Loading...
09-17-97 Agenda and Packet AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSIONFILE WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1997 at 7:00 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Request for a conditional use permit to operate an auto sales establishment on property zoned Fringe Business District, BF, and site plan review for an auto sales establishment on 0.53 acres located south of Hwy. 169/212 and east of Hwy. 101/169, Southwest Auto Brokers, James Olson. NEW BUSINESS 2. Comprehensive Plan Discussion-Recreation 3. Bluff Creek Overlay District- Discussion. OLD BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES ONGOING ITEMS OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m.as outlined in official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If,however,this does not appear to be possible,the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. C 1 TY 0 F DATE: September 17, 1997 CAN1AE1' DATE: October 13, 1997 ASE #: 97-4 CUP STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for a conditional use permit to operate an auto sales establishment on property zoned Fringe Business District,BF,and site plan review for an auto sales establishment, Southwest Auto Brokers. Z Q LOCATION: South of Hwy. 169/212 and east of Hwy. 101/169 _I (L APPLICANT: James Olson Larry Hopfenspirger a_ 9636 Woodridge Dr. 7300 France Avenue South, #219-A Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Edina. MN 55435 942-9295 835-2177 PRESENT ZONING: Fringe Business District, BF ACREAGE: 0.53 acres INTENSITY: F.A.R. 0.06 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N-BF,Used Car Lot,Metal Storage Building/Offices S-A2,Minnesota River flood plain, wetlands E-A2, Motel W-BF,vacant site, Highway 101/169 QWATER AND SEWER: Unavailable, site is served by well and septic system W PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site is an abandoned SuperAmerica site with ramp type connection to Highway 169/212. Cl) 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Large Lot and Parks and Open Space Southwest Auto Sales September 17, 1997 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing the remodeling and upgrading of the site to reuse the property and existing building as a automobile sales lot. The proposed use requires a conditional use permit. In addition, since the property no longer has legal non-conforming status, the applicant is proceeding through the site plan review process in which the site is being brought into compliance with existing city standards, specifically the provision of landscaping in vehicular use areas. Automobile sales must comply with section 20-291 of the Chanhassen City Code: The following applies to truck, automobile or boat sales: (1) No vehicles which are unlicensed and inoperative shall be stored on the premises. (2) All repair,assemble,disassembly or maintenance of vehicles shall occur with a closed building except minor maintenance, including, but not limited to, tire inflation, adding oil and wiper replacement. (3) No outside storage or display is allowed, except vehicles for sale or rent. (4) No public address system shall be audible from any residential property. (5) Parking setback shall be applicable for car and truck storage or waiting areas. (6) No test driving of vehicles on local residential streets is allowed. (7) A landscape buffer on hundred(100) feet from any residential zoning district. (8) All vehicle dealers shall be licensed by the state. Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit and site plan for Southwest Auto Brokers at 615 Flying Cloud Drive subject to the conditions contained in the staff report. BACKGROUND On October 28, 1996,the Chanhassen City Council determined that the property was zoned Fringe Business District, BF, in response to an appeal of an administrative decision regarding the zoning of the property. In May, 1993, a permit was issued for the removal of the gas storage tanks on the site. On August 9, 1988, the Chanhassen City Council approved a conditional use permit (#88-12) for an 80 square foot pylon sign for SuperAmerica, 615 Flying Cloud Drive, on property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate District. Southwest Auto Sales September 17, 1997 Page 3 LANDSCAPING The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan with six trees and a grouping of shrubs around the perimeter of parking lot. Required landscaping for the site includes 5 trees and 1300 square feet of landscape area. The applicant meets the minimum requirements. Since the proposed tree species are not named by the applicant, staff recommends overstory species from the City's Approved Tree list be used. Shrubs shall also be chosen from the city's list. SIGNAGE Proposed signage for the development must comply with City Ordinance requirements. Motion and flashing signs and temporary signs and banners, stringers,and pennants are specifically prohibited. A separate sign permit shall be required for all signage to be installed on site. SITE GRADING Minimal grading is anticipated in reconstructing the parking lot for curbs and green areas. Erosion control fence will need to be installed in the southeast and southwest corners of the parking lot to minimize erosion off site. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is not available to the site. The site has a functional septic system and well. The property owner will be required to supply the City pumping and maintenance records every two years to ensure the system is functioning properly. DRAINAGE /WETLANDS The existing drainage from this site flows south to the west and east corners of the site. There is also a small swale of landscape rock,that also directs drainage to these corners. At the east and west corners the concrete is shaped into a small open culvert that directs water to larger,natural swales beyond the tree line. Currently these concrete openings are blocked by trash and other debris,which cause silt and mud deposits to form in the parking lot. These natural swales are sloped to the south and drain into wetlands which lead to Rice Lake, a natural wetland within the Bluff Creek Watershed District. Rice Lake then flows into the Minnesota River. All runoff from the site drains directly to the wetlands south of the property with no established water treatment or buffer zones. This area has a history of illegal dumping and just beyond the property line is an illegal dump site with tires, appliances, and other trash. Currently,the site has Southwest Auto Sales September 17, 1997 Page 4 four vehicles for sale as well as various auto parts and building materials scattered in the parking lot and yard. Although this area is highly impacted by businesses not complying with the City's SWMP policies, it is the ultimate goal of the City to require the same water quality standards in this area as in the rest of the City. By introducing used automobiles to this site,the proposed business would increase the amount of contaminates such as oil,antifreeze and phosphorus to the runoff. It is because of this that staff recommends a sediment trap to treat runoff and protect the adjacent wetland areas. However,there are several well monitors in place on this property,as well as limited space for grading. Therefore, it is staff's recommendation that the applicant establish a buffer zone along the south side of the property, restore the rock swale along the south side, re-establish the curb drainage swales,and place rip rap at the outlet points to provide silt protection. The existing site sheet drains to the southeast and southwest corners of the parking lot where drainage swales convey the runoff to the wetland/river. The plans propose to maintain the existing drainage pattern. Reducing the parking lot(impervious surface) size would also reduce the amount of runoff. PARKING LOT The existing accesses are approximately 50 feet wide. Both accesses should be reduced to 30 feet wide and the turnaround tabs at each end of the parking lot should be reduced 5 feet in length. They are proposing 10 feet currently. The Minnesota Department of Transportation(MnDOT) has jurisdiction with regards to work performed in the right-of-way (Trunk Highway 169/Flying Cloud Drive). The applicant shall apply and obtain the necessary permit for construction in Trunk Highway 169 right-of-way. New concrete curbs are proposed along the north, east and west sides of the parking lot. A bituminous overlay of the entire parking lot will most likely be required to maintain drainage and match proposed curbs. MISCELLANEOUS A new individual sewage treatment system (ISTS) was reviewed, approved by the City and installed in 1984. The building would have been classified as a B-2 occupancy at the time Chanhassen adopted the Minnesota State Building Code. ISTS. An ISTS inspection was done on 7/7/97 by a private, licensed inspector and a compliance report