community for years. His death could have been prevented had the need for secrecy and privacy not outweighed the need to get him help. What this community needs is more clinics like mine to help individuals get well and not feel as though they need to hide mental health or physical health issues either due to stigma, reprisal, or both. Having said that, I do not support this endeavor. When are there going to be community meetings to voice concern for this? Susan Davis, LICSW Executive Director Choices Psychotherapy 612-991-7666 1 Aanenson, Kate From: J Sparrow <sparrow9419@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 1:06 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Paisley Park Greetings, I would just like to extend my support and happiness for Paisley Park becoming a museum. My wife and I celebrated our 25th Wedding Anniversary in June and we stayed in Chanhassen and hoped that sometime we would be able to come back to tour Paisley. We love your city and will be staying there next week when we come back for The Revolution concert in Minneapolis. We know why Prince called Chanhassen home and look forward to our visit next week! Paisley Park needs to be preserved and we are so glad it will be. Thank you John Sparrow Whitmore Lake, Michigan Aanenson, Kate From: Stephanie Friant <stephaniehfriant@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 7:14 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Paisley Park Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Flagged We moved to Bluff Creek Estates in the fall of 2014. We understood and accepted the businesses along Audubon and the housing developments south of us. We also assumed that at some point Paisley Park would become a museum. We see this as a good thing for the city,but are worried about some aspects that seem to be overlooked. Traffic Driving down Audubon multiple times a day, we will be impacted by the hourly increase of 150 cars (either going in or out...). This is very different than the General Mills plant where they are coming in and out at shift changes, which do not always align with general traffic hours and are not spread out,but kept to shift changes. Also, this doubles the amount of cars per day. I can only assume that individual cars and buses will be coming from both the south and north of Audubon. With the proposed shopping development, it is safe to assume that many non-locals will be using Audubon between the two places. As I have personally seen more and more non-locals disregarding that Audubon is a public - and local - street by either parking in the middle of it or standing in the middle to take pictures (or just walking across right in front of incoming traffic) - I am concerned for the long term "glitches". Concern 1: People going South on Audubon turning Left across traffic into Paisley Park. The major increase in this type of traffic is concerning-both from the perspective of those driving North past PP,but also backing up into the intersection of 5 and Audubon. Concern 2: The business plan indicates that individuals arrive PRIOR to their allotted time will be turned away. Where will they go? How will these "inconvenienced people" who are not locals create driving issues for others? Will they just park along the nearby roads or make risky turns? Concern 3: The ongoing issue of those parking along McGlynn Drive and people walking across Audubon to walk along the PP fence line. With tickets around $40 each, those who cannot afford it will continue to take advantage of this parking area, in addition to those who make not have the time to go on the tour. The lack of a crosswalk, or no-parking signs, or any other regulations are continuously leaving those who use Audubon regularly to slow down and watch for pedestrians who are not always observant or walk swiftly(earlier this week there was a bus load from a senior residence!). With PP hours being extended until 10pm, the darkness will impact this situation also, especially during our early Winter nights. (Currently most visits to the PP fence appear to be during daylight hours.) I am assuming this will be an huge issue again during the Ryder Cup,but also do not see this going away. In fact, with the added traffic from the PP museum visitors, this may increase the possibility of accidents, close-calls, etc. As in the early weeks following his death- avoiding it by going down another street did not always eliminate the issue. ALSO, will all visitors have to enter PP by vehicle or will they be allowed to walk in? This minor policy requirement may help with these issues (I personally would rather walk a block and not have to wait after I'm done with the tour than have someone park my car.) 1 Concern 4: The Automotorplex will continue with it's monthly cars and coffee. They have made some change with parking, which is helpful. However,how will this impact the PP visitors who are coming from either way on Audubon and do not understand the additional traffic and why people are out on the streets? What about the intersection of 5 and Audubon? And what if PP decides to host events or festivals on the same day? Concern 5: Parking. I appreciate the idea of busing people in from MOA and the airport (despite them not spending any money in Chanhassen). But I am concerned about the business plan including two times the vague parking of employees at another site and busing in visitors too. Where are they assuming they will park these people? Will they use Lake Ann park? Or the public parking ramps? Will this be a free service provided by the city? Have they concerned purchasing the property across Audubon from PP on McGlynn drive for additional parking and installing a pedestrian bridge over the road or a lighted crosswalk? I would appreciate some feedback- at least that these concerns will be included in the overall public comments or not summarily dismissed. We love living here and despite the increasing business development, plan to continue to live here and be contributing members of this community. (I work at Launch Ministry helping struggling 18-29 year olds in Carver and Scott Counties.) Our children are enjoying a wonderful childhood here. We just don't want to see this ruined by development that turns Chanhassen into another Eden Prairie. There is a reason why we live here - and not in Hennepin County or in Minnetonka. Thank you for your work. I'm sure it is a busy time! Blessings!!! Stephanie Friant LaunchMinistry.org SistersUnderTheTrees Blog Sisters UnderTheTrees on Etsy! 2 Concern 4: The Automotorplex will continue with it's monthly cars and coffee. They have made some change with parking, which is helpful. However, how will this impact the PP visitors who are coming from either way on Audubon and do not understand the additional traffic and why people are out on the streets? What about the intersection of 5 and Audubon? And what if PP decides to host events or festivals on the same day? Concern 5: Parking. I appreciate the idea of busing people in from MOA and the airport(despite them not spending any money in Chanhassen). But I am concerned about the business plan including two times the vague parking of employees at another site and busing in visitors too. Where are they assuming they will park these people? Will they use Lake Ann park? Or the public parking ramps? Will this be a free service provided by the city? Have they concerned purchasing the property across Audubon from PP on McGlynn drive for additional parking and installing a pedestrian bridge over the road or a lighted crosswalk? I would appreciate some feedback- at least that these concerns will be included in the overall public comments or not summarily dismissed. We love living here and despite the increasing business development,plan to continue to live here and be contributing members of this community. (I work at Launch Ministry helping struggling 18-29 year olds in Carver and Scott Counties.) Our children are enjoying a wonderful childhood here. We just don't want to see this ruined by development that turns Chanhassen into another Eden Prairie. There is a reason why we live here - and not in Hennepin County or in Minnetonka. Thank you for your work. I'm sure it is a busy time! Blessings!!! Stephanie Friant LaunchMinistry.orq SistersUnderTheTrees Blog Sisters UnderTheTrees on Etsy! 2 Aanenson, Kate From: Wendy OConnor <mnoconnor@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 3:12 PM To: Aanenson, Kate; Tjornhom, Bethany; Ryan, Elise; McDonald,Jerry; Campion, Dan; Laufenburger, Denny Subject: Paisley Park Proposal Hello there, I wanted to send an email in regards to the Paisley Park Museum Opening on 10/6. I am concerned about the rush to get this Museum up and running so quickly. This was announced to the community (& the world) on August 24th, with a request for changing the current zoning from an Industrial Office Park to Planned Unit Development Industrial Office Park. The Planning Commission Meeting with Public Input scheduled for September 20th and a Final Vote from City Council on October 3rd (three days from proposed opening). I have read the business plan and it seems pretty solid. My concern for our community is that the traffic study has not been submitted. As a matter of fact, no other project documents are available for review other than the letters of recommendation and excitement from the City, the Mayor, and Bremer Trust. In general terms, it takes about 60 days for a project to be approved and ready to go. With documents and applications etc being available for all community members so we can be as informed as possible prior to the Planning Commission Meeting. As an example, I pulled a few plans that have been approved. The differences between the Chick Fil A plan and the Paisley Park Plan are obvious. 29 planning documents versus zero planning documents yet the timing of Chick Fil A is longer and it would seem that Chick Fil A will not be drawing in guests from around the world. Around the state perhaps, but not around the world. Chick Fil A plan: Proposal: 3/18/16 Planning Commission Meeting with Public Input: 4/19/16 City Council Meeting: 5/9/16 Letter of Approval: 5/16/16 60 Day Review Date: 5/17/16 29 Project Documents Paisley Park Plan: Business Plan (no proposal): 8/19/16 Planning Commission Meeting with Public Input: 9/20/16 City Council Meeting: 10/3/16 60 Day Review Date: Should be 10/19/16 Museum Opening 10/6/16 Zero Project Documents 1 If the current traffic and guests are already an indication on how this will go, I think it can be managed and this company seems committed to doing so; but not unless there is a detailed Traffic Study. In my opinion, the Hwy 5 entrance to Audubon needs to be immensely improved over the next few months with partnership from the state. I think the Museum opening should be held off until the improvements are completed. If you put the cart before the horse and open the Museum prior to improvements being made, the traffic will be even worse once construction starts because we will have this influx of cars that will be unable to utilize Hwy 5 during the construction. I realize that this is a State Highway, but it is the job of our city leaders to manage safety and security for all residents and visitors, if we cannot have acceleration lanes to improve the merge onto Hwy 5, we are selling our city and ourselves short. In some of the prior development proposals I looked at, things like examples of landscaping, bike racks, & benches to make sure that the proposal is aesthetically pleasing as well as ADA compliant. If all they are changing is the driveway, shouldn't there be a proposal of what that will look like? Will the sidewalks around PP be improved to accommodate the increase in foot traffic? If so, who will be responsible for improvement? Will the Estate be responsible to make sure people are not crossing outside of the crosswalk? How is this influx of people and cars affecting our environment? Are there garbage cans/recycling onsite or nearby? These are the types of things that should be addressed prior to opening this as a fully functioning Museum. It's an exciting opportunity for our community but I think the rush to get it started is not in everyone's best interest. It's definitely in the interest of Prince's Estate. We have all seen the news reports about a huge tax bill looming. That is no reason to put our community and infrastructure in jeopardy. Paisley Park is already selling tickets, the city website basically has it billed as a done deal, while the community members that will endure the congestion, traffic and confusion have not even been heard from and will not be heard from until the Planning Committee Meeting on September 20th, with voting by City Council expected on 10/3 - three days prior to Museum opening. My opinion may not be a popular one, but my concern that the world will be watching when this Museum opens. If the city isn't prepared we will only have ourselves to hold accountable. Sincerely, Wendy OConnor 1702 Valley Ridge Trail North Chanhassen Resident for 17 years Wendy OConnor 1 mnoconnor@yahoo.com 1612.770.1203 2 To: Kate Aanenson To: Chanhassen City Council Tuesday, September 13, 2016 As I read the Traffic Study I noticed that they have made several great suggestions that I'm hoping will be completed prior to the Museum opening. Since the site will only be closed on Thanksgiving and Christmas, there is no time like the present to execute on the suggestions. Here are my concerns that weren't addressed in the Traffic Study: • Parking issues - while the addition of 65 parking spaces will account for the 230 required spaces, there is no consideration on snowfall and the need for additional spaces during the winter in Minnesota. • The Traffic Study referred to the planned hours for the tours, but did not offer any opinion on them. Paisley Park has requested hours of 9-9 every day except Christmas and Thanksgiving. As everyone is aware, Graceland Holdings is managing Paisley Park Museum. Graceland has hours of 9-5 Monday thru Saturday and 9-4 on Sunday. Given the size difference of Paisley Park (9 acres) and Graceland (14 acres), I would suggest that 9-5 would be more than adequate time for the Museum to operate. • "McGlynn Road and the existing Paisley Park access locations were not reviewed as part of the existing conditions due to limited activity." This is important. There is no crosswalk at McGlynn and pedestrians are crossing in 45mph traffic. What defines limited activity? Cars or pedestrians? I personally sat at the corner of McGlynn and Audubon on Saturday September 3rd for two hours. Starting at 1:37pm I counted 174 cars pulling in to McGlynn from both directions on Audubon (I didn't count going out). McGlynn was constantly full on both sides of the street and in the daycare driveway. From those 174 cars, I counted 622 pedestrians crossing the street back and forth at McGlynn and the south entrance to Paisley Park. Most of them were on their phones using Social Media to check in and share where they were with their friends. These distracted pedestrians were crossing 45mph street without a crosswalk. I'm sure that the Paisley Park management team is confident that many of the visitors will purchase tickets for the tour, but I can tell you many of the people that I talked to were simply curious. These individuals will continue to come and look no matter how many tours are offered. They are not there to spend $50 for an entrance fee, they just want to see what this is all about. These are the people that we need to protect as there is nothing in the Traffic Study in regards to addressing the pedestrians. This crosswalk that isn't a legal crosswalk appears to be endorsed by the city as I saw the Community Service Officer drive past twice that Saturday only slowing down to let pedestrians cross the street. The Officer drove down Audubon a third time and entered McGlynn. She sat at the end of the cul de sac for about 15 minutes and then drove away without walking out and approaching any of the pedestrians crossing. Based upon that very unscientific observation, the City of Chanhassen appears to be allowing this pedestrian crossing to continue & will be held accountable when there is an accident. Examples of my unscientific observations are attached. � '*.rt u - `te. ff.1- IA- . sa''�_"w ' tom. k r 4.` ' i. j _L • ':2 _ - .*.4.7ri � Asir :,. 14. '-.Li 1 a Illegally parked vehicle on McGlynn 9/3/16 '"..''. ...: -. - . 41 VIII_ • 'oir." ' '''''' . g- ... ,... ail •, „ „wit ,_,, i , .. ,'Is r .. I ,' _1,gil • , , Loll • . I -.., ..mac • - i t. T'' 4'�• 1s'} i y.. Pedestrians crossing 45mph road 9/3/16 "'/ ' } It. i tom III,ill "...ark diA111.7 ' - t. Cars parked along McGlynn and in the Daycare Driveway 9/3/16 foil,. ,0 ter I t. .4'. ', 1 - " :• ' .tli•. In , ^ "t 4 T 4t. $ 4. .. .,,,t 44 . .. tp4h. - . . .. A or" .: .1 : • '-- 7. • ' . 1." •• ' ... . ... • :i" '.5•04.y. .. , . .• - " . ' .1 -• '....‘ 1. . a • er .fr ... 4. . . - : T. : ' •.., : . tr....cf. 7. - Ai. ... , _ • : :-.0( • r. 4' "4 •It a l'••. ' . • ' 4 l' . • • ' r, _, • nig't ' . ; t . .. , F''' 14- , I • 1 • . I , ••,- .1 i iiiir -.- • , , - , .1414e4 ._ r- Ak 4 .. •. ii....1 au. ,•i• . - It ilt lir , •••' $1.- -4 -I r , 1 _. _...... _ lib t i - .A_I 111 iimmailemmuomm. .., . • mph, , - • . _ ,_ -•, .. , - ' , S. • . - . ' • - .• .• 44 Ten pedestrians crossing Audubon at McGlynn 9/3/16 ', i: 4* u• , 4.: -. ..,-.„ cse,,s1/44 . litt . . .1.., f,:lijAirr— ••• ,t-w,•. --•• .. Ut— IF* a• - , - . .4 li" ,:, ,,,;••• .4P 44;,)4•- •r 44 4. h CI *it - . il L ,: y h .„4 -0 t ,A.• .X- a . .... . .4 .. t , - ;••`'•:‘,•• • , .' A " '.s i'te., ...- •„ I ri;,:;•"4, ,...;*"4- $1411' 't ,i.,,,_ , - ... .. „, . • -f4...s,,' . ,, ,; ,,, ,. • a -...01.•,-..,1- ..-, ek I ' ,.!If 1' • . .-.0,'',- •''''"- ..1.• 41, , ..,..,, • 4t.,..T1.1. ,.4-way ,r. • •.__-..,,, ..3 it ....,.. . _ , I ki I SJ - - .1.0PrPi •jt „ , t ' ,, • I, - — — ii • - A IF. Prillir 4...i.. sr ,- .... - .. t ii ; et 4 , 1 ......... .:14.ccza ., , .. . ... .. • . . Car stopping for family in the road on Audubon. 9/3/16 ,y r4 • ..i...).W.4% -..' ` •+ mss. � w "# F 4 s, •., , -r ? ,.r .; r •s • • ', lits „ t •+ iii 7/ � •r'�'• •L . I, t I V w prr fRr •Ig II 1 :1 : • • •. C';.` fid_.,.a►•*,' Car pulled over at Paisley Park 9/3/16 . , . NI. , . . . ' • '' '' . .. . . , • .,. , • '7 • -• P. -_ .$14.4- • , , ....,,_ ,. 4. fr. ... • 4. . • ••• r . • 7 . .1 .1+1 1 rill i 113.111k ..... nmelmlmomlommkJIMas i , Old. e NI • ••.--- .. _ - i;•Pe '•. r-• ., - Ten pedestrians crossing Audubon from McGlynn 9/3/16 lilt0 ‘,. .w. _ 1....,....., s. I' . • %. '4" iti# C • v. r ''M ' ., ': " ` '4 . _ "sem ' ti' %... 1,r air -• +. _ ►.• .. N� r-� r'3 i�, -• y4e :- 5 y / i wal' ` .1o4:414 X11, `' y ' .+ r ..� .a r '4*la' ti 'tom t r • i Brown vehicle pulled over to sit and wait for passenger while White vehicle passes. Headed North, just south of Paisley Park 9/3/16 • • • • picture 1 picture 2 picture 3 1 '?' .moi•.';r jry -vas s } 4.-- .1" I - ••••••••• • "1"146.1/1. •�. picture 4 picture 5 Picture one - Red vehicle pulls over into the crosswalk across McGlynn in picture one Picture two - Red vehicle pulls up further now completely covering the crosswalk Picture 3 - attempting to get a picture of the pedestrians you can still see the red vehicle on the crosswalk Picture 4 - Red vehicle is still there and finally goes out into traffic while at least four cars are stopped on Audubon South. This is all going on as the brown vehicle from the page above was stopped on the East side of Audubon headed North. F • t%...1..,• , ._....- * -.I.