was subsequently issued. Staff independently verified the results of the report, and agree the ISTS is in compliance with current codes and is adequate to serve the proposed new occupancy. City files contain no proof of septic tank pumping or inspections. Pumping and/or inspection is Southwest Auto Sales September 17, 1997 Page 5 required every two years, and documentation is required to be provided to the City. Additionally, ties (measurements form components of the ISTS to existing, permanent structures) were never supplied to the City. Building code compliance. The building will be classified as a B occupancy under the current building code. This does not represent a change in occupancy from its previous use. Consequently, there are no requirements for upgrading the building to current codes. Work regulated by the building code which may be done on the building will require permits and must comply with current codes. A maximum of 20% of the cost of such work must be used to provide an accessible route for the disabled. Accessible parking. The plans show the accessible parking space incorrectly on sheet A-3. An eight foot wide space with an eight foot wide access aisle is required. In addition, there are building code and state statute requirements for handicapped signage and building code requirements for access aisle signage. CONDITIONAL USE FINDINGS When approving a conditional use permit,the City must determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20-232,include the following 12 items: 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,safety,comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. Finding: The proposed use should not endanger the public health, safety, comfort or convenience of the general public. 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. Finding: While the Comprehensive Plan guides this property for large lot residential or parks and open space uses,the City must provide a reasonable use of the property based on the existing zoning of the property and the property owner's investment backed expectations. This site,at approximately %z acre,is too small for the uses listed as permitted uses in the BF district leaving seven possible conditional uses for the property. Based on the existing conditions of the site,the use of the property for automobile sales is a reasonable use of the parcel. Use of this parcel for commercial activity is consistent with the City's policy of providing a mixture of development and also consistent with the policy of protection of the Minnesota River Valley. Southwest Auto Sales September 17, 1997 Page 6 3. Will be designed,constructed,operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. Finding: The proposed use of the property is compatible with the character of the area. An unimproved car lot exists across the highway. The proposed landscaping improvements and repainting of the building will enhance the site compared to existing conditions. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. Finding: The proposed use will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets,police and fire protection, drainage structures,refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. Finding: The site is served by a private well and septic system. Automobile dealerships, being a destination retail use, should not negatively impact the street system. 6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Finding: The proposed use will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The use of the site will improve the city's economic welfare as opposed to leaving the site vacant or blighted. 7. Will not involve uses,activities,processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare,odors,rodents,or trash. Finding: The proposed use should not negatively impact nor be detrimental to surrounding uses or persons. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. Finding: The proposed use should not negatively impact the roadway system. Southwest Auto Sales September 17, 1997 Page 7 9. Will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. Finding: The proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access,natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. Finding: The proposed use of the property is compatible with the character of the area. An unimproved car lot exists across the highway. The proposed landscaping improvements and repainting of the building will enhance the site compared to existing conditions. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. Finding: The proposed use will not depreciate surrounding property values. 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. Finding: The proposed use will bring the site into compliance with city landscaping requirements and must comply with section 20-291 of the city code. SITE PLAN FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; (2) Consistency with this division; (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing areas; (4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; Southwest Auto Sales September 17, 1997 Page 8 (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants,visitors and general community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; c. Materials,textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers,preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: The proposed site plan will enhance the appearance of the site and improve the aesthetics of the area. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit#97-4 and Site Plan #97-13 for Southwest Auto Brokers at 615 Flying Cloud Drive,plans prepared by Curiskis Architects, Inc.,dated 7/21/97, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with section 20-291 of the city code. 2. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary security as required by the agreement. Southwest Auto Sales September 17, 1997 Page 9 3. The applicant shall install site landscaping as shown on Landscape plan prepared by Curiskis Architects, Inc. dated 8/14/97. 4. Overstory species from the City's Approved Tree list be used. Shrubs shall also be chosen from the city's list. 5. Revise site plans as follows: Narrow both driveway accesses onto Trunk Highway 169 to 30 feet wide. Reduce turnaround tabs 5 feet at each end of the parking lot. Add erosion control silt fence at the southwest and southeast corners of the parking lot approximately 10 feet from each corner. 6. The applicant and/or property owner shall supply the City's Building Official with maintenance and pumping records of the septic system every two years. 7. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with any and all permits from MnDOT for construction within Trunk Highway 169 right-of-way. 8. The applicant shall restore the drainage pattern to previous conditions. This work includes re-grading and restoring the rock swale on the south edge of the property, remove trash obstructions from corner drainage points and construct rip rap swale from parking lot to natural ditch. 9. The applicant shall agree to establish a wetland buffer zone along the south property line. In creating the Buffer zone the applicant will agree to allow natural vegetation to grow, agree to keep all business, storage and maintenance activities out of the buffer area. Wetland buffer areas shall be identified in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. 10. Provide proof of septic tank pumping by a licensed pumper to the City. This must be done before the building is occupied. 11. Provide ties for the septic tanks,pump tank and distribution box. This must be done before the building is occupied. 12. Revise the proposed site plan to provide the correct accessible parking. This should be done before council approval. 13. A separate sign permit shall be required for all signage to be installed on site." Southwest Auto Sales September 17, 1997 Page 10 ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Review Application 2. Memo from Juris Curiskis to Larry Hopfenspirger dated 8/14/97 3. City Council Minutes of October 28, 1996,pages 11 and 12 4. Memo from Mark Littfin to Robert Generous dated 8/27/97 5. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 6. Sheets A-0 through A-8 prepared by Curiskis Architects, Inc. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT:---1/71" OWNER: //177/11-1-, ./4c p 1, �;Jn 0 .1 e ADDRESS: 9-6' � ° (12.;-)0t2,72,,,;- ADDRESS: To 0 ~' t L I• �^ TELEPHONE(Day time) >`f) (;- 511-- -/?L'.2-• TELEPHONE: 6. 12 - f 3/ 7 7 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit I�!^•.