„:„.,...T.,,,,,,,I. , ,. .._..-..,... . •, . ,„. 1 p--. my. '...5 lug • "-Ar 406— I . 1---,,iia « 14 14`.;ar E s =.�..a �` a " r `111111.1.1. "-Ziaa , ",'b` �.t An example of six cars stopped on the side of the road to take a look. Bottom right picture the biker nearly ran into the black minivan. 9/3/16 t k; < is • '�1�r . •Li.: Uber pick up at McGlynn and Audubon headed south 9/3/16 .„ ,z :L _. , ,14 • t Drop off at McGlynn and Audubon. Driver turned around and did a U-Turn at McGlynn and headed North on Audubon 9/3/16 it: J+..,R .+ .• L • A , I. ` t iiiiimbibb..... itt 3 Three images of pedestrians and a bicyclist standing on the outside of the barricade. 9/3/16 There are real issues that continue to concern me about this project. In my opinion it is being rushed through with little concern for the community, visitors and infrastructure. Limited parking spaces and snowfall, long hours of operation, and pedestrian crossing need to be addressed thoughtfully prior to approval by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Thank you so much for considering my opinion. Sincerely, Wendy OConnor Aanenson, Kate From: Nancy Pexa <nancy.pexa@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 10:20 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Concerns about Safety Due to Paisley Park Museum Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Flagged I have lived in this quiet, peaceful neighborhood since October 2012. I am very concerned about the traffic being routed on Audubon Road, Lyman, and Park. I think this is just another way to increase taxes to citizens living in Chanhassen. The extreme waits at the light at Audubon and 5 are enough to drive one crazy. It is a speed zone - faster and faster as you proceed. If you are waiting at the intersection of Powers and 5 to turn into the banks, stores, etc. your car shakes from the speeders. I believe the leaders of our community led by the Mayor Denny Laufenburger should open their eyes and remember they do not represent one person -- they represent each individual member of our community. This is a hot issue at present -- in five years will it still be abuzz or might we be repaving roads from wear, having a greater presence of county and state employees being paid through our taxes. Thank you for bringing this to our attention --.I am not sure I can be at the meeting of the City Planning Commission. Nancy Pexa 8680 Alisa Lane Chanhassen, MN i Aanenson, Kate From: Melanie Mertes <melaniemertes@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 9:02 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Paisley Park Concerns Attachments: Paisley Park Impacts.docx Hi Kate, Thank you for your letter addressing concerns regarding the Paisley Park project. I am a resident that is deeply concerned on the impact such a tourist attraction is going to have on our daily lives in Chanhassen. As a resident, I do not see the museum having a positive impact- it is not a place to dine, not a place to spend time with family or the community, not a retail business.The only impact the museum is going to bring to Chanhassen is through-traffic.... through our neighborhoods, through our school intersections, through our already busy Highway 5. I am hoping to attend the meeting tonight- I am assuming it is at City Hall? I've attached a document that outlines my concerns. Regards, Melanie Mertes What I ask for the Planning Committee to consider is the best intentions of our residents. How is the opening of the tourist attraction at Paisley Park going to affect our residents? How is it going to serve or impact our city? The museum is not going to serve our residents in their daily lives. Some of our residents may tour the museum once in their lifetime. So does the museum serve our residents? Not really. But opening the museum will definitely impact our residents. One factor the traffic report left out is Google Maps. Google Maps is how people get directions and from Hwy. 212, Google Maps takes you left on Lyman and north on Audubon. These are the roads our teenagers drive to school, to activities.Audubon is a road that goes through our backyards, runs next to our biking and walking paths.Audubon is the road that takes us to our elementary schools. This would take a road that has some traffic at the beginning and the end of the workday Monday-Friday,with relatively low traffic in the afternoon, evenings and weekends - into a highly traveled road 7 days a week, and especially on the weekends. Proposed hours for the attraction is 9am-9pm. This is essentially every waking hour of the day. Please consider the businesses surrounding the area. They are mainly 8-5pm, Monday- Friday.Allowing such a wide range of hours does not fit in. Traffic on this road can travel 5-10 miles over the speed limit and rarely stops for pedestrians in the crosswalks. Tourists are not going to be looking out for our safety when their destination is down the road. What is the impact of the museum going to be for our Chanhassen residents? Increased traffic. Lowered property values. The museum is not going to increase anyone's property value, if anything, it is going to turn people away with the increased traffic concerns. The other safety area not addressed by the traffic report is the pedestrian crossing from the path on the west side of Audubon/Hwy. 5 which connects to the bike path that goes under Highway 5. It is already a dangerous crossing with traffic trying to turn onto Hwy. 5 and merge into ongoing traffic. If the proposal for a museum does go through, I ask our city planners to at least trim back the hours of operation to match those of the surrounding businesses - 9am-5pm. Let's give back the last 4 hours of the day to our residents to enjoy the streets and intersections that surround their homes. Let's allow our residents to enjoy their backyards, pathways and parks. Let's think this through. The decisions made in the next few weeks will impact our city, our residents, from this point on. Will a tourist attraction open 12 hours a day, 7 days a week serve our community or negatively impact our residents? Our priorities should be with the people who live here and call Chanhassen their home. Aanenson, Kate From: Brian <bhaak0l@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 12:57 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Prince Museum Proposal Hi Kate. My name is Brian Haak. I moved back to my hometown of Chanhassen two years ago with my wife and our three young children. We love the city of Chanhassen and all that it has to offer.The small town feel is great, as well as the sense of community within the city.Those assets are likely a big part of the reason why the city has ranked so highly in the past as such a great place to live. When I read about the potential change in zoning for the land where the proposed Prince museum would be located, I became very concerned. I live South of this property,just off of Audubon. I am very concerned about the effect that a zoning change could potentially have on the quality of life in our neighborhood due to a drastic increase in traffic through our neighborhoods. I moved back to Chanhassen in part because I want to be able to provide a safe place to raise my young family, and I don't believe that this zoning change would be an improvement in that respect. I ask that the City of Chanhassen reconsider the change to the zoning of the property and not allow the opening of the museum. I think that a museum on this property would considerably detract from the community that the City of Chanhassen has worked so hard to create. Thank you very much for your consideration, and please do not hesitate to contact me directly with any questions. Thanks again Kate, and have a great afternoon! Brian, Chandra, Maya, Peter, and Adam Haak bhaak0l@gmail.com 651.335.2076 8719 Osprey Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Chanhassen Planning Commission— September 20, 2016 the rear lot coverage in the amount of 30 percent by 4.5 percent and allow a 15-foot reduction in the wetland setback and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision. Aller: Having a motion by Commissioner Yusuf. Do I have a second? Madsen: Second. Aller: Commissioner Madsen seconds the motion. Any further discussion? Yusuf moved,Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the variance request to allow hard cover to exceed 25 percent by 8.14 percent, allow a detached accessory structure to exceed the rear lot coverage in the amount of 30 percent by 4.5 percent and allow a 15-foot reduction in the wetland setback and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Aller: So the motion carries. The variance is denied. If you wish to appeal that variance you should do so in writing with the City and the follow up date on that matter before the City Council would again be October 10, 2016. Okay. PUBLIC HEARING: PAISLEY PARK MUSEUM—REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7801 AUDUBON ROAD FROM INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK(IOP) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IOP TO FACILITATE THE USE OF THE BUILDING AS A MUSEUM. Aanenson: Thank you Chair,members of the Planning Commission. This request is for a rezoning. There are some other things that go along with the rezoning but the legislative action is to rezone. The property is located at 7801 Audubon Road and the, as stated in the staff report the Bremer Trust is requesting through the special administration or the estate of Prince Roger Nelson to request a use for a museum. The location again is 7801 Audubon Road is located right off of Highway 5 and also access by Audubon Drive or excuse me Audubon Road which is also a collector street. In looking at the request the access again, two streets and that site is 9 acres and the building, existing building footprint is 46,150 square feet and I'll get in a little bit more detail on that in a minute. So the site is guided office industrial and that's what we're,that's the underlying zoning district that will be going with is also industrial. Everything around this property is industrial and this is taken from our land use map. The property shown with the star on it here, this is the property. The City's public works is just behind that property and so the request again for the museum is just for this subject site itself and it's just a rezoning at this time. In looking at the applicant's request for the site and how they see it being used,there's no interior remodeling at this time. I know I've given you emails and there's 3 more that I handed out tonight that will become part of the record. There were emails that were attached to that. Similar questions asked about why wasn't this treated like some other buildings we've done in 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission—September 20, 2016 town. There's no site plan review. We're not looking at the architecture or anything but there are certain codes that will be required in order for this to open and I'll go through those again in a minute so again we're looking at the rezoning so included in your packet is the underlying IOP district. So whatever is silent on that is what you would be following for example the hard cover requirements and the like. So in this circumstance when we created the PUD we were specific on things that would be permitted and then some of the other standards for the PUD district and again I'll go through those in a minute too. So in the staff report itself we talk about what's the intent of the PUD district and does this meet the requirements and we have done that as a part of our analysis. Talking about the 5-acre intent. Again it's similar to the other uses in the district as far as types of uses in the office industrial. So the existing building itself, as I stated there's no architectural changes to the building right now so this is how it will currently be accessed off Audubon Road so the Assistant City Engineer will be going through in a little bit more detail of the access and parking situation but that's one of the main drivers. So we look at this use itself, it's really a change in assembly and we do this all the time in the city. A business goes out. Another business goes in. It may change the type of occupancy, whether it's an office or to recreation or something like that so in this circumstance we're going from a recording studio to the use of an assembly occupancy, therefore architectural plans for the interior of the building are required and they are required through the City process. Building permit process to get approval based on those plans. That they meet all the building code requirements. They're in process working on that right now so again the action that you're looking at tonight, it's a legislative action, the zoning itself and how it will be used so that is going on separately but we've identified in the staff report those things that we are tracking and again to give them direction on the expectations as a part of being able to operate the museum. And again the main points on that were that we had talked about with the applicant is a perimeter fencing as a possibility around the site and we put that in the PUD because it would be opaque all the way around and that would help deter some of the walk up traffic so there's not the conflict with walk up traffic and people that wanted to look in. I didn't go through too much in exact, all the details of the business plan. Hours of operation. There was no limitations of hours of operation although they've identified hours of operation in their business plan. Again General Mills runs 24/7 but based on their operational plan it wouldn't be much past midnight and that would mostly be on the weekends. I think one of the other things that we are very pleased about and it has been practice out there, there's no alcohol. This isn't a nightclub. This is a museum so there's no alcohol permitted out there. Again in the office industrial district you are allowed to do a percentage of your retail building or there will be items for sale. Merchandise for sale. In addition, there will be snacks and beverages available too so those are included in the PUD so again everybody understands that's part of the operation. Again the intent under the PUD was also to provide some, as they have in the past which we have done a temporary use permit but we're trying to codify that and put it into the code so those would be placed, opportunities where they would have maybe special events. Again all interior. There's no outdoor activities with this so everything would be on the inside once a month doing concerts so again those would be permitted once a month. The only thing they would check with us if there's, letting us know the capacity who's going to be out there. That they're busing them in because that's what they've done in the past when there's not sufficient parking on the site so those would be monitored and 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission— September 20, 2016 again that's typically done through letting us know, letting the fire department know. Our Fire Marshal know that they would be doing something like that and again there may be those occasions depending, and I'll let the operator talk a little bit more about this,where they might do some special events. Some business opportunities. School opportunities where they would do some special programming out there. Again all that would be inside. There's no outdoor activities and that's explicit in the PUD and again that's one of the reasons why we wanted to put it into a PUD so everybody understands the operational function of the building. I did put in here for your edification, I did put a copy of the PUD ordinance and I'll just take a minute to go through that just for everybody's benefit here too. So the intent is to create opportunity for a museum at this. Again it's a change in assembly which requires different architectural interior standards they would have to meet and one of the other things with that for the staff to sign off on is to meet the parking standards and again we'll go through that in more detail and so if there's not all the required parking then they would have to take measures to provide busing onto the site so they can accommodate parking on site so again the permitted uses would be the museum, recording studio. They had talked at one time potentially using this as a boutique hotel. Again that would require going through permitting on that because it would be interior remodeling. Again that would be something that we would just do administratively. Again the code allows minor changes. Up to 10 percent internally so we would just make sure that they have enough parking. That it would meet building codes. And then so then again putting 2 buildings on one lot. We talked about no more than 20 percent of the floor area being retail sales which again is in the underlying IOP district. And the prohibitive ones we talked about is the no outdoor events and again no liquor sale or consumption so I think that's again meets the intent of what, of how we saw this business being used. And then we talked about the parking and the different scenarios on that and I'll let the Assistant City Engineer go through those scenarios in a little bit more detail talking about there's kind of a menu of choices depending on how they get that put together by the end of, when they want to open and then throughout the year so again there's some additional permitting on that. I also included in your packet, if there was questions on the underlying industrial office district. Some of the uses that were permitted so the uses that are permitted right now are of greater depth and breadth of types of uses so we've narrowed that down under permitted uses but again the other parts of the district would still remain and that would be the lot size. The coverage. The 70 percent coverage. The height of the principal buildings. Again we don't anticipate any of those being changed and if a new building did request to go on the site, anything beyond that, anything beyond minor would come back for site plan review so again because there's been a lot of questions of why isn't this a site plan review. Because it's interior work except for the parking lot to accommodate that so anything beyond a minor change which I know they're trying to connect 2 parking lots but significantly beyond that they may need watershed district approval but because they would be a jurisdiction but other than that it would be internally with the City. So with that I'm going to turn it over to Alyson Fauske to go through the traffic issues. Aller: Great, thank you. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission—September 20, 2016 Fauske: Thank you Kate. Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. It's my pleasure to go over some of the traffic concerns that were looked at when evaluating the site for the PUD. As noted in the and included in the staff report as an attachment to the staff report SRF provided a very extensive overview of the proposal and Matt Pacyna who put together the report is here this evening in case there are some specific questions to the traffic report that the Planning Commission or any members of the public may have. The first step in the analysis is taking a look at the anticipated operations of the site which the applicant provided to SRF which was a 65 guest per tour, tours departing every 10 minutes. From that they established an estimated total volume which is shown here on this slide for the existing and the build condition. In summary 80 percent of the traffic is proposed to come from the east on Highway 5 to the site with 5 percent coming from the west and then 15 percent coming from the south so they looked at the most, the highest use of the site to take a look at those trip generations. When looking at the proposed condition here on Audubon we do see a traffic increase of, the SRF counted about 4,400 vehicles per day which is in line with what the City has, the information the City has gathered throughout the years. We do traffic counts out here every 2 years as part of our cooperation with the Minnesota Depai tment of Transportation so we do see that the existing condition is close to what staff has seen and then under the proposed condition that section of Audubon between Highway 5 and McGlynn Road would go up to about 7,800 trips per day. Out of the analysis SRF determined what, what's the peak time and by that it means what, at what point in the day would we expect to see the most vehicles on the site. The analysis concluded that a weekday p.m. trip would be a peak which is between 5:30 and,pardon me. 4:30 and 5:30 p.m. during the weekday and then the Saturday midday between 11:45 and 12:45 p.m. Out of that analysis again with the assumption of 65 guests per tour,tours departing every 10 minutes the SRF analysis identified 2 intersections where under existing conditions there was a concern. One is for traffic coming from the east so westbound Highway 5 traffic coming up to the signalized intersection at Audubon. The analysis showed there would be a potential queuing into Highway 5 under the current conditions and configuration of the street system so that was one intersection that was identified after the initial analysis. And then the second one was this northern access of the site that the queues for northbound Audubon would extend past this access and would block the access. So with that they took a look at some level of service improvements and pardon me. Looked at the level of services and wanted to see what type of improvements could be done to the site as well as external from the site to improve those intersections and alleviate the concerns that were identified in the staff report. So one of them is what's known as optimizing signal timing on Highway 5. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has been in contact with SRF regarding this site. They've indicated that there is a camera at this intersection. They're able to monitor that and would be able to adjust the signal timing based on what they're seeing out there for traffic and they were comfortable with what was shown both from the SRF analysis and what they can do based on what they're monitoring with their traffic cameras. The second recommendation was with regards to the northern access to the site. Currently the access is approximately 100 feet south of Highway 5. We would be looking to shift that so it would be about 220 feet south of Highway 5 and staff is also recommending that we would restrict this to a right out of the site just to provide some better traffic circulation and look at having this southern access off Audubon as the main entrance. That would be a hybrid of 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission— September 20, 2016 what the SRF recommendation. They had 2 options that they presented and summarized on page 10 of the staff report so it's, what staff is recommending is a hybrid of the 2 options of the SRF report. One of the other recommendations that staff is recommending is restriping Audubon Road to include a left turn lane so that there would be a designated turn lane into the site and travelers would have an opportunity to queue on Audubon Road while allowing the thru traffic southbound on Audubon to pass by. The other thing that staff looked at and SRF report looked at was, and Kate had mentioned as well as the parking. With the SRF analysis the proposed or pardon me. The projected trips to the site were based on 65 guests per tour and 10 minute departures and when we look at making recommendations we wanted to take a step back and take a holistic look at it so that we weren't getting into the details of how many people per tour and how often they could depart and looked at it and made a simplistic recommendation that the tour sizes would be limited such that the on site parking would be able to accommodate guests that are arriving by vehicles. By passenger vehicles so that would allow if they wanted to do tour bus only. No guest parking on site they could do that. If they wanted to do a hybrid they could certainly do something like that and as Kate mentioned with her site plan it provides some options as far as what improvements they would like to do at the site and see how things start to operate before they make any site improvements. And as Kate also mentioned we took a look at the 4 scenarios which are outlined on page 12 to come up with that recommendation and that's also included in the PUD recommendations for the site. So in short the recommendations we took a look at either leaving the site as it is. We would restrict this northern access. There would be restriping on Audubon. If they make a connection between the north and south parking lot, we would again look to have this northern access restricted. Aanenson: Thank you Alyson. So with that I just want to point out in the PUD ordinance there is a menu of parking options depending on where they are and ultimately I know their goal is to be open this fall so not all the improvements may not be achieved by that time so there's different scenarios of how to manage those. Those are all built into the PUD ordinance as the Assistant City Engineer just went through so we feel comfortable that based on those choices that they can accommodate that based on what they get improved that staff is comfortable with those parking situations. So because of that we are recommending that you recommend to the City Council approving of the rezoning of Lot 11, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park from IOP to PUD and the adoption of the PUD ordinance and the attached Findings of Fact. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have and then obviously open the public hearing. Aller: Any questions of staff at this point? Randall: I do. Alyson I actually have a question for you. Was there any provision for signage at all to route traffic through different areas? So I'm thinking of someone driving on 212. They're headed out to Chan for the first time. Fauske: We've had some discussions with regards to having like for example the brown,the brown directional signs for a museum, for city hall,public buildings, that sort of thing. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission—September 20, 2016 Randall: Okay. Fauske: That we would look at having some signage like that but nothing in great detail at this time. Randall: Okay. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: So in conjunction with this request can we also consider some of the areas around there? For example, McGlynn Road and the parking and the people who go across Audubon and the safety of those people. Aanenson: What we looked at, that was one of the issues we brought up in the traffic study and maybe Matt would like to speak to it a little bit more but we did ask for that, one of our goals was to try to eliminate that walk up and the operator will talk about how they are selling tickets and how they're approaching getting people on the site to check so we don't have that. That was one of the reasons we encouraged the fence so we don't have the, it's less enticing to come up and try to look. If you don't have a ticket you can't get on the property so those are some of the things that to manage all that,that we're working with them on and I think by we're having that fence would help some of that, if that's your question. And also the goal is they have to be parking on their property. Not across the street unless they were to come back and get approval for a parking lot or something to the like. Madsen: Can the City consider no parking signs on McGlynn for people who just want to drive up and who cross Audubon just to look? Fauske: To establish a no parking zone requires City Council action. We haven't looked at that at this time due to, as Kate mentioned that there's certain site improvements and the operations of the site would not be conducive for walk up traffic. That's certainly something that we could take a look at in the future if we're still seeing high pedestrian counts. If we want to revisit that we could certainly include that in our analysis. Madsen: Okay. I also have a question about the proposed fence. Does the City in it's ordinances have sort of an upkeep and maintenance of fencing which would kind of outline how it would be maintained? Aanenson: That's correct. Yep. So the difference in this one, it is requesting it be opaque. That's why we put that in there because typically we have a transparency requirement. So yes there is a maintenance requirement for fencing. Madsen: Thank you. 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission—September 20, 2016 Aller: Commissioner Randall did you have another question? Commissioner Tietz? Tietz: Yeah. Kate it's customary for plans, not just a narrative of a proposed activity be submitted by an applicant. It seems like what I'm hearing from Alyson and in reading the report the staff has essentially designed a traffic and parking plan for them. I think we should wait and see official plans from the applicant prior to approving anything. Aanenson: Well if you look at the traffic study, the traffic study does have the ultimate parking on there so. Tietz: I understand that but there's, you know there are alternatives to the access. There's alternatives to internal circulation. The staff has a position but we don't know if the applicant has a position. Have they accepted the responsibility to implement that? Aanenson: I'll let them address that. Tietz: Also on, why do we have hotels called out on the PUD? Aanenson: Because if you look at their business plan that's one thing they talked about with the silo building. Tietz: So we're accepting that? Aanenson: Correct. Tietz: But they also in your document that there will be tents in the northwest corner. How do you, how do you. Aanenson: We talked about that in the narrative. So the building code limits a tent to 180 days and so what we said is that, that we would ultimately like to see that a permanent structure. That would be somewhere off the kitchen if you were to go just sit on the premises and rest for a little bit that would be permitted. It's between the. Tietz: So the tents would be open during a concert event? Aanenson: It's one tent in this area right here. Tietz: Right. Aanenson: Yeah, yep. You saw that on their business plan drawing, correct. Tietz: Right. But that would be accessible during a performance event? That's an outside activity. 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission— September 20, 2016 Aanenson: Well there wouldn't be music out there. There would just be people out there, yeah. Tietz: That's the question. Aller: Any additional questions at this time? Okay, we'll hear from the applicant. If you could state your name and address for the record and your representational capacity,please. Pat Mazural: Thank you Mr. Chair and commissioners. My name is Pat Mazural, 9501 Virginia Avenue South, Bloomington, Minnesota and my role here is as a consultant with Bremer Trust and Bremer Trust of course is the applicant and the Special Administrator for the Estate of Prince Rogers Nelson. I'd like to say a few comments about,by way of background and our due diligence with the operator and answer questions that you might have including some that have already been asked. Mr. Nelson was an international celebrity. He sold over 100 million records. Received 7 Grammy awards, 1 Golden Globe and 1 Academy Award. Tragically on April 21st Prince passed away. He passed away here in Chanhassen at Paisley Park where he had created, recorded, often performed and welcomed renowned entertainment giants from all over the world. The purpose of a museum at Paisley Park is to preserve the legacy of an international celebrity. He was an extraordinary talent and a unique musical artist. He chose Chanhassen as his home and the people of Chanhassen as his neighbors. Paisley Park is a unique facility within the music industry because it represents all the work of one of the most recognized international artistic celebrities of our time. Bremer Trust with support and encouragement from members of his family has recognized that a museum at Paisley Park is the only appropriate location to commemorate the work and life of Prince. Chanhassen is where he built his legacy. Chanhassen is surely where he would want that legacy preserved. Preserving the legacy of Prince means doing it in a way that honors not only his extraordinary work and the extent of his work but also represents the neighbor that he was to this community. Bremer Trust has recognized that meeting that goal has required and will require the best,most experienced, creative, artistically sensitive and community sensitive of operators. The property closest in purpose and an operational logistics to this is Graceland in Memphis which commemorates Elvis Presley. Several of us, myself included went on tour of Graceland. We saw a very high level of traffic coordination. The use of shuttles. Timing of crowd tours. A very cordial welcoming of guests and the use of technology to make the tour experience pleasant. To make it educational and even to make it moving. All matters that were anticipated would be of the greatest importance to the family and to the estate but we have assumed would also be of great important to Chanhassen. Behind the scenes due diligence of the Graceland operation revealed a high level of thoughtfulness, logistical discipline and expertise in the coordination of operations. In their financial record keeping and reporting and the archiving of artifacts and attention to detail. Attention to the artist's brand and attention to the community impact. Great deal of communication, engagement and coordination has occurred between Graceland and the community. All are a priority there. We saw there an attraction that's a natural demonstration of the artist's life. It's not a contrived exhibition. From interviews and having spent significant time with the owner of Graceland Holdings, with personnel as well as the CEO and lead 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission— September 20, 2016 executives of Graceland and witnessing the operators culture it's clear that our experience of excellence and diligence and community sensitivity will be replicated at Paisley Park. As this application has been processed with community development staff it's been gratifying to see that issues raised by city staff and by residents are the same issues that were anticipated and that Bremer looked to in it's due diligence, planning and questioning of the operator. Those are issues of hours of operation. Of vehicle traffic. Control of attendance and tour flow. Security. Community impact. They were all given ample consideration and questioned. Graceland has dealt well with all of these same issues and their many years of experience and forms and guides the response to those matters. Just briefly about community impact. Bremer Trust, LPark Management, LLC which is the managing operator that will manage Paisley Park if it is approved, and the family of Prince recognize that Chanhassen is a beautiful, well planned community with a lot of attraction to many outside of the city. You've got attraction in entertainment with your Chanhassen Dinner Theater. You've got attraction in sports with the adjacent Hazeltine Golf Course about to host the Ryder Cup and has hosted the PGA tournament and the US Open. You've got attraction for those enthusiasts of nature and art with your Arboretum. All has been planned and handled well for your community and brings people from well beyond the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The museum at Paisley Park proposes to be another well planned and well managed attraction and a good neighbor providing jobs for residents and bringing customers to your businesses. Since the application the operator has hosted a job fair at the Dinner Theater where over 600 applicants appeared. Many are now employed in archiving and otherwise preparing the facility. The operator has engaged local suppliers for property improvement and will engage others for food, transportation and necessary services. There are other places where this could be done. There have been requests to locate the museum and actually to relocate Paisley Park to other locations, even outside of the United States where Prince remains a celebrity. But Chanhassen has been Prince's chosen home for 30 years and with this commemoration of his legacy we request that you let it remain his home so thank you much for your consideration. I can answer some questions but I want you to also be introduced to several here. Several individuals who have had significant roles in this proposal and they're here to let you know their commitment to making this museum a valued asset of Chanhassen and if there are any questions that I'm unable to answer there certainly will be someone here who can answer them for you. We have here Todd Phelps who's an attorney with Stinson Leonard Street in Minneapolis. He's engaged in real estate and land use practice. We have Jill Radloff, also an attorney with Stinson Leonard Street who has been engaged in the contract negotiations with Graceland Holdings. We have Craig Ordall who is the President of Bremer Trust. Joel Weinshanker who is the majority owner of Graceland Holdings LLC and that is the organization which will wholly own PPark Management LLC. He's the operator who stands behind the success of this project. We also have Regina Gamble. Regina is the Vice President of Operations and General Manager for Elvis Presley Enterprises. She's here from Graceland and of course has worked closely with Joel Weinshanker and with Graceland Holdings in the operation of Graceland. So again thank you for your time. Aller: Thank you. Any questions at this point? Hearing none, okay. 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission—September 20, 2016 Aanenson: Mr. Chair I'd like to go back to answer Mr. Tietz's question because I'm not sure I understood it. Or didn't answer it correctly. You asked me about parking. When they provide additional parking, yes. They're required to provide civil plans and the like for a parking expansion. What we're saying right now, it can be operational if they accommodate it using buses and alternatives. Right now there are large events handled on special,under a special events permit where they bus people in and that's how it's accommodated so yes. When they expand the parking lot they will have to go through a civil, private civil plans. Go through the watershed district. Review all our requirements. They're adjacent to a creek. To meet all those standards and they're aware of that. Tietz: Well I understand that Kate. My concern is that some of the issues that were identified in the SRF study, and that Alyson presented to us, if they're not implemented in a timely manner we will have serious traffic issues at that intersection and one of it's moving the north access point down and restricting the lanes and potentially if, on Highway 5 if the queuing isn't satisfactory and if they can't control it with signalization there may have to be an expansion of the queuing lanes so there's a lot of issues that I didn't see a timeline established with them that I think are really critical to the success of the project. And if I'm traveling from far away and I can't get to the site because traffic is a concern or if I have to ride a bus you know 15 miles, like we have to get to the Ryder Cup,that's going to be a potential problem and I think the circulation internal to the site,we need to see a plan that they commit to and have a time schedule to implement. That's all I'm asking. Aanenson: And that's part of what we stated in order for them to get occupancy,parking is tied to that. There has to be a defined parking plan. How they're going to operation it for us to give, again that's the internal part of getting a Certificate of Occupancy that they can meet those requirements. Tietz: But is that 2 months? 6 months? 8 months? 12 months? When would it be implemented? Aanenson: Well they're working on all those right now. Tietz: Okay. Aanenson: Yes, Tietz: But none of it would be in place by October 3rd Aanenson: I believe most of them will, yes. The striping yes. That's, correct me if I'm wrong. Tietz: The north access point is going to be moved and repaving connecting the parking lots internally? You know I don't want to be a nuisance here but I think there's a lot of issues that. 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission— September 20, 2016 Aanenson: Yep, the watershed district has given approval. Tietz: And most of it is safety and security of folks arriving and of the neighbors and of the community. It's a great asset to the community, don't get me wrong. I think we just want to be sure that we do it properly so it's successful. Aanenson: Correct and I concur with that. That's the issues we raised and we've been in discussion with them and they want to have a good experience because if it's not it's not going to be successful and we want to have a safe community so we both have the same goal. Tietz: Good. Aanenson: So I think we're both marching down this path to get to that point. Tietz: Thank you. Pat Mazural: And commissioners if I may add to that. There are several scenarios contained in the staff report which have been very helpful to understand what's needed out there to make this a pleasant experience for not only those who are attending but those others in the neighborhood and as I look at the various scenarios essentially one of those is a scenario 3 which includes the, essentially the driveway between the north and south parking lots. That will be completed by opening day so that will be done as community development staff has represented. The striping is in process. The other piece of this is that the entrance that is nearest to Highway 5 will be,the north entrance, will be an exit only entrance. It will not be moved by the time of opening but that's something that could occur later. It will be right only and that, understand that that driveway between north and south is what allows that to happen. It's sort of a loop. I believe the only piece of this, and I want to make sure we have this clear is that one part of scenario 3 includes sidewalks installed to accommodate foot traffic and that may come later? Aanenson: Yeah that was, that was eliminated from part of the PUD ordinance because that will come later, correct. And that way we'll see the civils on and do that but ultimately you want some internal walking sidewalks too. Pat Mazural: So there is a plan that's been informed by the study and with wonderful input and talking to the city staff. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: So as I understand it scenario 3 should be basically ready by opening day, except for the items that you just referred to and so the parking lot will not be expanded by that time so will you be making the tour size smaller or will you be busing certain people in? How will you accommodate that? 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission— September 20, 2016 Pat Mazural: The operator is committed to bus where needed to maintain the conditions within the parking lot so we don't over park. And also parking on heavy days will in all likelihood be a hybrid of buses and parking anyway where during that maximum, those peak times those that are on what's been termed the VIP tour may be parking on site but others will be bused. Shuttle bused. Madsen: So when people purchase their tickets will they know if they get parking with it or will they go and drive around the parking until a spot becomes available? Pat Mazural: There will be no tickets sold on site so everyone will have their tickets in advance. They'll know where it is. The tickets if they're sold on site will include the parking fee to park on site and there will be parking monitors out there so that people are arriving within a prescribed time of their tour and not filling the lot except during the time that they're touring. Madsen: Okay. And if I may I have a question about the parking monitors. The business plan indicates that the attendants will immediately review the parking tickets to confirm that it's okay for the vehicle to be there but if they do that immediately upon entering the parking lot, won't that cause a back-up of traffic on Audubon? Pat Mazural: Actually with the sufficient number of parking monitors and with this lane I was talking about, the traffic will be circulating from the south entrance to the north entrance so it will keep it moving. Madsen: Okay, thank you. Pat Mazural: Yeah. Aller: Any additional questions at this time? Okay, thank you. Pat Mazural: Thank you. Aller: Did we want to hear from the traffic analyst first? But for. Aanenson: Unless there's questions. He's here to listen... Aller: Okay so I think what we'll do then is we'll open up the public hearing so the analyst can hear the questions and comments and perhaps address them at that time. Great. So at this point we'll open up the public hearing portion of this item. It's an opportunity for those present to speak either for or against this presentation and the application or make comment upon it. So if you'd like to come up and make a comment you would come to the podium. State your name and address for the record and then proceed. Welcome. 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission—September 20, 2016 Shirley McGee: Welcome. Thank you. My name is Shirley McGee and I'm a resident of Chanhassen at 1950 Andrew Court which is close proximity to Paisley Park. Got a couple of concerns. One is about, did they give consideration to inspecting the cars or if that's going to be one of the issues because I noticed throughout the time when they had affairs there,the traffic would jam because they're going under the cars and they're inspecting them for security reasons so has that been introduced into the plan of coming off of 5 or how is that going to work? Aller: I think what we can do to try to keep this moving is, if you tell me that you'll address that then we'll go ahead and address that when. Shirley McGee: Okay, and I'll give you my other question. Aller: Absolutely. Shirley McGee: Can this be a museum without being rezoned? That was one of my main questions because I have a serious problem with the hoteling part. If they're going to build a hotel like they did at Graceland I'm not in favor of it. That part. Aller: Great, well make sure that that gets answered for you. Shirley McGee: Thanks. Aller: Any other individuals wishing to come forward? Welcome. Lynne Etling: Hi, Lynne Etling and I live a couple blocks from Paisley Palace, 7681 Century Boulevard and I'll just keep mine brief. The major concerns that I have obviously are the traffic and the pedestrian traffic but the one thing that's not clear to me is the parking lot is not,the additional parking lot is not going to be done beforehand right and if you're going to be inspecting cars before they actually enter the parking lot,that's one question. Where are they going to go and the biggest question I have is, how are they going to know if they're going to be bused in or driven in and therefore where are all these buses going to park? That's a bigger question. Aller: Thank you. Lynne Etling: You're welcome. Aller: Welcome. Wendy O'Connor: Hi. My name's Wendy O'Connor and I live at 1702 Valley Ridge Trail North. I've talked a bit with Kate and submitted quite a few things just because I live very close by and I'm concerned about a number of things and I'd like to go through those briefly. Number one. Who will be the management? We keep talking about the management. The organizer. 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission— September 20, 2016 The whomever but, and I know that people from Graceland are here. People from Elvis Presley Enterprises are here but who is it? Who is the person that we can go to? Anyone? Is it you? You'll be on site? Okay. And so you. Joel Weinshanker: I'm the management partner of Graceland Holdings. I've been here many, many days. I'll continue to be here many, many days. Anyone can reach out to me. My email is Joel@Graceland.com so you can contact me directly. Wendy O'Connor: Okay so my question with that is, so. Aller: Ma'am, why don't you just go ahead and address us and we'll get them answered. Wendy O'Connor: Sorry. So my question with that is, so Graceland Holdings, I get it. You know it's Elvis and everything for Elvis but through my research I noted that Elvis Presley Enterprises was sold and then CKX bought it and then Apollo Global Management so how does Elvis Presley Enterprises and Graceland flow with that? Aller: Okay we're going to get those answered. Wendy O'Connor: Okay I just think that's a big deal. Aller: I think that's a good inquiry. Wendy O'Connor: Just because this Apollo Global Management is a privately held company. It's an investment company and you know it's not Graceland you know as we all imagine in our mind what Graceland is. So with that, nice to know who I can go to. So the McGlynn Road part which I had addressed in one of my emails to Kate. In the traffic study it said that it wasn't necessary to review McGlynn Road and so I went out on a Saturday myself and counted cars. I counted people and through that I counted over 600 pedestrians crossing illegally on Audubon Road in a 2-hour period. Just 2 hours so I know that it would be more than that and frankly I went out there thinking I'd find 30, 40. It was nonstop. I actually couldn't believe that it was that many so, and again as someone who drives past there every day, back and forth, you know I see people. I see cars stop all the time. I definitely documented it and it's probably in your packet of cars pulling over in the crosswalk. Sitting there. Causing traffic. Uber pick-up. I mean there's going to be that. Is there a plan to get Uber cars? How are they going to do that? Where are they going to pull? The sidewalk's not going to be there and it's not going to be ready in time. Where will foot traffic go? Will there be foot traffic? I don't know. You know from my opinion right now the people that I spoke to out on the street that day they're just,they want to see what's going on. They are not there because they want to see inside. Some are for sure but most people just were driving past heading home from somewhere and they want to see. They want to see what Paisley Park is so my concern is that you're still going to get the traffic driving past. You're going to have the foot traffic. We're going to have a problem. We'll have an accident and who will be holding the bag? It will be the City of Chanhassen so my 22 Chanhassen Planning Commission— September 20, 2016 recommendation as a solution would be to install a HAWK. I was speaking to a Streets Minnesota gentleman and trying to make it very safe for pedestrians. It's the High Intensity Activated Crosswalk beacon so it's similar to what we have on 101 by IWCO. I mean if safety's a concern, if we're going to have it I don't think that we want to wait until something bad happens. What is the rush? Finally, I'm almost done. So the hours. The hours are a concern to me because 9:00 to 9:00. 12 hours a day is I think a bit much. Besides the fact that the peak traffic time is 4:30 to 5:30. So if you were to actually change the hours to the hours of Graceland, because Graceland has hours of 9:00 to 5:00. If we had the hours of Graceland, you could eliminate the complete peak traffic activity. It would be done because you wouldn't have people coming at 4:30 because a tour is an hour. Or it's 60 minutes so you would completely eliminate it. There'd be no reason to keep that 9:00 to 9:00 or have that extra concern about traffic and concern about people trying to get home on 5 and concern about the traffic signals. The parking standards, I'm sorry I have one more thing. So talking about the holding traffic as they wait, I'm just curious where, we don't know where those people will go so how will when they get, when they bring their ticket in and they're supposed to check in at say let's say 2:00 but they get there at 1:30. Where do they go? So they flip around and they just drive around until it's time to go or they park in front and queue up in front of Paisley Park. I think that that's a real concern because if there's what, 6 or 300 extra trips you know that's a lot of cars. That's a lot of cars waiting so, and I think if they don't have the accommodations for it there's no need to open right away. Why wouldn't we do that? Why would we let them open so with that I think that you know and we just saw the presentation for the people with the pool and with setting the precedence to have everything right. They have been working on this they said since May. Trying to get it all correct. We've been hearing about this since August. August 13th to be exact and again it's this big rush to get it done. Let's get this done by October 6th because they want to open. Why don't we have it right the first time? Why don't we make sure it's right? It's all buttoned up. All our ducks are in a row before it opens. You cannot un-ring that bell. It's only going to be closed 2 days a year and then you're going to have construction on a parking. You're going to have construction on 5. You know all these other things. I just think it's irresponsible for us as a city to let them open right now without having everything on that list done. Aller: Thank you. Welcome. Ann Miller: Thank you. Hello,my name is Ann Miller. I live at 6561 Fox Path in Chanhassen and I've been here for 25 years so Prince beat me by 5. It has been a pleasure being here and watching Prince's studio and his home that used to be over off Galpin and we would frequently walk and bike by both places and look at them so please don't build a fence where we can't see it. I was thinking of museums on my way here. The Minneapolis Institute of Arts. The Walker Arts Center. The Russian Art Museum. They're all in neighborhoods. There are no fences. You can see everything. Prince would want us to see everything. Don't block it off. And when I go to see his museum I'm going to walk over to see it and so this is a walkable,bikeable city. We have wonderful paths, et cetera and it's just a wonderful opportunity for us but let's make it an opportunity and we have a walking bridge over. I wrote Kate an email about it. Over the Highway 5 that's not utilized very well right now and I think it could be moved down to the 23 Chanhassen Planning Commission—September 20, 2016 other part of 101 and/or Powers Boulevard so that the people who park maybe a school bus in town can use those businesses and then when it's their time to take the tour they can walk over that bridge and take the tour. I think the other thing that, the mistake that or something that needs to be remedied maybe is off of 212 there's no on or off ramps for Audubon. The only on and off ramps are at Powers and 101 so you could alleviate some of the traffic issue if you had an on/off ramp at 212 on Audubon. And the other thing is education. School buses will be coming too and if you think of the school buses lined up at the Institute of Arts or the Walker Arts Center that does happen and those places I think even have a smaller areas for parking so it can be done and there could be off site parking in other places in the city so please don't take away from the walking and bicycling senior citizen like me. Thanks. Aller: Thank you. Any additional comments from the audience. Gary O'Toole: Yeah, Gary O'Toole, 8418 Burlwood Drive. Aller: Welcome. Gary O'Toole: My compliments to staff. I went through your presentation. I think it's pretty good. Didn't really have a question until Ms. Madsen mentioned traffic and queuing and I'm thinking right down the road we have the Arboretum and I'm sure there are other members here. They have a long driveway. They have lots of monitoring. There's lots of queuing. I don't see that it goes away unless somehow the site can absorb traffic that comes in so that they can absorb it. I'm happy to hear we're talking with a traffic specialist but I think we right in our back yard have a very specific situation at the Arboretum that I just don't see with the traffic how this is going to be alleviated but you've got good people working on it. Aller: Thank you. Tim McNeill: We're Shamus and Tim McNeill. We live just south of Paisley Park at Valley Ridge Trail and Audubon and we're mostly concerned about the excess traffic north and south bound that's going to come our way because as it is it's a 45 miles an hour zone and the hill crests as it gets up to Valley Ridge Trail North and it's a really hard intersection for, especially kids but even adults to manage with the speed of the cars especially headed northbound. It's just really difficult and we'd like to be included in some of the plans to make sure that the kids and other neighbors are safe. Aller: So which one is Shamus and which one is Tim? Tim McNeill: I'm Tim. Aller: So Shamus you've been out there biking and walking around? Shamus McNeill: Yes I have. 24 Chanhassen Planning Commission— September 20, 2016 Aller: And what do you think about the traffic? Shamus McNeill: It's very busy and dangerous. Aller: Do you think, what do you think about the possibility that there will be a Prince museum? Do you like the idea or not like the idea? Shamus McNeill: I like the idea but I think we should wait until it's been more thought out. Aller: Okay, thank you. Tim McNeill: Thank you very much. Aller: Welcome. Joy Gorra: Good evening. Joy Gorra, 1680 West 78th Street and I guess I have some concerns if this is really successful what kind of expansion do you have in mind in the future. Do you plan on going over your borders and building something elsewhere? A lot of people have come up to me and wanted to know if there was going to be a Purple Rain Amusement Park so just throwing that out there. But maybe it was mentioned earlier and I missed it but I know a lot of you in, who live here in Chanhassen are aware of the first Saturday of each month at the motor complex park and that traffic is just wild for you know those first couple hours so hopefully you're going to take in mind scheduling on that first Monday. First Saturday, excuse me. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Elizabeth Kressler: Hi, good evening. Elizabeth Kressler, 1750 Valley Ridge Trail North and I actually had a couple of questions and comments with regards to the tent that has to come down after 180 days. That to me depicts that there's something outside going on even though there's no music, it depicts an outside event which is not in the plan so I'm not comfortable with the tent hanging out for that period of time. I am in agreement with Shamus and his dad with regards to crossing at Audubon into what we call the bird neighborhood. I am an avid walker. I walk anywhere from 4:00 in the morning to 9:00 at night and even our lovely community service officers do not stop at a crosswalk when I'm in it and that is a huge issue. I think I brought that up originally when we were widening Audubon and it was my concern and I actually suggested that we slow the speed limit down to 30. However, it's apparently not allowed so I'm really concerned about the upkeep of traffic because when the traffic starts to get jammed on Highway 5, those people are going to find another way. I know I would. I am all about not sitting in traffic. They're going to come right up Audubon. They're going to come flying up Audubon to get to Paisley Park because they have a tour and they've got to be on time and that's the way it's going to be and it's going to be really sad for our residents, for somebody like Shamus trying to cross over to see his friends. The other thing is, is the opaque fence. Should it go up which I am 25 Chanhassen Planning Commission— September 20, 2016 not in favor of. Will it be 6 feet or 8 feet? And so that was not addressed. As well as it was addressed, when do you address the McGlynn parking? And when I came here I left my house at 6:30 and I counted 25 people hanging out at the fence. 6:30 at night. They're not home. They're not at a sporting event. They're at 6:30 at night at Paisley Park and I avoid that intersection at all costs because already it's a nightmare. I constantly stop for people. I know I'm going to get rear ended for being a good resident and letting people cross because it's not a crosswalk so there's a lot of things that have to be done to alleviate the concerns and do it right. We make laws and rules to keep us safe and you are going to set a precedent for other people to come in and disregard those laws because you let Prince do it and you can't do that. It's not fair. It's not fair to the people that live here so I need you guys to listen to us. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Any additional comments or questions? Welcome. Melanie Mertes: Hi, I'm Melanie Mertes and I live on 8671 Flamingo Drive so the traffic on Audubon and Powers and 5 directly does impact my neighborhood and myself. My two concerns that I have is you know the purpose of a planning committee and city council is to preserve the quality of life for our residents here at Chanhassen and so we just ask that we do our due diligence before rushing into opening anything. My concerns are the traffic analysis. They're saying 15 percent would be going onto Audubon. Without signage that we had talked about people are going to use Google maps. They're not going to go according to a plan that we think looks right. Google maps from Highway 12 takes you up Audubon. That's going to bring, that's our back yards. It's people's neighborhoods. It's residential crossing. It's crossing to get to our schools and that was a reason why our neighborhood in the first place was bused rather than walking because of the existing traffic on Audubon was not safe to cross to get to our schools. We are bused in our neighborhood and we are less than a mile away. So the limited signage requirements. Google maps is going to take you on Audubon. It's also, I felt that the traffic analysis was very limited in it's scope. It didn't go down to what's going to happen to our non-signaled intersection by our school at Lyman and Audubon? That's where our teenagers drive to get to school. There's a left hand turn off of Audubon to get towards Highway 12 without any type of a signaled intersection. Those are the streets around 3:00 in the afternoon that our high schoolers are taking home. And so that was a concern is just the really limited intersections that this analysis seemed to take in. And my other concern are the hours of operation. They say 9:00 to 9:00 but if you go online the last tour begins at 9:00 so we're really extending the hours of operation from 8:30 when people come until about 10:30 at night when the VIP tours end. Many of the businesses around there are 8:00 to 5:00 Monday through Friday so now we are taking heavier traffic on all of those roads into the weekend. You know we talked about our attractions of the PGA tour. We're closing our schools to accommodate traffic. We talk about the Arboretum. If you go there during a plant sale, Highway 5 is backed up forever to get in there so we already do have existing traffic concerns in our area that aren't addressed so I'm very concerned about the number of people coming in. Then also the current tickets are on sale and it does say that parking is included so for saying we're not ready for it and we're busing people,how are all of these people from across the country going to know that they shouldn't be showing up on Arboretum. On Audubon. And then my other question is, in the study with 26 Chanhassen Planning Commission— September 20, 2016 Graceland is what has the impact been to any neighborhoods nearby? Has it brought increased value to neighborhoods that now the traffic is going through and the back yards that are getting affected by it? And so before we open anything I think we just really take our time and see what our traffic issues are and also hours of operation and I just propose if we do something like Graceland, closing at 5:00. That's just going to give 4 hours,those 4 hours are going to give back to our city of Chanhassen. The reasons why we moved here. And one thing that I just have to, I'm a runner and I run these paths and these roads every day and right now as it is, the bike path that runs in front of Paisley Park that goes underneath 5 so that's supposed to be our safe crossing to Highway 5 is next to impossible to get to when you're on the east side. Or the west side of 5. You're already crossing turning lanes so people are trying to merge onto a 55 miles an hour and I'm trying to get to a bike path so that I can go underneath 5 safely. You can't do it now so I'm not sure with all of those turning in there how that's going to be addressed so that our bikers can cross 5 safely and walkers and runners and the people who live here. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Any additional questions? Comments. Concerns. Welcome. Denise Choiniere: Thank you. My name is Denise Choiniere and I live on 8481 Bittern Court and that's one of the bird named neighborhoods that Elizabeth referred to. A couple things. One of the things that I noticed in the traffic study is that the traffic study was done before school started so I'm a little concerned that those numbers are going to be artificially low because you don't have any of the extra transportation with students and parents transporting students. I echo a lot of the concerns that the other neighbors in our neighborhood have expressed. I too am concerned about the hours. I would even prefer it closed at 4:00 so that we have the evening and aren't worried about all of that traffic. By the time the tours are done it's 5:00-5:30 and then it does feel like the same neighborhood we have now and that Prince wanted to be in. Prince biked and walked around and did all the same things that we do and I think he would want our community to stay that way so thank you. Aller: Thank you. Okay anyone else? I think just about everybody here has had their shot. Alright we're going to close the public hearing at this point in time. And then we'll return and put Mr. Pacyna on the hot seat if we could. And I hope you were taking great notes. Matt Pacyna: My name is Matt Pacyna with SRF Consulting. I'm a Senior Associate Traffic Engineer there. Appreciate the opportunity to be here this evening. I hope I took good notes. I'll see what I can do. I know some of the questions I would defer to some of the management staff but as far as, I'm just going to go, kind of run down the line here and some are duplicates so as far as the car inspections, different things of that nature, that's really a management and how they're going to operate that. From a traffic operations perspective, we looked at you know really utilizing that south access point. That provides you most amount of storage on site to be able to manage that internal queue as well as the restriping of Audubon Road. What that does is that actually does allow for some extra queuing space on Audubon if there is some queuing that happens from the internal site operations and so that was taken into account. They'll talk a little bit more about how they manage to ingress/egress relatively quickly. As far as let's say if 27 Chanhassen Planning Commission— September 20, 2016 someone enters too early, that was another question as far as the access point. With how they probably would be expected to manage that as well as the north access being an exit only. They would be able to reroute those vehicles to get them out of the site but at the same time if they'd be able to manage that where if there was available parking and they knew, they know how many tour staff or guests that they're going to have,there's available parking they can let them in and park. So it's really an on site management type of situation with how that internal operation works for that check in point. Another question that was brought up was with respect to McGlynn Road. I think the city staff had talked a little bit about some of the parking management strategies. Whether restriction. Things of that nature as well as the pedestrian access that's going there. The management staff, as they mentioned, they're not planning any walk up ticket sales so they're doing their part to manage that. Now there is the residents and just the overall people that come to just see the site from afar. That's happening today and so is there a better way to manage that today? There is the possibility yes through signage. Limiting parking on McGlynn. You know even if it's temporary signage they go up to cross at Audubon at Highway 5 where the signal is. I know there was some mention of that being a challenge as well so there's different strategies that can be implemented with respect to pedestrian safety. There was a mention of a HAWK signal. There's other techniques such as RRFB's which are Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons. Those are also very effective from a pedestrian crossing perspective and so I think that would just be something that would continue to need to be monitored and determined if that's the appropriate mitigation that would be warranted. I think there just needs to be a little more dialogue through city staff in that regard. The next question that I had on here is with respect to,really gets along the lines of Audubon Road and traffic volumes there. Where vehicles are destined or where they come from and access the site, that's probably one of the most subjective things that as traffic engineers that we do. So we take into account you know where we expect, you know where your population centers are as well as you know how routes or what routes you could take depending on where you're coming from so whether you're coming down from Mankato. How is Google maps going to route you? You know those are type of things that we look at when we develop that distribution for where traffic is going to come from. Some of the things that we can do to manage that is, you can actually work with Google maps and the other map sites to change your routing for your specific address. So if somebody puts in the address for 7801 Audubon, you can tell Google that I would like them to be routed on Highway 5 and so that when, when a resident types in that address into Google it will actually pull up Highway 5 as their route. So that's something that can be accommodated to manage and kind of limit the impacts on Audubon. We did mention the north access point would be converted to a right out only so that would be directing exiting vehicles to go north to Highway 5 so that would also reduce our impacts on Audubon Road as much as we can. There's another question as far as with respect to the auto complex. We did provide some supplemental data collection on one of their event days with respect to how those volumes change on Audubon Road and so that was considered. Looking at the peak and how those volumes change. It's not necessarily an intersection operations perspective. Yes, is it an increase in traffic? Absolutely but does it break the intersections down from a level of service perspective, we did not see that from our operations analysis. Other questions, there was some additional information about crossing further south on Audubon. I'm not going to cover that. 28 Chanhassen Planning Commission— September 20, 2016 That's you know we talked about the traffic volumes on Audubon and what the site's doing to limit additional impacts further to the south so I'm not going to cover that aspect of when we were, as part of this, the working with city staff we were, they provided the intersections that they wanted us to evaluate and so that's what we were scoped to do. Other than that I think the only other, the last comment was when the timing of the study and the counts with respect to when school was in session or not in session. We collected in late August. School was not in session yet at that time for all of the districts in the area. Some were but with, looking at the data that we did collect as well as the supplemental data that we collected along Audubon for the auto complex which was, was once school, it's a Saturday condition but isn't a school necessarily but we looked at MnDOT provides their average daily traffic volumes that they annualize throughout the year, throughout the area and that data that we collected was actually very consistent with those annualized averages and so we feel pretty confident that the data that we collected represents a conservative or a good condition. Aller: Okay. Matt Pacyna: I think that's everything that I had. Feel free to chime in or if you had one more or anything else. I kind of lumped a few together there. Audience: (Inaudible) Aller: So was that addressed? In the analysis the pedestrian crossings. Matt Pacyna: We did look at pedestrian crossings. Right now the pedestrian crossing at Highway 5 and Audubon, that is a signalized intersection so pedestrians would be crossing during you know a walk indication which is typically a safe condition. If they're not walking during that walk condition,then that's enforcement type of issue. I do recognize that yes there are motorists that come up on northbound on Audubon and they're not necessarily thinking about pedestrians being there and I think that comes down to you know is it a signage. Watch for pedestrians. Is there something else that could be done from that perspective to notify motorists that there, watch for pedestrians in that location. You know from a crossing perspective a signalized location is a good crossing from a pedestrian perspective. Aller: Any additional questions regarding traffic at this point? Audience: (Inaudible). Aller: So with regard to buses and busing, is there sufficient parking on site? And if not on site at another location? Matt Pacyna: That would come down to a management perspective. We didn't look at busing operations from a traffic and parking perspective at this time. You know typically school events are off peak periods so it would generally be lower type of attendance. Time periods when for 29 Chanhassen Planning Commission— September 20, 2016 other tour guests so there may be sufficient parking at those times. Otherwise I would defer to the management and how they would propose to deal with their buses in that situation. Aller: Is there a difference in the type of calculation that you do or the results of calculations if we replace cars with buses? Matt Pacyna: So our analysis what we looked at from a parking perspective was really kind of a worst case condition as far as we didn't assume any reductions or anybody coming from a shuttle perspective. We looked at it as okay if there were 65 tour guests for that every 10 minutes and everybody was coming from their car at their typical vehicle occupancy and so we looked at it from that perspective so all our operations analysis looked at it from a relatively conservative perspective. Aller: Okay, thank you. Anything else? Yusuf: Can I ask a question? Aller: Absolutely. Yusuf: Actually I'll ask Kate first. Aller: Commissioner Yusuf. Yusuf: Is it an option to do a repeat study you know maybe a couple weeks into this when this is, when this kind of takes effect? I only ask because we've done the simulation and we have these predictions but I share a lot of concerns much like everyone else about the traffic condition and the foot traffic that's going to be in the area so I'm very concerned that we have the study based on simulation. When things start, when we start selling tickets and people start showing up is it an option to do a repeat study to either validate your results or just maybe bring about some more concerns or possible additions or corrections? Aanenson: I'll let Alyson Fauske answer that question. Fauske: Thank you. That's an excellent question Commissioner Yusuf and one of the things that I believe the applicant would be better able to answer the question is contracting with law enforcement during those opening times when they anticipate higher than, you know we're at the maximum capacity for their tours. We certainly do have an opportunity to monitor the situation but as far as requiring additional traffic analysis upon opening that is not something that we have discussed at this time. Aanenson: I will say something. Yusuf: That is something that I would like to push for if I can. 30 Chanhassen Planning Commission— September 20, 2016 Aanenson: We did put in the PUD contract, there is a level of service requirement in the PUD and so it talks about, if you look at the ordinance. Fauske: Kate if I may. We discussed a level of service in the staff report. We did not include a level of service requirement,minimum requirement threshold in the PUD requirements as when we take a look at that to go and say that the level of service decreased to be directly attributed to the site in perpetuity in the PUD, we weren't comfortable with that recommendation. We had some discussions about that. Taking a look at that certainly after the opening but 10 years down the road if the level of service at any of those intersections were to fall below to go and link it specifically to this property, staff didn't feel that that was an appropriate recommendation in the PUD ordinance. Aanenson: That's separate from going back and measuring it again. I think the level of service issue was there's not all those properties are not developed at this time and in 10 years it'd be hard to say that, to attribute all the changes in the intersection based on this use so we would look at that differently level of service as opposed to going back and studying again to say how it's functioning. Yusuf: Okay. Can I say one more thing please? I like when you mentioned about the preferential routing on Google maps. I have never heard of that before. It sounds like a good option. You mentioned a lot of nice things and I just don't know about the implementation of it so yes that's an option but who's going to do it or who's going to look into all the different navigation options to try to do that preferential routing? Matt Pacyna: That's a fair question. I would defer that question to the management. Aller: Awesome, thank you sir. Would the applicant like to discuss some of the leftover issues? And we can start off with Commissioner Yusuf s last question which is basically now that we have the traffic study how are we intending to implement the traffic based upon the survey that we have? Pat Mazural: Yeah obviously it's the hope and intent of the operator of the estate and of the family that this be a good experience not only for those on the tour and for fans of Prince but for the neighborhood as well so I can't, I don't want to speak for the operator but I'll look at him and say certainly there will be ongoing assessment. Joel Weinshanker: And specifically to your question so Graceland actually was able to. Aller: So why don't we have you come on up. That'd be great and state your name and address for the record. 