(") _ Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit Variance Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development' Zoning Appeal Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign /Site Plan Review` _ X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" ($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) J i Subdivision* TOTAL FEE$ ` ‘((. A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. 'Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE-When multiple applications are processed,the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME cTi41G?., i ,4ji2) /. ediee'A S LOCATION (/S /--/5'7,,j -L�Gw 2Uti C4 /A-SS(',' LEGAL DESCRIPTION ,5Z5-- o 36 3-2c o Sc'c; 3c, -;----r' ( I,L, r y-,5 ( 02-3 5-7 -c,-Z e fi=iv IN' k- V-1 TOTAL ACREAGE . 'r 7 WETLANDS PRESENT YES A NO PRESENT ZONINGt) r REQUESTED ZONING --&----- n PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Oro REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION �'r' REASON FOR THIS REQUEST LAS en C4 .L (..--c),— This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. 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 have attached a copy of proof of ownership(either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed 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. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. . The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. (_I -- �/ E-f s- 7 Si. e of Applica-� Date Ate, "�`c • r� `1i- /i' — 'i 7 gna re of Fee Owner ) Date ,� c: c 1 7 Application Received on `'115/ / Fee Paid -7--s Receipt No. 3� The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted,a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. TO: Larry Hopfenspringer of Commercial Connection FROM: Juris Curiskis of Curiskis Architects, Inc. DATE: 8/14/97 RE: Drainage of property at 615 Flying Cloud Drive, Chanhassen. I have contacted Civil Engineer Duane Temple P.E. His comment was that the POST DEVELOPMENT conditions are non existent because the PRE DEVELOPMENT conditions are remaining as "as is". He mentioned that the Watershed District has regulations that governs this issue. I also talked to the City Engineer as it relates to surface drainage calculations and sediment trap request made by Bob Generous. The City Engineer indicated that the "NPDES" regulation applies and that I can get that information from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. When I talked to Keith Cherryholmes of the MPCA, he indicated that the proposed use is not included in the "NPDES" requirements for managing and treating surface water run off. He also indicated that disturbing the existing green buffer between the property and the swamp is not a good idea. You may verify this by calling him at: 296-6945. Since you have no culverts and you are not proposing any new culverts, the 10 year and 100 year water run off calculations are a mute point. The MDoT standards for those calculations are geared for flood management via culvert design. You may verify this by calling Dennis Larson of MDoT at 779-5054. For your records I am including the fax transmittal from Bob Generous as it relates to t bove issues. City Council Meeting-October 28, 1996 Mayor Chmiel: Any time we have to spend an abundant amount of dollars,it's frustration for everybody here. Okay with that I'll call the question. Resolution#96-94: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved,Councilman Mason seconded that the Council accepts the bids as shown in the memo dated October 286 and at the same time that we approve the transfer from the City Hall Expansion Fund to Capital Projects in the amount of$160,000.00. All voted in favor,except Councilman Senn who opposed,and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. • ZONING MAP INTERPRETATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF TH 212 AND EAST OF TH 169 ON THE FORMER SITE OF SUPERAMERICA,LARRY HOPFENSPIRGER. • John Rask: Last time Council met on October 14th the City Council considered an appeal of the Board of Adjustments decision to find the property located at 1650 Flying Cloud Drive zoned A2,Agricultural Estate. The Council voted to table action on this item until the full Council was present. Within the staff report we found some additional information on this site. Last time we discussed this,a lot of other issues seemed to be pulled into it. When in fact what we were looking at was an interpretation of the zoning map. I put this additional information in there for your consideration. The applicant is requesting that the City Council find the Board of Adjustment incorrectly interpreted the zoning map and find the site to be zoned BF,Business Fringe. The Council may also wish to consider a second motion which would affirm the Board's decision that the property is zoned A2 and if the applicant wishes to make or to use this site for commercial use,he could request a zoning change at that time. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions or go over the zoning districts if you so choose. Mayor Chmiel: Okay,thanks John. Is there any questions of John at this time? Okay,good. Thank you. Is someone here this evening,and I see that face once more. Bruce Rubbelke: Yes Mayor,my name is Bruce Rubbelke,R-U-B-B-E-L-K-E,on behalf of Larry Hopfenspirger. Briefly Councilmembers, I have three questions regarding the zoning interpretation on this piece of property. I will be brief. As you recall from my...we're looking for an interpretation of the BF... Number one,Mr.Hopfenspirger was repeatedly told by the City that this was in fact BF. He was told this by Kate Aanenson. He was told this by Bob Generous. I believe we provided a letter to the Council...detailing that he in fact had been told by the City that it was zoned BF by the City. In other words they thought it was zoned BF. Secondly,if we look at the maps. John, can you put that '86... If we look at the maps,prior to the '86-'89 map,I don't think there's any dispute... If you look at the map that's out there now, '86,Revised'89. The parcel is clearly included in the BF zoning. Now that is the last map that conclusively has the property zoned under the BF... The map I believe... That has the line going through the property...we're not sure but that map clearly shows it BF. Thirdly, if you look at the historical use of the property. West of the property we have the old drive-in. North of the property we have a used car lot. East of the property we have the motel. So we have BF on the west,BF on the north and although the motel is A2,it's simply a conditional use... So if we're looking for interpretation rights...Now interestingly enough in the report that John prepared for the Council today,the City doesn't dispute that he was told it was BF. The City doesn't dispute that the most recent map incorrectly shows the zoning. We all know that there's a problem with the existing map. I guess Mr.Hopfenspirger's point is that based upon historical use.based upon the representations,based upon the known map,we would ask the to interpret that,that the property is BF. Mayor Chmiel: Okay,thank you. Is there any questions? Okay,I guess not. Thank you. John indicated,he made mention of the fact that affirms the Board's decision on this and the fact that even though staff had indicated that it was BF,we're looking at the,conclusion as to what it should be. I guess Council does the determining factor as to what that property is zoned. As I have looked at it,and really looked quite longly at what was proposed for this,for this proposal,I guess I still see that it is zoned as A2. That was my thought and that would affirm,as far as I'm concerned the decision. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well,since I was the one that wasn't here last time,I think it's most appropriate that I address it. I think there's no question that some mistakes have been made in past maps and what the applicant was told,and that's because the maps are ambiguous. So I don't think there's any argument that what we're here tonight to decide is an interpretation of the map as opposed to what's right and what's wrong. So when I look at what the past uses have been, it was an SA for a while. It's covered in you know bituminous. I look at the surrounding uses 11 City Council Meeting-October 28, 1996 and you know,they're albeit conditional uses but still they're business type uses. And I kind of weigh that against what the city's overall goals were for that area. I don't want to offend any surrounding tenants but we are trying to clean it up. However,I don't want to penalize a property owner who bought this piece of land with a good faith interpretation that he thought this was zoned BF. So I guess considering the fact that the maps have been ambiguous, I think it would be appropriate to,give the BF designation. I also say that with the knowledge that the applicant also has lots of hurdles to go through. There's no utilities availa6Ie to est e. a acc best. It's a postage stamp piece of land so there's,I don't see how you can get any parking on it. So depending, it has to be the right use and the applicant still has to go through the process. What that use wilLbe.and as I said. there's a lot of hurdles to it but at this point it would be my recommendation that we determine that the interpretation is BF. Councilman Berquist: Is that a motion? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll make that a motion. Mayor Chmiel: We're not done going through each individual yet. Councilman Berquist: Do we need to be? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Do you have any comment on this? Councilman Berquist: The comment I'll make was consistent with my comment last week.Or two weeks ago. The interpretation of the map by staff was erroneous. And that's fine,everybody makes mistakes now and again. We can correct it by granting the owner a BF zoning classification. It won't negatively impact us hardly at all. Long term plans. Short term plans. What the zoning map clearly indicates is not definable. The attorney indicates that if in fact the zoning map is ambiguous,which is a given within the staff memo.then the property owner is entitled to the least restrictive zoning classification,which is what I argued for two weeks ago. That's my comments. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael. Councilman Mason: Well,I can fly in the face of adversity but it seems like kind of a moot point. I'm not going to deny that this is ambiguous and I also then...from our attorney,and it's still,we still have the right as a Council to decide whether it is A2 or BF. Based on the opinion I'm hearing from Council.certainly the comment about ambiguity is a point well taken. This is one for me that I think in terms of the City. I would just as soon have it be A2 but I do think that with all this confusion,and with what other comments from our City Attorney say.the point about it.the zoning map is ambiguous. The property owner's entitled to the least restrictive zoning classification. I do not quite honestly agree with the BF but I will not be voting against that motion. Mayor Chmiel: Okay,Mark. Councilman Senn: I don't have anything new to add. My comments are pretty much the same as two weeks ago. Councilwoman Dockendorf: So I'll restate my motion that we interpret this parcel to be zoned Business Fringe. Councilman Senn: Second. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved,Councilman Senn seconded that the City Council find that the Zoning l lap Interpretation for the property located at 615 Flying Cloud Drive be designated as BF,Business Fringe. All voted in favor,except Mayor Chmiel who opposed,and Councilman Mason abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Mayor Chmiel: So the motion carries 4 to 1. Councilman Mason: I did abstain. 12 CITY OF i ‘ CHANHASSEN 1:)", 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Robert Generous, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: August 27, 1997 SUBJ: Request for a conditional use permit to operate an auto sales establishment on property zoned fringe business district, BF, and site plan review for an auto sales establishment on 0.53 acres located south of Highway 169/212 and east of Highway 101/169,James Olson, Southwest Auto Brokers. Planning Case 97-4 CUP. I have reviewed the request for a conditional use permit to operate the auto sales establishment. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements. The conditional use permit plan review is based on the available information submitted at this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. I have no comments or concerns at this time. ML/be g:\safetylmtlpl rev97-4 u NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING EN ani" PLANNING COMMISSION ffr.d= aLaWednesday, September 17, 1997 1PjjJ" 690 Coulter Drive ' Ia1 ,fes' II- A. SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review for an Auto Sales Establishment APPLICANT: James Olson •*•,,, LOCATION: South of Hwy. 169/212 •• and East of Hwy. 101/169 S NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, James Olson, is requesting a conditional use permit to operate and auto sales establishment on property zoned BF, Fringe Business District, and site plan review for an auto sales establishment on 0.53 acres located south of Hwy. 169/212 and east of Hwy. 101/169. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900 ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on September 11, 1997. 5 FROM COMMERCIRL CONNECT 8. 18. 1997 8 52 F'• CARVER COUNTY ABSTRACT AND TITLE CO., INC. CARVER COUNTY (812)448.5570 201 Chestnut St.N. FAX(812)448.5155 A1STRACT&TITLF P.O.Box 100 Dale B. Kutter Chaska,MN 55318 Davld E. Moonen May 7, 1997 The Commercial Connection Larry Hopfenspirger 7300 France Ave. So. , Suite 219A Edina, MN. 55435 Attn: Joel Groethe According to the 1997 Tax Books in the Carver County Treasurers Office the following persons are Bated as owners of the property within Carver County, Minnesota, which lies within 500 feet of the following described property: See Exhibit "A" Attached 1. Patrick Blood & Nancy Lee 5. Bert A & B L Notermann 718 3rd Ave. W 812 Co Rd 78E Shakupee, MN 55379 Shakopee, MN 55379 2. Thomas & Beatrice Zwiera 6. Robert E Drury 9390 267th Sr 575 Flying Cloud Dr Lakeville, MN 55044 Shakopee, MN 55379 3. Jack Brambilla 7. United States of America 550 Valley park Dr 1 Federal Dr Shakopee, MN 55379 Fort Snelling, MN 4. Timothy K Lehner & Amy A Munson-Lehner 470 Flying Cloud Chaska, MN 55318 Carver County Abstract & Title o c. This company does not assume any liability for the accuracy of this report. W 0 O 1 c WW Z H z_ X W 3 Q ce >'lZ 0-I Z z LLI 1-,< < Z ....W w Fx - � U F., WW a ,.., J ~"ii H > H a a a w w ro 0 0 Q C..7 i C7 d C7 pAocn Z 4 H o z Clie V) t a z �� H - w C.)ZH w w c. Z W a w 0 ri) Z W <Z rA x "< r—� d d d d d d d d �v L. \ J z 0 .4(: ud Lu z ti 0> Es- ✓ U¢ zN P4 0 .00)7.zw - �N OSL Ur-LUE. J U Z vi H VU Hwz� W xU2� U.<__Iv1•c _ ¢zoP Q --.<,:.- E7 73 �.., J L_- J / \ > I c I F N 1 ,,, .......Ell) '''' i> V V z • E- VW - < O I 7 v% zji W � -. � ¢ z < ,; Z J v ..et < > � 3 I R t= ] ..a �= \ \ / H. W v LI- 14 I Z L E C E•- > ." > a3 0 c c J a E- P,z z < z U z52 V" <Z1:4 , Z ' — 72 z .] I - �< R.o � I 1 \ \ u� / c/ Z O, 1 X , `; I T \ L cs 71 = L: % 7 .:. C> tr- .. I v C — L:7 ;'d< - • vL V. N • I t E` ~ z <-L- `; Z 1 Er- ;7:- < o u z Z r•-, �- '• ' _iprn C. (— .1 O < N g..z L S o!;":,E 76 Ci LirLE-- >` I \ c u LA / ( . a c I e z Li: Li E- C_, ce I H Z in U. r..'; c.:. F zz `= Z. LU r. < .— v �. • L L + cec_-7r- o U r<Z-�� I C atp<N v :LZ� R.0, • mac- \ \ J / \ ,,...::.1..si ,. .....e C...; O x L -5_-= c tr� v: C r. H L `; -C i; p� V a < J J •J. r./• r to cr,r� W v= C Fz� er 'r 4-, P �— v: u N U p v— < < cz v �! n? Z.' is V r1 ? Z� G . Li]izZ 2 c ` N,3II vC � - - < s O — XZCJ EL 2 va . II Xv C1 LL`. .1X I w v Z v u 1 „0-,Ot = .,0-.801 r M, L._1 r I3K1 1 A.L?13dO23d I 1i cc \ \c :••••:.= W z l.J L I = C r. N v (� C oC C — O .�z ^J I O I - iJ ,! C OC `. vi C.� •- -E.. V ^c \ trl C. < C " ` h > >- f... c_ 1 � - _�- J V VI �- ,y x I Z u 1 I .9-,t9 r \ ♦ i >, z et < vi v: v: v: ZZ Immir 1 1... . I _ < N N Q 1--' = ru L .. C •V OC CJ._ G ire 1 •= i, I L,. Q I < N z re f Cv J C Y y bzr, I C7 L :i z , G L i - E i j v L !� ic-. • N 7 t,r ' LL: Z3 <� •�, ,, 1 F. C L H < O <z w f u 2C<� c / I I 1,0-10 r.. < a o z LU < z z �v�JFI � , .<';> ► < � 5 1 - - < i c v v: C7 r� = U -' = K Ci C) U 0 Z z z z z v` I) '..1 C C v,) F- z r. I �+ o G L X X X V _Z / I , � U,L_,= a ,73 r!•• v 1t�17 A1233dO�Id U z 0 r; v.< c!:wz.- wcsz . v-2F J C \ L > / / \ o z ; C7 MN. C' Y ; N rz 1 ati p C a UlN I- D Z CI [� 3 a W e 6 v 2' C ILI } d J 7. ei v. `�, O ILI m � to.` L c y Z rr _ 4.2 UFS [=- � E-- UF- C � o i rr, d - - :i,,, z - ,.. < Z < - zZE a OZ ,.T :, z .4 0 c p; w = X a W .1u] .-3a C E � ?. � o � N Cma � O2v' � - � - t--- t7 V) Q II L� L� c 2 ' 2 r `Zv 6h Q' E o - "' ce < � ZIXc`) dz � 0. 0 z = 3 _ ¢ 5 26 u1H1 � C °OrQmz .] 0.� zUC. m 0. V1 \ \ / I 1 y i t N w 3h 1 AJ 13dOdd T 1 D L OLv 000 o CQz r. Oi CII Fla cv u C O V Orn Q v .d V Q E'.. - } G - i!L .. zcl U _,'�'O \ _ E1 to , c en W. / c \ N N ..o-sz yy L.L.: LC tz.: z - v - v� vi vi v.. C , Z N Z ral N N O C [--• I ,_ «J I N ._1 N N v sc U ,.....77.1. Q 1 N I = - z 3 ,-.1 N 00-,ZZ y "' C N C7 W iJ C Gr P C., '..1 X... 0� G . ;< N to v 1 _..y C k7 < Z [x] z 1 _ o • C �zZoo c. I V „9,8Z j Z Li.] c Q:, O `o r a w a ¢ 7 cz.• ,`J < c v U �Ur-wE-• �+ / `` % c v z < \ l r�� c- E LLI W � I YX E__ Z5 • It \ v I q c' v i tr. `� rn m p U _vf iu 00o c z 1 zzz E . E- I .. i - X >G X w F w i w w w z U FwZ�- , 1L^l _U2.v. gm 1 A.L113dO2id ♦ E z O,'�r v ix v�GN Z �_ Z 1y. - uj � Q Fe�Zv ILI Zv; wE- Z LzA0cc a �czv 0 u2 Lo Lo 0v E U^2E- arzcwi- z ` \ J E 0 ¢ c 01 U c / / n ,.. ••....€ I - a. o c yG n ^ n . ^s I c--- . c • 0. • 0 In C. Gra , p ` — � CV, {' v E u F uw• v ? ' >^ LU n � AJQO ' J ,O •� �"% 0. L Zv j \ Z to = c:a 3 V) S.