31 Chanhassen Planning Commission— September 20, 2016 Joel Weinshanker: I'm Joel Weinshanker. I'm the managing partner of Graceland and Graceland Holdings LLC. Graceland was actually able to, through Google maps change the avenues in which people came so we've actually done that successfully with Google to date. To address a couple of the other concerns. So and some of the neighbors because I think Prince was a great neighbor. We're actually using you know assuming this is approved at this time,not to be at full bore but actually to work up to it. We've arranged with Southwest Transit, which is only 1.8 miles away to have spots during peak times so what we're actually going to be close. Every person who ordered a ticket ordered it online through email so we have direct access to each one of those people so we can communicate to those people. To the talking about having an extra traffic on Audubon,the road which will exist before October 3rd from the south to the north will be able to handle over 20 cars so there will be no checking of anything before people come off Audubon onto the property and then we're going to have 3 to 4 times as many parking attendants as we feel would be necessary in a normal circumstance to make sure that there is never ever a back up. Dealing with the buses, during peak days and just so everyone understands we only anticipate 5 peak days during the first 6 months of operation so we don't even think we're going to come within 50 percent of what the traffic survey thinks is a reasonable amount of traffic outside of those 5 days. On those 5 days we are going to have 2 buses that are never parked that are actually going to be doing the continuous you know basically from the Southwest Transit through, coming into Graceland and at any peak time during those days only VIP people are able to park there so you go down from 65 guests per 10 minutes to 15 guests per 10 minutes which is an average of 6 cars per 10 minutes so you're looking at an average of 36 cars per hour so it's less than 1 1/2 cars you know per, for every 2 minutes. So those people, you know all of the people who are in the regular tours are going to be bused in. Those buses are never going to be sitting there but with that traffic, with only 36 cars per hour we're always going to have a third of the main parking lot empty so that would be if people come early. If people come late. We don't have a 2.7 percent gap with no difference from the one before because I was listening. We have a 30 percent gap. We have 2 buses during peak times that will be coming in and out. They will never be parked so. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: So you mentioned you will be using the Southwest Transit parking ramp. Joel Weinshanker: Yes. Madsen: In the business report it mentioned shuttles from Mall of America. Possibly the airport. So are there all of those or you just,has it changed? Joel Weinshanker: So I think it more long term from Mall of America and the airport because as we understand it there's issues with what can and can't be done between public and private transit so as we were told because Chanhassen opted out of public transportation and obviously I'm telling, you know infinitely more than I do about this. That eventually with the town's permission we would like to be doing that. The Mall of America would love us to be doing that. 32 Chanhassen Planning Commission— September 20, 2016 To be honest with you they've offered us all these incentives because they would love people to park there so that they can purchase there but currently and again we're looking at 5 days maximum in the first 6 months where this is going to happen but we've already secured spaces there for this endeavor. Aller: So I'm going to ask the question that's on everybody's mind. What 5 days? Joel Weinshanker: So the ones that exist right now are October 6th and 8th, the opening day and the first Saturday. October 14th which is the day after the tribute show and October 15th. I've given you 5 just as... Aller: Okay thank you. Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: And in the packet there is a proposed bus route. There are actually 2 of them and one of them goes along Highway 5 and another goes down Lyman and then up Audubon through a residential area where some of these people live who are concerned with traffic. Can we, will you have a chosen bus route for these buses? Joel Weinshanker: I can't imagine it wouldn't be from Southwest Transit and again you know your neighborhoods a little bit better than I do. I can't imagine it wouldn't be Route 5 and another thing because I'm just as concerned about the local impact to people who live off Audubon. Prince has amazing fans. These aren't you know, these are fans that are articulate. They're educated. They're really the best fans. If we send the messaging out, and again we have the email address of every single person who's bought and said please don't travel on Audubon, they won't. They just en masse these are amazingly wonderful fans and I'm one of them but they really, you know if we say this is what you need to do to be a good neighbors and Prince would want you to be a good neighbor...they will. You know and it's very frankly it's been our experience, someone asked about housing values. If you do a Trulia or Zillow search at Graceland the housing values within a 5-mile area are greatest bordering Graceland so the closer you are to Graceland you can do a Zillow or Trulia search, the closer you are to Graceland the more the homes are worth and we have the lowest crime rate in the city of Memphis. Madsen: Okay then I have a follow up question. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: So, and I've been to Graceland. I had the pleasure to visit there and they have a very large parking lot which is off site from the actual Graceland where people can go and walk through exhibit areas and then you have your ticket and you queue up for a shuttle bus for your assigned time. Are there any plans similar to that here? Joel Weinshanker: I think there are contemplations of doing that. You know we don't know, we know that there are a great many Prince fans in the world who want to see Paisley Park but we 33 Chanhassen Planning Commission—September 20, 2016 need to, you know we're walking before we're running. We're not selling, Prince fans in the world who want to see Paisley Park but we need to, you know we're walking before we're running. We're not selling, you know we're capping tickets far below. The survey was done at a, what is the most of the most of the most that could ever be sold on a given day but I can tell you on an average Wednesday, especially in the first 3 to 4 months we're going to be looking at 7 or 8 cars an hour. We're not looking at you know, we're not going to be looking at you know, for the maximum that they've put for an hour we're going to have less visitors during the week except for something like the day after the tribute show. We're going to have less visitors per day than the calculations were made per hour. Madsen: Okay, thank you. Pat Mazural: If I could just, I'm sorry. Aller: Commissioner one second. Tietz: Well I was just going to ask a question about what's left on your list to update your certificate of occupancy and when will that work be completed? Todd Phelps: Mr. Chair,members of the commission. We have retained an architectural firm who we anticipate preparing our, has prepared and is delivering a report this week certifying that there are no code violations. Building code violations or that there are some minimal things. We think that there are some hand rails that need to be added in certain locations but we've been advised that there's nothing significant in the report that would preclude the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Tietz: But the City has yet to sign off on that correct? Todd Phelps: Correct. The. Tietz: It's just in process. Todd Phelps: If there was an approval it would be subject to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Tietz: Were there Kate. Aanenson: Yes. Tietz: Were there issues with life safety and sprinklers and exiting? Aanenson: No, the Fire Marshal has been through. 34 Chanhassen Planning Commission— September 20, 2016 Tietz: And toilets. Aanenson: Yep,the Fire Marshal has been up there several times just checking on things. Getting the status, right. Opening is predicated on that architectural report and our building officials going through the building as well as the Fire Marshal and signing that document before it can open, yeah. Tietz: Okay. I assumed that that would occur but I just want to check. Aller: Commissioner Weick did you have a question? Weick: I did not. Aller: Okay. Pat Mazural: Mr. Chair and commissioners if I could add one thing to one of the questions that was asked. Aller: Please. Pat Mazural: And that relates to the management of the site. Mr. Weinshanker was very gracious in giving everyone here and on television his cell number. Aller: And email address. Even better. Pat Mazural: Email address but we do, Paisley Park will have an on site manager as well who is a local person and the search for that person is underway right now. There's a temporary manager there but there will be someone responsible for the property here in Chanhassen at all times. Aller: One of the questions that was asked was there an intent to have, if a wall is required that it would be 6 or 8 feet or opaque or not opaque but what are the intentions with the wall? Pat Mazural: Yeah that was an interesting series of questions and certainly appreciate the comments of Ms. Miller and others about the beauty of the site and wanting to keep it visitor. Actually the wall and the intention to put an opaque wall there really addresses some of the other issues that have been raised which relates to pedestrians and also not just opaque but a wall on which there, it would not be easy to hang things and so it would significantly cut down, hopefully eliminate the kind of foot traffic that we see around there so that the traffic that's in will be for those on the tour with pre-purchased tickets. Aller: Thank you. 35 Chanhassen Planning Commission—September 20, 2016 Tietz: That's currently part of the aesthetic of the site. Pat Mazural: Excuse me. I'm sorry I missed the comment. Tietz: No that's,you know the fence and the materials on the fence from day one that's, in my mind that's been kind of aesthetic of the site and it enhances that experience because it personalizes the opportunity to remember Prince. Pat Mazural: It does and in fact you know the memorial that it represents and the love for Prince is part of the tour and the show of love from his fans and residents here around the community. I was informed too that the intention is that it be an 8-foot fence. Can't be jumped very easily. Tietz: Is that code? Aanenson: It does and I think you're seeing the two positions on this. People pull over on Highway 5 right now and that's a nuisance so it's a challenge is how do you stop that so and maybe it's temporary until people get used to just so they can't see something so we're just trying to internally, we put it in there. The opaque fence because that's normally not standard. The city code allows them to go to 8 feet. We'd like it not to have one. I think the other thing, we do get nuisance complaints regarding stuff that's on the fence. Maybe blowing. Some people appreciate it. Some people don't so I think we're still trying to figure that out. It all comes back to safety and it's not just people walking, it's people pulling over on Highway 5. Parking and getting out so we're just trying to solve that between both parties. Weick: Can I comment on that because I was going to save it for later but I would, I would challenge that logic. If our primary concern is pedestrian safety the material of the fence I don't think would increase or decrease the pedestrian activity outside the building so if it's an opaque wall, and I've seen Graceland a lot, it now becomes a different type of canvas. You don't hang things. You write things. Okay and it now becomes,probably an awesome graffiti wall. I think it'd be beautiful but you still have pedestrians that are going to stop and do that and so if there are security concerns for like people jumping into Prince's property or something I get that but I would put on the record that the material of the fence I don't really believe would change the pedestrian activity. I'm not worried about cars and parking. I mean it would be awesome if you had the kind of parking issues that we've talked about here today and all day long,that means that thing is wildly successful and I think that's fantastic for the city. I don't think that's necessarily going to be the issue. I'm concerned about the pedestrian and so we talk about the fence. I'm concerned that we're fooling ourselves into thinking putting an 8-foot opaque wall is going to reduce people from wanting to walk up on that property. Aanenson: ...there's other ways to do it including landscaping. Some vegetation. Weick: Yeah. 36 Chanhassen Planning Commission—September 20, 2016 Aanenson: And you know again for us when you see cars pulled over on Highway 5 that are not in the travel lane. When there's semi's coming down, it's a concern. And not only for that with pedestrians but as long as people want to continue to walk and you've got people coming in, we're just trying to figure out how that all comingles and maybe there's appropriate places for screening. We can certainly work with the applicant on that. Aller: Great. Thank you. Additional questions? Comments. Aanenson: I just had one other thing Mrs. Gorra brought up regarding the amusement park and maybe if you want to go back up and talk about the hotel was just talked about in this one site here is my understanding was the building that's already in place. Any other new buildings that would come on have to come through site plan review. Any, you know again we're not talking about new buildings. Across the street is still zoned industrial office park. I've included that in the packet. There is not amusement as a permitted use in that zoning district so we've never talked about an amusement park at this point or anything like that so any change like that would have to come back through for another amendment to the code or another public hearing or something like that so right we're just talking about this parcel and any changes beyond that we haven't put amusement park as a permitted use on this property so I just wanted to make that clear. Aller: So in the end analysis here what, what are they asking for that couldn't be done under the current code? Aanenson: If you, well can you ask that again. Aller: In other words they can operate a business now. Aanenson: Correct. Aller: To what extent can they go under the zoning the way I'm reading it they can go 9:00 to 12:00 instead of 9:00 to 9:00. What things are they asking for in the PUD process that we're exchanging here? We're giving them the right to do something they wouldn't already the ability to do. Aanenson: Correct. Well if you're looking what's the underlying IOP zoning district doesn't have hours of limitations right now so. So other than that. Aller: I mean he's had events there before. He would go through the process. Aanenson: Correct. Yeah we've had permits. Aller: They would have to go through that process if they wanted. 37 Chanhassen Planning Commission— September 20, 2016 Aanenson: We've had significant number of people out there that they've managed through busing so we're used to that. Those typically were in evening hours, overnight hours til early morning so we've,the City's managed those before so. Aller: And the reason I say that is that, I'm looking at this that it's a business. They can operate their business and as a City if we're going to give them a PUD and we're going to fine tune this, the whole reason for a PUD is to gain some benefit and so I think the traffic analysis that's being done and the questions concerning traffic and pedestrian safety are really the issues that we need to get something back and so that's what I'm looking for but as far as the zoning itself, I'm looking at it's a, or if we allow this to move forward we're doing something. We can have progress at this site but the traffic problems,the pedestrian problems that we're facing there are there today and we really need to look at those regardless. So I guess I'm moving this forward to comments from the commissioners on their feelings on the application. Tietz: One more question for Kate? Aller: Sure. Tietz: The $20,000 escrow account, what would that cover and who's going to judge whether they don't comply? And then how do you collect it? Aanenson: I'll let Alyson answer that question. Fauske: That's a great question Commissioner Tietz. As we looked through the analysis and what we were looking for with regards to required improvements we looked at having a financial security in order to insure that the site was operated as it was intended. That the parking situation was put in as intended so typically what we do in that case is we have through this process we have an agreement with the development team. Between the development team and the City. We have the money either in escrow which means a cash submitted to the City and put into an account that can only be taken for those purposes or a letter of credit from a bank so that's, when we looked at that we holistically said, and that's something that we typically do with sites that undergo site improvements is we typically do collect an escrow to insure that it's being done. Tietz: But on a site like this where it's traffic and it's a number of things. It's not like a big residential development where there's a lot of public works and infrastructure installed. How did you determine or how did the City determine it was only$20,000? That seems like a pretty minimal amount on a major project of this sort. Fauske: When we start looking at that, we looked at it from a standpoint of the parking improvements. If there was parking or a connections for example of the time of writing the staff report you know the connection between the north and the south parking lot, I was unsure of the status of that and now they've indicated that they're going to do that so it was a financial security 38 Chanhassen Planning Commission—September 20, 2016 to insure that the onsite parking is there. What I'm hearing from the Planning Commission is that perhaps we want to take a look at the traffic and insuring that the site operates within the parameters or the predictions of the traffic study and we could certainly take a look and talk to the management team and take a look at perhaps instead of having a level of service in perpetuity that within 6 months we take a look at the level of service of some of these intersections and see if that's operating as we anticipated based on the improvements installed. So we could certainly if the Planning Commission would like to take a look at doing something like that and forwarding that recommendation to council staff and the applicant can certainly go back and have that discussion and provide a recommendation based on what the Planning Commission discusses. Tietz: Yeah 1 think that'd be prudent Alyson, thank you. Aller: Does anybody disagree with that? So we'd make that request right now. Audience: Can I get my question answered? Aller: I'm sorry ma'am, what other question were they? Audience: The question that I asked was,why is it being rezoned? What are they asking for? Aller: That's what we were, that's exactly what my question was as well. Audience: I heard you but I didn't get the answer. Aller: I suppose we want some clarification on why it's being rezoned. I understand that they had, at least at minimum for the simple reason that the City does not have museum in the zoning saying that they can have a museum. So that would be the first and foremost reason. Additional reasons would be the potential for someone to stay on the property as a hotel. Or other uses. Am I correct in that? Aanenson: That's correct. Audience: So when they're, if they do the. Aanenson: Mr. Chair can you ask them to come up to the microphone so we can. Aller: Yeah come on up to the podium and state your name and address, especially I don't think you were up here before so one of the only ones left. Jim Wagle: Jim Wagle, 8411 Egret Court. Aller: Welcome. 39 Chanhassen Planning Commission—September 20, 2016 Jim Wagle: And I'm just wondering with traffic and everything and then I wasn't even thinking of having a hotel or motel or whatever on site and that, what does that do as far as how many people? You know number of clients coming into the buildings, all that kind of stuff. What is that going to throw into the mix as far as traffic control? Taking away space there for parking. I guess that's kind of what my question is on that. Aller: Great,thank you. And again I'll go to my understanding and then but if they were to do that they would have to come back and ask for, certainly if they were going to put up or add to the buildings, then they would have to come back before us and get a site approval. Aanenson: Correct unless it was just the existing silo building, then they would get a building permit. They'd still have to show parking. Then we would still factor that into the equation of how much and going back to what Ms. Fauske was just talking about. Checking on the level of service and making sure we're still within that range but the intent right now is just looking at the existing building on site. Aller: Right and if it also, if they were even to use that as a place of occupancy for anyone then we would be looking at other regulations that would have to be complied with in order for them to have a certificate of occupancy for a human being to stay on the property. Aanenson: Correct, yep. All building codes, correct. Otherwise if that was to come down and some other smaller building, that would have to come back through site plan review just like any other application. There'd be a public hearing. We'd look at the architecture. All of that. If it was anything different than the existing building there, it'd be our same normal process. Aller: Based on any of the questions we asked any other last questions? So we're back to the conversation that we're having. What does everybody think or does someone want to make a motion? Madsen: I would like us to consider to designate a bus route on Highway 5 to be included in that so that, to stay out of the residential area of Audubon. And I would also like the City to consider making some safety improvements related to the McGlynn area. Whether they limit parking. Add a crosswalk. I'm not sure what the solution is but I think it needs some safety improvements. Aller: Any other comments or. Tietz: Well I guess I just wish we would have had more time at this. I know things have happened very, very rapidly but the first 5 biggest events of the year are going to happen within the next 30 days and we're barely into understanding how this is all going to come together and how the traffic analysis is going to work. There's a lot of I hope it works right now and the statistics that, and I trust SRF. I know those guys. I worked with them for many, many years but 40 Chanhassen Planning Commission— September 20, 2016 I think you know it's conjecture and based upon their studies and I think that there's a potential for some pretty significant issues for our public safety folks over the next 30 days. If those are the 5 busiest days of the year, I just wish we could slow the process down and have more time. They could have more time and implement a lot of the plan before they open up. Aller: Comment. Commissioner Randall. Randall: Is it possible that they could get a conditional use permit to cover October to see how it goes? Aanenson: No. Randall: Okay I just thought. Aanenson: We don't have a conditional use. It has to be in the zoning district so a conditional use would serve with the property so then, if you want add anything else Mr. Knutson? Roger Knutson: As zoned it's, a museum is not a conditional use permit in this district so no. Aller: Right. Yusuf: I do want to say I do like that the tickets have to be pre-purchased so that gives you an idea that you know how much volume to expect so I think it's going to give us a level of comfort knowing that you'll be monitoring that going forward. Knowing that you'll keep track of how much volume to expect and then we can marry that up with the traffic studies and see how things are flowing would really help the City make the right choices here. Audience: Could I ask how far in advance can they buy? Could they buy like an hour before online? Aller: That's a good question but why don't you come up to the podium so that people at home can hear you. I`ll repeat the question which is how far in advance can you purchase a ticket online. Joel Weinshanker: So during down times it will be several hours before but we're actually shutting down ticket sales days before once we hit certain times and we're actually shutting down hour by hour. If I can show you on my laptop I've checked ticket sales a dozen times today and we've actually moved around hourly so even a day where we might not be very busy but you know if too many people are buying in one hour we're shutting down. If you look at it, if you go back to the site where you see every 10 minutes we've actually moved the general tours from every 10 minutes to every 30 minutes in a lot of instances so we're doing minute by minute. We're even actually shortening the hours on some days where we don't find it necessary so what we've been able to do with this exercise and what the City Council and the mayor really 41 Chanhassen Planning Commission— September 20, 2016 understood is we're trying to figure out how to be the best neighbor so by putting tickets on sale we've actually been able to see when the interest is. We've been shortening hours on some days. We've been taking times out so if too many people are buying one type of tour we'll shut down the other type because we don't want as many people and on the busiest day I think we had 65 for 10 minutes which would be 390 per hour. On the busiest day we don't anywhere close to that. On opening day there's not close to 390 people in any hour even though we felt the building could handle it. With buses could handle it. We're walking before we can run. Audience: So why...return on investment? Joel Weinshanker: We are limiting hours. Audience: No I mean to... Joel Weinshanker: Because when Graceland at times was, first of all Graceland doesn't close at 5:00 so a comparison wasn't fair. Audience: (Inaudible). Joel Weinshanker: No,no. The last tour. Aller: Direct all your comments to me. Joel Weinshanker: Okay. So Graceland doesn't close at 5:00. The last tour starts at 5:00 and they close 2 1/2 hours later into the, you know into across the street where people are buying merchandise but at times and many times over the year they've had night time events and are open to 7:00. It's really about the fan. There's a different fan. There's a, you know obviously the fans are older at Graceland so what we're trying to do is to accommodate the people who actually love Prince. We're trying to be open hours without being open at midnight. Without being open at 2:00 a.m. Someone who would live close by through email had questioned the level of volume because they said sometimes when Prince had shows in the middle of the night they could hear from 10 blocks away. I don't know if that person's here who sent that email. The museum is going to be a museum. I mean very frankly if something's loud I'm putting ear plugs in, there's going to be nothing that anyone's going to need to put ear plugs in the building never mind 7:00 or 8:00. Aller: And just to extend the set hours now are going to be 9:00 to 9:00 so the last tour would start at 9:00. Joel Weinshanker: The last tour will start at 9:00 on certain days but we've already on weekdays we've already shorten it til 7:00 p.m. so those were really weekends and possibly opening day and the day after the concert is opening day so just on a few special days we've actually shorten the hours on weekdays to 7:00. To start at 7:00. 42 Chanhassen Planning Commission— September 20, 2016 Aller: And then while I've got you up there another question came back to me and that was regarding the tent and the use of the tent. What type of functions and use of the tent would be? Joel Weinshanker: Just simply so,the only thing that the tent is being used for is Prince's chef is preparing a tasting plate of Prince's favorite food that will be offered in the tent and then it's the same place where you can buy a tour book or a t-shirt. Those are the only uses for the tent. And we're doing it because we didn't, we're trying to change the building as little as possible because Prince had a real intent he wanted it a certain way. He laid it out for tours. He already had tested bringing some people in because he loved it and he really wanted it and we have videos and we have directions via email on what he wanted to do so the test was necessitated because there is no area in there that was really for that. Aller: Thank you. Lynne Etling: May I ask another question please? Aller: Okay, why don't you come on forward and ask it to me. I'm going to. Lynne Etling: Lynne Etling again and it's directed to Joel. Aller: Direct it to me because I don't want to have. Lynne Etling: Okay direct it to you. Aller: Thank you. Lynne Etling: Well when he was talking about his website one thing that is, well a big question in my mind is it sounds like his website is not engineered to say okay at this hour set number of people are allowed to buy tickets. At this hour set number of people allowed to buy tickets and so forth so there's no way for him to control automatically how many people buy tickets for a certain day. Certain time. Do you know what I mean? Aller: I understand the implication of what you're stating. Lynne Etling: And so that has to be manually managed by him is what I'm gathering. Aller: Okay so. Lynne Etling: Because you're saying you're going in and moving around times. Aller: So your question is regarding the management of. 43 Chanhassen Planning Commission— September 20, 2016 Lynne Etling: Yes. Aller: Will they be cutting off these tours appropriately. Lynne Etling: Right and I guess it all falls back to is you know it seems to me like you know they paid $1,054 and most of the work here has been done by the City of Chanhassen because we you know, it's a very small business plan. There's not much that's been given to us to even review and you know maybe I'm just not understanding what he's saying but yeah it's a concern because what happens if someone doesn't manage it for a few hours? You know what happens? Aller: Great, thank you. Lynne Etling: You're welcome. Aller: Okay so we're going to cut off public comment at this point or we'll be having a continuous conversation. Not that it's not a good thing. One of the best things about Chanhassen is that as neighbors we come forward and I try to run these meetings so that there is a conversation instead of holding people's feet to the fire on time or but I do prefer that all the comments are directed to us as a commission rather than to individuals to avoid any heated communication so let's get back to our conversation amongst ourselves. Roger Knutson: Excuse me Chairman, do you want to close that public hearing? Aller: So the public hearing is closed. It was outside of the normal customary procedure. It had been closed and we just had a side bar. So back to the conversation. We've been talking about additional potential desires as far as conditions. Any other comments or is anybody flat out against it or? Yusuf: No I really like what you proposed,the addition you proposed. I think that's going to capture a lot of what we were looking for. I think that's going to help alleviate much of the concerns that people have so I would really appreciate sneaking that in there. Weick: I've been relatively quiet. Aller: For a change. Weick: I know, isn't that weird? You know everything that everyone has is I think very valid and you know the concerns. It does feel rushed. I mean it has to feel rushed right? It's opening soon if everything goes through so. I'm in mostly in agreement with everything. That we need to be, we need to be careful and work overtime on this one to make sure that everything goes off well. I am personally, you know part of our responsibility is not only to the immediate community around Paisley Park but also to the City of Chanhassen. I sat in a local restaurant a few weeks ago and you know listened to groups of people that were coming in. They were from 44 Chanhassen Planning Commission— September 20, 2016 Texas and they were from Oklahoma and they were in town for the,there were some tribute shows or something. I have to admit I'm not really a Prince fan, if you can believe it but you know they were in town. They were going to those shows. They were staying in Chanhassen and they went to Paisley Park right to see it and look at it and everything like that and for sure they would go to the museum but they were staying and dining and buying coffee and shopping and those are the kind of things that I hope we don't lose sight of that something like this brings to the city of Chanhassen as well. It does not, I'm not diminishing anything that's been said here tonight for the very real concerns about traffic and pedestrians. Those are real and we have to make sure that those are handled properly but there is also a side of this that makes the city of Chanhassen an incredible destination and an opportunity for commerce outside of Paisley Park I think that we have long needed so I'm excited about that. Aller: Any additional comments? At any time anyone can make a motion. I just can't do it. Weick: I'll make a motion. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: Is it as simple as the one that's stated here or do I have to add? Aller: I would add. Add the conditions to their request. Aanenson: Can I get an interpretation from the City Attorney? We're not adding conditions. We're just forwarding recommendations to the City Council, is that correct Roger? Roger Knutson: Yes. Their recommendation can be anything they want it to be. They're changing the ordinance,the draft in front of you or what have you, it's a recommendation. Aanenson: Right, okay so it would be a recommendation to the PUD if you wanted to put some of those in,that's why I'm asking. Weick: I'm not the right person to, because I'm not really aware of what all those recommendations would be I'll be honest. Fauske: Chairman Aller? Aller: Yes. Fauske: Just as a point of clarification for staff and also when you're considering your motion, when looking at the updated traffic study if you would like, I heard both pedestrian and vehicular traffic analyzed so I'm very clear on that but if the commission could please provide some clarification on all intersections. If it is your desire to relook,re-evaluate all intersections or just the 2 intersections that were identified as a point of concern within the traffic study. 45 Chanhassen Planning Commission— September 20, 2016 Aller: In my mind the easy thing to do would be to say all. Yusuf: I would agree. Tietz: But how far is all? Aller: Well the ones that were, with the understanding that McGinty is included in that. I mean. Yusuf: McGlynn. Tietz: The immediate, not as far south as Lyman? Aller: No. I don't think in my mind, I think that's far enough away that there wouldn't be an impact but if you think differently. Tietz: No I think it's just those folks who potentially Googled it and came off of 212 then that's an impact because they come down Powers to Lyman and Lyman to Audubon and then shoot up Audubon and that's probably minimal. My greatest concern is still the queuing on 5 and those left turns. You know we mentioned, someone mentioned the situation at the Arboretum. I mean that's horrendous when they have their plant sale in May trying to even go down Highway 5 from downtown Chanhassen it's backed up. I can't imagine what's going to happen at the Ryder Cup with Highway 41 and 5 but. Aller: But those are specific events too. Tietz: Well those are significant events yeah but you know this is going to be a significant destination as Steve pointed out. Weick: I agree. Tietz: Yeah so we just have to be really cautious and monitor it closely and if there's impacts we have to back up and take a second look at it and take another swing at it and those improvements could be costly and I don't know who bears the cost of those road improvements. You know we have a state highway and we have, is Audubon a city? That's not county right? Fauske: It's a county road that. Tietz: Is that county on Audubon? Anyhow there could be significant highway improvements that have to occur based upon a 6 month run time or a 12 month run time and I think we have to be prepared to deal with that and someone has to bear the responsibility. 46 Chanhassen Planning Commission— September 20, 2016 Yusuf: I think a good place to start is the traffic study. The follow up study and then we can go from there. Aller: But we're looking at directing them and how far that study should go. Yusuf: I would recommend the immediate intersections because whatever traffic we're concerned about on Lyman is eventually funneling down to this Paisley Park so if you're studying that immediate area you should capture that too. Aller: So if I'm understanding you want to go to Lyman? Yusuf: No. I'm saying just do the immediate intersections around Paisley Park. Madsen: I would like it to extend as far south on Audubon so we would know if we need to add a HAWK signal so that pedestrians can safely cross Audubon in the residential area. I'm not sure how far south. Audience: Osprey is where one of the two crosswalks... Madsen: Just as long as it includes all of those. Tietz: What's the cross street at the auto Motorplex there that comes off of, it goes between. Because that comes from Powers all the way over to Audubon so if people got off on Powers they could short cut if the traffic on 5 is bad they could short cut and come in the back way so. Maybe we should just say, Alyson maybe we should just say that to be determined after 6 or 8 months. Confirm the location of the intersections to be studied otherwise we're going to talk about this all night. Madsen: Yeah, agreed. Aller: So Commissioner Weick, you're going to make the basic motion and then we'll add,with the additions that we just outlined to Alyson. Weick: Okay. Madsen: Well Nancy had a couple points though before didn't you? Yeah. Weick: I don't have knowledge about... Tietz: Just with them. Aller: Start with the basic. 