• 1 - y .. L _ Ci J C1 7 v ���. O N Y.i. f7 00 y `� ,cce v — -� ¢ n v n \\•l v O = y e v a --- Z z Ctl Z Z = 4 y N e3 n ¢ - 3 -� < 7- d _ - n c c L/r� ./�� ..s„..,�` C J L L` v w L r Lc• c 7 I� W C/7 J V 11l V T ...,..........N"..........41;„ 1 17 O 1, r -----> = z r Z - m- f > ' < •c < TA ..n1 ` < < ' Z •A A I > Z = J2. Z -, v r_ y n. z •-i M > E- • v t F ^ _ C 4 al > ' J ZVI 1 f 7 E +v _ n y� - Z O"� - cs • — • _ > C7 < it L� > r ✓ t E J ? Z a >; D Gra U¢ Z ¢� th T O > E- - u L.`/z x 1 CJ ' F ..LI O ¢ v CA p — J E so o � _ o >V ( re CC CL cv C.ic-W=- C y .. > > i ^• • < Z G _ C L'1 E. V 1 ' I / --- v L' =v�n . ._�I 3 > ten.J� v t>"' M zo = • % c U 1_, � � ✓ � _= Z Z -H \. / K K % \/ ....., .._. \ « « � 3 / / ' _ z22 ` CA \ \ Z / v a Cti } ƒ\ ) / \ 2 � j \ O :£ /\ 2 2� ( 2 \ Z \ ) * § % , $ U } } i \ . E22 ( ..I 7 / 0 2f c c _ / 2 2 - >. ) ; E- § / 4. 2 L Z itt -1 > < \ ; \ < e ' 5d 44 § j W < \ \ \ \ � I | I K z ® ■ , LO > . � 3 > \ ,_:2 /ƒ U % 1 u | �� C 9 Q y / | =... S «cƒ : / kKz .� . © @ w f c_ <CA », z \ iz = »`< S / 3 7 ��� ' I _ 2 \ 7 _ -7.-.o- t1 z \ \ \ 1'5 9 \ v & ) = K6 w \ $ � \ \ ƒ | k } : \ j \ ! : :� r g = @/ '= ( � 1 0 $/ $ g { , = s = /® / s as ° ° \ j 4 � Lu 9 .y ±2 _ - /9 — Lt.) ="-,-s . 3 } Q//Q m1 k \ \ § /<2 i § g '; � iu. -- Dz o >=3y\ f �ILI /f / \/\ \ _ / \ § % % 2 $ | zez ojf \ c z2 Kz . % ]ti | ~ di L.1 \ E,--, \ — vi\ % /i. LT-IL) | v \Q2/ < . ..aI = \/�2 W /q/R \E�- »$Z� Ld 2 i % » I I \...\it1/41 \ / i \ LL,, ,T >-• ' .*se I C, x F x 1 r �i N Lrri; n � � v ��� V cev0 - Q V 11 u ^ •aha\. , r- rec_ � k � 7 174. E „ v v o mi XULC' Y < . v = z L1. > C C LL Q • .- r3 `��'w-,7' cis E- E- t w o {-- > J W o " c X SCC] I < .7 < II1 �7 I CC ce z Z \ O ` G -� 6 - '- -C LI C F "- C Z uv = , = 4.; z C y G z t/� ,.y 1.Lj Lu z X -) 3z XC - X — J v, � c_ i i / /- \ 1 L:, MJ \:-. z0.e aC,z ^, I �vU >= <zf < }7.z _ 1- Li < U I 4..' to V' ` \ / Vtil P > ) .5-, c / \ L I ak 0 F- Li 0 bt >, -� z y. �: ,d .= Ly -> rz '- .y+ L.7 v< N - I Nzzx U O u<2N 1Cit-WE- .- v \ \ / L I C C . \ I U U IL] 7 H U z I _ C;_j v: . .-�--- .1 = x c Iv C_ s,,�N \ \ / r ._... . r \ / v L _ o, F. = .e-- fte i C. r ��Na DSC U >> T Y ci ` — v `�� C1 `' Ci >+ Z L _ M"n L CL ,,, J 6.) t— Z < r •C r v v C C r , > c p C` a .61- c r, n c• °� = r II N` Q v G u �� c = v. v L 6 V 0 (J w G z Lli c z — r q r >- w w N u C Z Q z Q - Q =\� G Lz] _ = w v a a Q Q vZr. .N 3 i.> 3 3 G I - ; a i i I [ .._,___ tlit444 j r_ 430 i 1 I E_ _L...: ce C F •.-Cz z M E- v sIG` J z Z �. z i U I � M j `r \ J to_C 1 ►~`� X L Y >' M i c r \ z c • ' 1 1 w c ; - zv A `i' C Oj N. / / 1 00 _ < ,.. ___ .4 t--- N U — r = . M° UZ C u, O ... U J v.`� .. � _ � z < e> v. y 77: = L •c- e`er el, < E x U a ?_ 6. _ ce Q /�/ U H L t �. 7 . r ,-.4 Q C.J J O L^ ti -c.' `� k v u C� - Z zU L rT. �, U o --. f G r I- :1 U N C `�' 'J E"' r L J z r r U ' — W. m X G JC cm.` u cv f 1 Y\ -70 �++ c `� i > C.. 3 U F F. z•az O C --L--- ailli `Z. ` < w —o � 0 , L'� oz:% L. u < ;� �^ 0� < �, ,¢ 14 DJ v4 o¢ w / / r�i .. � Q < Z . v fc Y �� {/� U C c. F- r 0` ��: .2 �� L1 G i \\ LYQ\ > nV v`•z ¢L, v3 uzzc_nom. i+=��N"' 2L¢�4>_.**E3 0zit Q *-4 vi''LtiF • Z c \ ` J < o Q[3 C.- q ii G.Vn e_----3Zu v rs ,<„� � V fw-W z r C.) � � Ga .:_Uv-, � � °-orb," O , <zo�. - -i < K Li z �cz v--2f- � L J CITY O • CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner I DATE: September 10, 1997 SUBJECT: Recreation Element of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan BACKGROUND The recreation element of the comprehensive plan is comprised of both parks and open space. The City has moved towards a greater balance between the preservation of open land and active park land. Attached is a copy of the recreation goals and the portion of the 1991 comprehensive plan. ANALYSIS The City considers parks and open space to be essential in maintaining the high quality of life. Obtaining land for open space preserves the character and ecology of this area. The importance that this community places upon parks and open space is evident in the results of the referendum that took place in June 1997. The approval of the $4.9 million bond referendum will permit the construction of additional trails, the development of Bandimere Community Park, the acquisition of open space and the improvement of 18 neighborhood parks. The City and the residents are dedicated to obtaining and maintaining park land and preserving open space. Since the 1991 comprehensive plan, several parks and trails have been constructed. In addition, the cooperation between the City and the school district produced the joint acquisition of land for Bluff Creek Elementary and the Recreation Center. The acquisition of 100 acres in the Arboretum Business Park was another success in preserving sensitive land. The goal and policies developed for the 1991 comprehensive plan are attached. Any updates or comments are in bold type. While these policies are still valid, they should be updated to incorporate survey results and new planning policies. The City has revised development policies Planning Commission Recreation Element, 2020 Comprehensive Plan September 10, 1997 Page 2 which will affect the future of open space and park land. For instance, the planned unit development (PUD) ordinance will require a greater preservation of open space and the Bluff Creek Overlay district seeks to maintain ecological sensitive natural features. The revised comprehensive plan will assess the need for additional community and local neighborhood parks as well as examine the existing facilities. The needs assessment will be based upon a phone survey of residents completed in January. This survey focused on the resident satisfaction with the City and on the park referendum. The results of the survey will be incorporated into the update of the comprehensive plan. Generally, the residents had a favorable response towards the existing parks and open space. However, the City would like to develop additional facilities that will satisfy needs of all age groups. This may include developing active recreational facilities for age groups like adolescents. In general, this element is in need of substantial revisions. The changes will reflect the desire for additional preservation of natural features and recreational facilities of interest to all age groups. This chapter will be reviewed by the Park and Recreation Commission before it returns again to the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION Please review the attached information and be prepared to offer staff input on this element. ATTACHMENTS 1. Recreation Goals and Policies 2. Recreation Element, 1991 Comprehensive Plan Attachment 1 RECREATION GOAL The City of Chanhassen will provide recreational open space areas which will reasonably meet the outdoor recreation needs of the community's residents. This goal is still valid and shall remain. POLICIES Provide park and open space facilities that emphasize accessibility and use by Chanhassen residents. The trail connections may be expanded. Coordinate the expenditure of local funds for recreational open space with the schedules for the provision and development of other municipal services. This policy is still valid. The city should update and adopt the recreation open space element of the comprehensive plan at least every five years. An annual assessment of programs, identified needs, and the capital improvements program should be conducted. This has not been completed. However, it has been done on a narrow-topic basis. Negotiations for the acquisition of recreational open space areas should be based upon appraisals by qualified appraisers. Reasonable efforts shall be made to acquire land by negotiated purchase before utilization of the power of eminent domain. This policy is still valid. • The location, design,use and impact of recreation facilities should be compatible with and enhance the environment of both the site and surrounding area. This policy is still valid. Recreation Goal and Policies 2020 Comprehensive Plan September 10, 1997 2 Abandoned right-of-ways should be reserved and preserved for public use if they can be utilized for recreational purposes. This policy is still valid. Encourage the cooperative effort between the school system and the city in the acquisition,development and usage of recreational lands and facilities. This has been done with Bluff Creek Elementary and the Chanhassen Recreation Center. This policy shall remain. Provide open space areas which assist in the conservation and protection of ecologically sensitive areas. This will be done with the Bluff Creek Overlay district and the planned unit development(PUD) ordinance. Provide a recreation system that integrates manmade facilities into the natural environment of the area. This policy is still valid. Develop a park and open space plan which is consistent with and compliments the overall land use plan for Chanhassen. This policy is still valid Provide a system of neighborhood parks which are centrally or conveniently located within the area they serve and where possible, are integrated with school facilities. This policy is still valid. Encourage citizen participation in the planning for and development of park and open space facilities. This policy is still valid. Recreation Goal and Policies 2020 Comprehensive Plan September 10, 1997 3 Continue to seek assistance from community groups in the planning and development of recreation areas. This policy is still valid. Provide a balanced park system which includes neighborhood parks, community parks, special use facilities, schools, and private developments; all interconnected by a linear trail network. This policy is still valid. Where possible, neighborhood park lands should be planned for, prior to development to insure that future facility demands can be met. This policy is still valid The location of neighborhood parks should be identified in areas that do no require the crossing of major thoroughfares by small children. This policy is still valid. The planning for recreation and open space within Chanhassen should concentrate on total environment programming rather than emphasizing facility programs. Recreation activities will be designed to appeal to all age groups. This policy is still valid (2/91 ) RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE Introduction The active and passive recreational needs of urban populations have been receiving increasing attention in recent years. As urban development has expanded and consumed large amounts of open land. pressure to provide parks and open space has intensified. This intensification has brought on a new challenge - providing adequate living spaces for the population while insuring that the overall living environment remains both satisfying and stimulating. One way of accomplishing this task is through the provision of adequate park lands and open space areas. As mentioned. recent years have brought on an increasing demand for recreation. This intensified demand has been caused primarily by overall increases in the population. Population is not, however, the only factor involved. Increasing leisure time, greater mobility. and higher disposable incomes have all contributed to increased recreational demand. For planning purposes, recreational lands and open space areas are generally combined into one category. There is however, a significant difference between the two. Parks are typically defined as public areas which provide active or passive oriented recreational facilities. A significant characteristic of park land is accessibility to its users. Open space on the other hand. can be defined in more general terms. In its broadest sense. open space comprises any land parcel that is not used for buildings or other structures. Parks and open space fulfill three primary functions. First. they meet positive human needs both physically and psychologically. Historically, parks and open space have been justified on health grounds. These spaces provide fresh air. sunlight, and areas for physical exercise all of which provide the psychological release which has become increasingly important to today's active and often complex lifestyles. Very little research has been done to quantify the psychological values of park and open space areas. The physical attributes of these spaces are more readily apparent. Jogging tracks, active game areas, and obstacle courses provide facilities which can be utilized to directly benefit human health. Aside from health benefits, parks and open space can also enhance social interaction. The location and design of open space and recreation areas can play an important role in bringing people together such as in the case of a 1 (2/91 ) neighborhood park. On the other hand, these spaces can become barriers separating different uses or neighborhoods depending on existing conditions and park design. The second function of parks and open space areas is to enhance and protect the resource base. Physical resources such as air, water and soils are critical factors in the provision of open space areas. Attention to these resources in the planning stage can have many positive values and in some cases, can alleviate future problems. By providing open space which protects and preserves physical resources. flood damage can be reduced. water supplies protected. soils nourished and wildlife enhanced. The misuse of these resources can result in soil erosion. polluted waters and severe flooding. The third function of parks and open space concerns economics. These facilities can have an impact on economic development and real estate values. This function, although not critically important to Chanhassen, does have some significance to the community. Several existing and proposed recreation facilities pose an economic impact. Most notable among this group are the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum and the Minnewashta Regional Park. Both of these facilities are regional in scope. As such. they tend to draw users from the entire Metropolitan area which results in increased service revenues to Chanhassen businesses. Park and Arboretum users purchase gas, food, and other miscellaneous items all of which benefit the business community and the city as a whole. On a smaller scale. the provision of parks, open space areas, trailways, and greenbelt corridors has a positive impact on residential property values. Lots located on parks or overlooking open space areas such as marshes frequently appreciate at higher levels than other land located within a community. The importance of the provision of park and open space facilities should not be underestimated. A link exists between a city's amenities and other aspects of its life. The future of cities will be determined to a significant degree, by their ability to instill in people a positive desire to live in them. Creating a balanced recreational system is one way in which a community can enhance this desire. 2 (2/91 ) Open Space Planning In providing recreational facilities for existing and future populations, first an analysis of scale must be conducted. The end result is a determination of the entity responsible for each segment of the overall recreation system. To clarify this, the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area can be used as an example. Within the Metro area, parks can be classified as being either federal, state, regional. local. or private. Each of these types of parks provides varied facilities which often concern only specific recreational demands or user groups. Federal, State, and regional parks can be grouped together since these facilities typically provide opportunities that are unavailable at the local level. Examples include facilities for hunting, camping, and special features such as nature centers. Local parks on the other hand, typically provide close proximity facilities for active pursuits and additional space for passive recreation. Typical activities include tennis courts, ball diamonds, playgrounds, and open field areas. The key ingredient for successful local parks is quick. convenient access for user groups. Private facilities comprise the third general park category. Private facilities are not given major consideration in a recreational system-wide analysis since the activities they contain vary extensively. Typical activities range from miniature golf to boating rentals. In conjunction with identifying existing recreation facilities, an analysis and quantification of human needs and desires should be conducted. Establishing the preferences of the user group will obviously permit the planning of facilities which most directly meet their needs. In analyzing user preferences, several factors are examined. The demographic structure of the community should be studied. The overall age structure of a population often determines which types of recreational activities will be in highest demand. Young growing communities for instance. will probably require the installation of tot lots and other play facilities for younger children. On the other hand, in communities where the concentrations of elderly people are greater, more passive recreational facilities may be appropriate. 