47 Chanhassen Planning Commission—September 20, 2016 Aanenson: You can make a motion and then make an amendment. Weick: Thank you. I'm going to make a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the rezoning of Lot 11, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park from IOP to PUD and adoption of the attached PUD ordinance and Findings of Fact. Randall: Second. Aller: We have a motion and a second and then I have, so we're open for discussion and then I have some friendly amendments which will be brought forth by Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: So one would be, the one that we have already discussed with the transportation study to determine the level of service at, I don't know what the time increments are. If it was 6 months or 1 year. And then also to consider to designate a bus route on Highway 5. And also to consider developing a safety plan related to McGlynn and that intersection. Right away. Tietz: Could we include something about timing of the implementation of the approved option for completion of the internal site work? So there's, you know it sounds like we can get some work done before October 6th. It's just the connection of the two lots but we've got other recommendations to move the access point and then additional on site parking and expanding the on site parking and some other site improvements which may require you know storm water and so forth but I'd like to see a timeframe if the applicant is willing. Is that something, you know June of depending upon weather. Is it summer of'17 if the work is complete? Or is that dependent upon the success of the project? Aller: I would do it dependent on the,to coincide with the traffic study so you're looking at the whole ball of wax at the same time. Tietz: That's one way of doing that. Aller: Because. Tietz: An artificial timeframe doesn't, yeah. Aller: Yeah so I would. Tietz: So the implementation would follow the completion of the subsequent traffic analysis and a timeframe for implementation. Something like that. Aller: And you accept that as an addition to your friendly amendments? And you'll accept that as a, all these amendments to your motion? 48 Chanhassen Planning Commission— September 20, 2016 Weick: Noted. Weick moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the rezoning of Lot 11, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park from IOP to PUD and adoption of the attached PUD ordinance and Findings of Fact with the following recommendations for City Council to consider: 1. Review the transportation plan. 2. Consider a bus only route on Highway 5. 3. Have a pedestrian safety plan. 4. Have a time frame for completion of improvements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Aller: Okay we're good to take a 5-minute recess here to allow the room to clear out. For people to take a break. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Yusuf noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 6, 2016 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aanenson: The only thing I have right there is consideration for Chick-fil-A who applied for a Carver County CDA grant. Just the cost of the stormwater treatment. Soil corrections to help give them some relief so we'll hopefully be getting that up to the County this week. I'm not sure we had any other, we haven't had much going forward because we tried to fast track a couple things there so that's it. I just want to talk a minute on the future agendas. We don't have anything on the regular agenda in 2 weeks but what we are trying to get together is a potential, have the Riley-Purgatory watershed district come and give you a presentation so that's a potential. I'll let you know. Terry Jeffery is working on that and then on the 18t'' we're doing some code amendments and then we still are planning on Avienda, the lifestyle center so I think there might be a couple people here on that one too. Yeah and that's again concept review so with that one we are going to just have. Aller: There's no Findings of Fact and its just recommendations. Aanenson: Correct, give them direction. Traffic study and the like yeah so I think just on another note, there's 2 property owners across the street that could potentially be for sale so we've talked about it internally. We're getting a lot of requests. The staff is to talk to people because they're going to be going out for bid, we want to make sure we're giving everybody the same piece of information so we probably want to do an AUAR to look at both large properties 49 Aanenson, Kate From: kashelston@yahoo.com Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:31 PM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Prince's fence Sent from my LG G5,an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone Dear Ms.Anenson, I wasn't sure if you received my first email because I put the address in backwards. Thank you for listening to my concerns.I will state them briefly: 1) Fans want to see PP the way he left it in April 2) He didn't hide from the community why start now 3) It is not going to deter fans from leaving messages. Why would you want to stop this unless it gets out of hand 4) Bad public relations to start changing things when he has only been gone for 5 months 5) You won't be able to see the purple flood lights from the road 6)Paisley.Park is a landmark.I don't think putting up an ugly opaque fence will enhance the appeal, nor stop foot traffic. You can designate a part of the existing fence for fan messages. You can permit messages away from the South side.It is already upsetting by changing the original entrance.I heard Prince left detailed plans about setting up PP as a museum.Prince loved his community and his purple army. We should respect his home and all he contributed to the community. Prakash Elston 1 Aanenson, Kate From: Melanie Mertes <melaniemertes@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 10:22 AM To: Aanenson, Kate Subject: Re: Paisley Park Concerns Hi Kate, I have a few follow-up questions from the Planning Meeting I attended earlier this week. Please let me know who is the best person in which to direct the questions. Traffic Study: At the meeting, the representative from Paisley Park/Graceland said only persons with VIP tickets would be directed to park on site. All other ticket holders would be directed to a SW Parking facility to be bussed to the tour. • Do we know which SW Station location? • The one by the Chanhassen Dinner Theater or the one on 101 and Hwy. 212? • Is this for all tours or just for'high-volume'days? • What constitutes high-volume? • Or is it just for high-volume hours? If this is true, especially for the location by the theater, this is bringing a lot of new traffic to our downtown area and shouldn't the traffic study have included that area(Specifically Market Blvd. by Walgreens/Cub Foods)? Business Plan from Paisley Park/Graceland: The representative said may things addressing the concerns of traffic, traffic patterns, working with Google Maps and pedestrian safety. • Before approval, is there going to be any requirement from the city to put completion dates to these tasks? The 5 highest attendance days are coming up in the next 30 days. Any other business looking to come to Chanhassen would be held to higher standards and restrictions. The Paisley Park Museum should be no different. The statement that people are no longer going to drive directly to Paisley Park to just look and take photos because now they will buy tour tickets, in my opinion, is not valid. • What is the city preparing to do during the Ryder Cup and the weekend of the tribute concert to ensure the safety and handle overloaded traffic in the area? • Is this an additional cost to the taxpayers? 1 Final question: I was under the impression the meeting was designed for discussion and any final decisions would be made after everyone had been heard. However, for both the pool topic and Paisley Park, slides with the final decision had already been prepared. I look forward to your response on this question. As a resident, I am not opposed to the Paisley Park Museum, however, it feels as if the city is putting safety and traffic concerns aside by pushing this through without a thoughtful process. I would appreciate it if you could forward this on to the planning committee members. Regards, Melanie Mertes On Sep 20, 2016, at 9:21 AM, "Aanenson, Kate" <kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> wrote: Melanie, I will share your email with the Planning Commission and the City Council. Kate Sent from my iPad On Sep 20, 2016, at 9:01 AM, Melanie Mertes <melaniemertes@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Kate, Thank you for your letter addressing concerns regarding the Paisley Park project. I am a resident that is deeply concerned on the impact such a tourist attraction is going to have on our daily lives in Chanhassen. As a resident, I do not see the museum having a positive impact- it is not a place to dine,not a place to spend time with family or the community, not a retail business. The only impact the museum is going to bring to Chanhassen is through-traffic.... through our neighborhoods, through our school intersections, through our already busy Highway 5. I am hoping to attend the meeting tonight - I am assuming it is at City Hall? I've attached a document that outlines my concerns. Regards, Melanie Mertes <Paisley Park Impacts.docx> 2 I 141, Advocates for Prince September 26,2016 Honorable Denny Laufenburger and VIA US MAIL AND EMAIL Chanhassen City Council Members council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us 7700 Market Boulevard dlaufenburger@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Post Office Box 147 Chanhassen,Minnesota 55317 Re: Paisley Park Museum Proposal Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: On September 20,2016,the Planning Commission recommended that the Chanhassen City Council approve the request for rezoning submitted on behalf of Paisley Park in order for the facility to be operated as a museum. Mr.Nelson loved his home and workspace—as well as Chanhassen as a whole—and because of this,his fans feel a connection to your community. Mr.Nelson's fan base has always held Paisley Park in high esteem,as his dreams of it,and for it,came into focus shortly after ground was first broken at 7801 Audubon Road. We have great respect for Chanhassen and are grateful to your citizens for welcoming Mr. Nelson—and us,his fans—with open arms. Therefore,it is with great enthusiasm that we welcome the idea of the Paisley Park Museum but one suggestion included in the proposal stands out to us in a less than positive way: the idea of significant changes to the fence surrounding the site. Recognizing that the idea behind changing the fence is due to high pedestrian volume,we submit that,with the exception of peak days,the largest overall influx of foot traffic has already occurred. Access to the grounds and interior spaces should result in the natural reduction of foot traffic in the area. An eight-foot opaque fence/wall would be aesthetically unpleasant and would detract from the otherwise welcoming atmosphere that permeates Paisley Park. Furthermore,in the absence of a gravesite,placing items on or near the fence is the only way Mr.Nelson's fans currently have to pay their respects to the artist we hold so dear. We understand that public safety must supersede our grieving process but we believe that over time,the need to express our grief in this way will likely diminish somewhat. For the short term,the proposed changes with regard to traffic and access should serve to adequately protect the public. In short,we respectfully request that final approval be given to the museum project but that any changes to the fence surrounding the property,now or in the future,be denied. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. incerel ct • Kim Rodman Co-Administrator Enc. cc: Bremer Trust Chanhassen Villager Minneapolis Star Tribune P 0 Box 823 Bloomington, IN 47402 purpleoutcry@gmail.com /eodcw num ?Purple OutCry is a global network of Prince Friends and supporters which, as a group, was launched via Facebook on June 10, 2.016. The Purple OutCry members are Prince supporters from.all over the world; and we have united, and continue to unify, for one common goal: the vigorous protection and responsible sustenance of the wealth of art created by Prince Rogers Nelson; i.e., his recordings, writings, musical vault, and of Paisley Park, Prince's beloved residence and workspace. It is our mission, and one to which we are passionately committed, that none of Prince's work be in any way altered or manipulated with no mindfulness of the significance of Prince's contribution to modern culture. Since Prince's untimely passing on April 21, 20i-(, it appears that there is very little consideration being given to Prince's wishes for the future of his musical legacy, and absolutely no consideration given to the wishes of those touched and affected so profoundly by the Maestro's work; namely, his Friends, as Prince chose to refer to those commonly known as "fans." We, as a global community of Prince Friends, have allied together to fervently and vehemently insist that Prince's wishes, and the wishes of the people for whom his music and message had such an impact, are not disregarded. Prince was arguably the finest musical virtuoso in history. His art obliterated all boundaries of race and faith and affected millions of people from all cultural and socioeconomic groups. His passing has devastated these millions, not only at the loss of the Maestro's music, but at the loss of the message of faith, peace, unity, and personal responsibility he so vocally embraced. In the interest of historical preservation, Prince's writings, recordings, musical vault, and residence and workspace must be protected from alteration, manipulation, and/or unseemly modification. The unaltered recordings of his music must be shielded in order to ensure that the Maestro's legacy is intact for future generations; the work of this great master must be protected for posterity. A popular internet mew muses, "If you ever feel sad, remember, the earth is billions of years old, and you got to live at the same time as Prince." This sentiment underlies Purple OutCry's mission. The art so prolifically and masterfully created by Prince Rogers Nelson, in the interest of history, and in the interest of truth, must at all costs be protected. Purple OutCry's goal, one to which we as a global community are passionately committed, is for the UNALTERED PRESERVATION of the work of this Musical Master. We ask for your support and assistance in ensuring that Prince's art, including the Paisley Park compound, lovingly created and owned by Prince, be protected from alteration or detrimental manipulation. It is our earnest desire, and, reportedly, Prince's as well, that Paisley Park become a museum of Prince's life and work, and that all recordings, writings, masters, and videos be protected from any form of alteration in order that the Maestro's work be readily available to all future generations of his Friends, as it should be with the works of any Great Master. We thank you for your attention and support and welcome your input as we continue our mission to preserve for posterity the monumental legacy of the Maestro, Prince Rogers Nelson. Purple OutCry Administrators United for Prince From:Laufenburger, Denny To:Meuwissen, Kim Subject:Fwd: October 3, 2016 agenda. In re: 7801 Audobon Rd, Chanhassen Case # 2016-24 Date:Monday, October 03, 2016 9:57:11 AM Denny Laufenburger Mayor, Chanhassen 612-327-6800 Sent via iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Laufenburger, Denny" <DLaufenburger@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Date: September 27, 2016 at 4:31:48 PM CDT To: R Stiles <rellen2012@yahoo.com> Subject: RE: October 3, 2016 agenda. In re: 7801 Audobon Rd, Chanhassen Case # 2016-24 Raye Ellen Stiles - Thank you for your message. I will keep your comments and those of others in mind as the Council considers this project. DENNY LAUFENBURGER Mayor, City of Chanhassen 612-327-6800 (cell) From: R Stiles [rellen2012@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 3:50 AM To: City Council; Laufenburger, Denny Cc: jbream@startribune.com; opinion@startribune.com; releases@startribune.com; opinion@startribune.com Subject: Re: October 3, 2016 agenda. In re: 7801 Audobon Rd, Chanhassen Case # 2016- 24 To: Honorable Mayor & Council for City of ChanhassenLaufenburger, DennyTjornhom, BethanyRyan, EliseMcDonald, JerryCampion, Dan 7700 Market Blvd. PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 council@ci.chanhassen.mn.us dlaufenburger@ci.chanhassen.mn.us From: RayeEllen Stiles Date: September 24th, 2016 Re: 7801 Audobon Rd, Chanhassen Case # 2016-24 Applicant: Bremer Trust Owner: Bremmer Trust Dear Hon. Mayor & Council: I am respectfully requesting that the contents of this letter be considered prior to giving final and blanket approval to this case regarding Paisley Park, scheduled for final approval on October 3,2016. All of Prince fans support the museum and will support it. However, there are some concerns. My only concerns are regarding two issues which were first presented during testimony of staff on September 20,2016. Those issues were as follows: a)Possibility of erecting an opaque wall around Paisley Park so that “people cannot look in”; and b)An onsite hotel/lodging on the site. These issues were only first put before the council without allowing for public input – but rather included only during the hearing. The public and Prince fans would like the opportunity to express concerns regarding that issue. Therefore I am requesting that the Paisley Park issue only be passed if it excludes the issue of an opaque wall and onsite hotel lodging with that caveat included within any said approval. It is strongly felt that those who will be supporting this endeavor, the fans of Prince, do not want an opaque wall around it as it would give the appearance of a correctional facility. And, it would not be in line with the way Prince would want it to appear. Otherwise, he would have erected such a wall himself. Such a wall would ruin the aesthetic of Paisley Park and indeed, a solid wall would invite graffiti, which would make it unsightly. Prince would not have wanted a hindrance to the viewing of the property by the public. And as for onsite lodging, it is imperative that the public which includes residents and fans worldwide as well.have advance notice of this and the opportunity to provide input as to their wishes and concerns which includes residents and fans worldwide as well. These two issues warrant public discussion and not just be approved without further study and public discussion. Respectably Submitted RayeEllen Stiles cc: Star Tribune