3 (2/91 ) Other more specific factors are obviously included in the overall planning for effective open space and in fact, will be utilized in the Chanhassen Plan. In a general sense. the comparison of existing facilities to existing and future demand levels indicates deficiencies in a park system. This deficit should then be corrected through the planned placement of recreational facilities. Implementation- Upon completing a recreation plan. implementation becomes a key issue. Implementation of a park plan involves the expenditure of large sums of money which unfortunately, most communities seldom have. Therefore. outside sources are looked upon. Before examining specific revenue sources, general implementation methods should be studied. Two major tools are available: acquisition and regulation. While both of these methods are viable alternatives. each employs distinct mechanisms which in turn result in varied amounts of control. The acquisition of full or partial rights to land parcels provides a community with a guaranteed method of preserving open space. Land can be acquired through condemnation, donation, or purchase, all of which are legal means since the acquisition of park land serves as a public benefit. Easements constitute another method through which open space lands can be acquired. Easements differ from the fee simple purchase of a property in that they are typically used to acquire only partial rights to a parcel. As such, they can be in two forms, either affirmative or negative. Easements can grant the city and the public the right to use land for specific purposes. Easements can also prohibit the use of land by the public and more importantly, specifically restrict the uses to which an owner may put his land. For example, conservation easements can limit land uses to such activities as farming, wetlands, or scenic easements along highways. Easements as a method of acquiring open space can be an effective procedure in the provision of recreational facilities. 4 (2/91 ) A second method of acquiring open space is through regulatory means. Through the use of zoning and subdivision ordinances, local municipalities have control over open space areas. Of these regulatory tools, zoning is most often utilized. Two general types of zoning ordinances exist which are used to provide open space. The first type, known as development zoning includes provisions such as cluster zoning. Schemes such as this involve both park lands and open space areas since cluster zoning permits the grouping of structures thereby freeing up additional lands for park use. The second type.. known as natural resource zoning, takes a somewhat opposite approach since it is used to prohibit structures from identified areas. Typically. this control method is used to protect marshes.. floodplains, agricultural land, and other natural resources. The City of Chanhassen presently utilizes both of these mechanisms. Subdivision ordinances can affect open space conservation and can implement its preservation through design restrictions which regulate the layout of developments. Furthermore, as a part of such an ordinance. a city can require the dedication of permanent open space as a platting requirement. In cases where a municipality does not need additional park land, a fee in lieu of the dedication can be charged. This fee is usually calculated to be roughly equivalent to the value of any land parcels which are required under the dedication ordinance. Land dedication requirements are justified on the grounds that a subdivision is responsible for providing recreational amenities to the residents who reside within it. The City of Chanhassen currently utilizes dedication as a means of providing open space and park areas. Recreational Facilities- In analyzing the existing recreational facilities within a community, a recreational zone of influence needs to be considered. A zone of influence defines a geographic area in which people are likely to travel to participate in recreational activities. For the purpose of this plan, the zone of influence is defined as the area which represents a maximum travel time of 25-30 minutes. 5 (2/91 ) The area depicted on the Zone of Influence Map should be viewed in general terms. Within this designated area, the public is likely to move about freely in order to participate in various types of recreational activities. The delineation of this line does not however, imply that participation is unlikely outside of the zone. Major cultural and recreational activities outside of this area will draw users from within the zone. An example of this might be the participation by the public in boating and fishing on the St. Croix River. In this case, the St. Croix has certain amenities which draw users from a wider geographic area. In looking at the Zone of Influence Map, it becomes apparent that the demand for recreation occurs regardless of political boundaries. Existing recreation areas outside of the City of Chanhassen exert an influence on the Chanhassen population while recreational facilities within the City exert an influence on the population outside the Chanhassen municipal boundaries. The migration into Chanhassen to utilize city recreation facilities will be the strongest from neighboring communities which have not been active in developing park and open space lands which meet the needs of their residents. Facility Inventory - Regional Facilities- As a prerequisite to analyzing specific park sites. a classification scheme for various types of recreation areas needs to be established. Initially, parks and open space areas can be broken down into four ownership/management categories: federal, state, regional and local. Federal. state and local facilities outside the Chanhassen municipal boundary are not included in the site analysis portion of this study. The chart entitled Metropolitan Recreation Open Space System portrays the definitions. service area boundaries. and site requirements for various park types. REGIONAL OPEN SPACE Regional recreation open space is defined as publicly accessible areas which. because of their natural environment character and development. offer recreational opportunities that attract large numbers of people irrespective of political boundaries. The attraction of such an area can be 6 (2/91 ) in its uniqueness as a facility or because of the existence of notable natural resource features. In the Twin City Metropolitan Area, the regional recreation open space system consists of five components: regional parks, regional park reserves, regional trail corridors, regional historic parks, and regional special use areas. Within the City of Chanhassen, three of these five facilities are presently in existence. LAKE MINNEWASHTA REGIONAL PARK Lake Minnewashta Regional Park is located on the northeast corner of Lake Minnewashta. southwest of the intersection of State Highways 7 and 41 . The facility was originally established as a park in the late 1970's and has been in the development stage since that time. Land area in the park totals 350 acres. The development of park facilities is being done in accordance with the park's original master plan. Existing facilities include boat accesses.. a swimming beach. picnic areas. a picnic shelter and groomed cross country ski trails. Future plans call for additional facilities including a bath house, maintenance shop, additional picnic shelters, a nature interpretive center, expanded picnic areas. additional parking, an open field area. a tot lot and expanded utility improvements such as restrooms and drinking water. Lake Minnewashta Regional Park continues to be operated and maintained by Carver County. Funding for facilities comes from the Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Council maintains a policy stating that a prime purpose of regional parks is to provide recreational facilities which are not found in municipal parks. Because of this, Lake Minnewashta Regional Park will not contain ball diamonds. tennis courts. hockey rinks or other active facilities in the future. MINNESOTA LANDSCAPE ARBORETUM The Minnesota Landscape Arboretum located on the western edge of Chanhassen. serves as a regional special use facility. The arboretum 7 (2/91 ) consists of 580 acres, the majority of which is in Chanhassen with smaller land parcels being located in both Chaska and Victoria. Maintenance and staffing for the arboretum is provided by the University of Minnesota. The major attraction of the arboretum is the facility itself. Some 4,000 species and cultivars of ornamental and native plants are located on the site. This display draws users from throughout the Metropolitan Area, particularly during the spring when materials are in bloom and again in the fall when the Fall Festival is held. This festival attracts as many as 10.000 visitors. In addition to the plant viewing function of the Arboretum, the facility is also involved in activities ranging from research to educational programs. Breeding and research programs to improve the hardiness and landscape qualities of plant materials. flower exhibits, nature hikes, and horticultural classes all are typical activities. NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE The third facility in Chanhassen which can be considered regional in importance is the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Like the Minnewashta Regional Park. the Wildlife Refuge is still in the acquisition stage. Eventual plans call for the acquisition of approximately 6,600 acres providing a linear greenbelt stretching from Fort Snelling to the town of Carver. The stated objectives of the wildlife refuge are: 1 . To preserve a critical portion of the Minnesota River Valley with its wildlife and natural habitat. 2. To provide an urban wildlife area for bird watching. photography, nature study. hunting, fishing and other wildlife oriented activities. 3. To provide a unique educational resource to all ages by assisting with field studies of environmental interrelationships, stimulating curiosity and investigation of living things by offering a variety of first hand outdoor experiences. 8 (2/91 ) In order to realize identified objectives, major program areas have been identified. Included are wildlife production and maintenance, wildlife and wetland appreciation. environmental education, research and scientific studies, fishing and hunting, and historic preservation. Within Chanhassen, the wildlife refuge is scheduled to encompass the entire southern section of the community. At the present time. the land bounded by U.S. Highways 169 and 212 on the north and Highways 169 and 101 on the west, and by the Chanhassen border on the east and south is part of the land acquired for the refuge. The land lying to the west of this site bounded by U.S. Highway 212 on the north, the Minnesota River on the south, and the Chanhassen municipal limit on the east and west will eventually become part of the refuge. Because of the size of the refuge, a substantial amount of time will be required for the acquisition of all projected land parcels. Due to the immense size of the project and consequently, the high cost, several allocation methods will be used. In its final form. the refuge will consist of parcels owned by the federal government. the state. municipalities. and in some cases. by private owners through the provision of easements. Upon completion, the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge will contain facilities for camping. fishing, hunting. canoeing. bicycling, snowmobiling, and nature study, all of which will provide a direct recreational benefit to both Chanhassen and the Metro population as a whole. Facility Inventory - Chanhassen Historically, the development pattern of cities has evolved around a central tract of open space - the city park. Often, these parks are one square block in area and usually serve as a focal point for the community. Facilities typically include a band shell. fountain, or sitting area: all of which promote social interaction. In the neighboring city of Chaska.. the town square idea is exemplified by the Chaska City Park. Because of Chanhassen's historic development pattern, the evolution of its park system has been somewhat different. Chanhassen's development as a suburban community has produced a park system which. although different in format from the traditional central city park, 9 (2/91 ) has in reality developed in somewhat the same manner. Instead of the central town square park, Chanhassen has established a community park which serves as the primary recreational facility. This site is supplemented by a series of neighborhood parks which provide recreational opportunities within close proximity to the residential population. These facilities combined with other open space areas constitute the existing recreational open space system. The success of the park system within a community depends on a number of factors. Certainly, sound planning. placement, and design are primary determinants. One feature, however, stands out as a critical factor which often can make the difference between a good park system and a excellent one. That factor is natural diversity. Natural features can provide favorable factors in the establishment of viable open space areas. Factors such as tree cover, topographic diversity. lakes, streams, vistas and wetland areas can add immensely to the overall success of a park system. Fortunately, all of these exist within Chanhassen. These characteristics. coupled with the strong established park tradition within the community. form the basis for the provision of the park system. Municipal park facilities can be considered as falling into one of four categories: mini-parks, neighborhood par-c/playgrounds, community playfields, and community parks. The definitions and characteristics of each of these is indicated on the chart entitled Metropolitan Recreation Open Space System. In addition to these, other facilities may be used for recreation which do not totally fall within these categories. The following facilities comprise the existing Chanhassen Park System. Name: Bandimere (Lake Riley) Park Type: Community Park Size: 30 acres Facilities: Undeveloped 10 (2/91 ) Comments: Bandimere (Lake Riley) Park was acquired in 1988. The master plan for the park calls for four ball diamonds, two soccer fields, tennis courts, a picnic area, off-street parking and an internal trail system within the park. Upon development, this park is expected to see heavy use by participants in Chanhassen's youth programs. Name: Bandimere Heights Park Type: Neighborhood Park Size: 3 acres Facilities: Soccer Play Area Comments: Bandimere Heights Park is located on Kiowa Trail on the western side of Lake Riley. This park was acquired as part of the surrounding residential development and at present, contains only a soccer field and play area. The park consists of a swale area with the surrounding area covered with small trees. Name: Bluff Creek Park Type: Community Park Size: 20.6 acres Facilities: None Comments: Bluff Creek Park is part of the drainage system for Bluff Creek. The site drops from a northern elevation of approximately 900 feet down to the 700 foot elevation of the Minnesota River floodplain. This ravine provides one of the most dramatic vistas in the community affording a view across the floodplain and into the City of Shakopee. Due to topographical constraints, this parcel will remain as future open space. The area has the potential to provide a future pedestrian trail link to an expanded system paralleling Bluff Creek. Since the primary purpose of the park is to protect the drainageway. it may be more appropriate to classify Bluff Creek Park as a special use facility. Name: Carver Beach Linear Park Type: Neighborhood Park Size: 7.8 acres Facilities: Play Area Beach Area Trail Picnic Area 11 (2/91 ) Comments: Carver Beach is a lineal tract of land on the western edge of Lotus Lake. This facility serves primarily as a neighborhood access to the lake. The southern part of the site contains mature tree cover. Name: Carver Beach Playground Park Type: Neighborhood Park Size: 2 acres Facilities: Play Area Ball Field Ice Skating Rink Open Field Basketball (1/2 court) Comments: Carver Beach Playground. located on Carver Beach Road, consists of a rectangular. level site. Very little vegetation is present as most of the park is devoted to active use accommodating primarily casual game activities. Name: Cathcart Park Type: Neighborhood Park Size: 3 acres Facilities: Tennis Court Hockey Rink Baseball Diamond Warming House Ice Skating Rink Basketball Court Play Area Comments: Cathcart Park is located in the extreme northwest corner of Chanhassen. This park is unique because while it lies totally within Chanhassen. the facility is owned and maintained by the City of Shorewood. The park consists of a level site surrounded by a church on the north and residential uses on the east, west, and south. Some vegetation exists on the site but the majority of the facility is devoted to active play space. Name: Chanhassen Hills Park Type: Neighborhood Park Size: 8 acres Facilities: Undeveloped 12 (2191 ) Comments: Chanhassen Hills Park was acquired as a result of residential development north of Lyman Boulevard and west of TH 101 . The park serves as a neighborhood recreational facility for the surrounding homes and will eventually serve as a buffer to TH 212 which will abut the southern edge of the park. The master plan for Chanhassen Hills Park calls for instal ation of a small off-street parking lot, a ball field, two tennis courts, a basketball court, a play area, a sand volleyball court and a trail through the park. Name: Chanhassen Pond Park Type: Neighborhood Park Size: 16 Acres Facilities: Trails Viewing Stand Comments: Chanhassen Pond Park is classified as a neighborhood park although its facilities draw users from the entire Chanhassen community. At the present time. this park is primarily undeveloped. A trail exists along the eastern side of the park connecting adjace'it neighborhood areas. Chanhassen Pond Park is intended to be a passive facility accommodating the observation of plants and wildlife in a natural environment. The park's master plan includes a trail meandering around the perimeter of the pond area. off-street parking.. a sliding hill and picnic sites. Name: City Center Park Type: Community Park Size: 3 acres Facilities: Tennis Courts Open Field Ball Fields (3) Soccer Hockey Rinks (2) Fitness Course Ice Skating Warming House Play Area Off-Street Parking Comments: City Center Park lies adjacent to the Chanhassen Elementary School. The facilities noted above are located on both the park property and the 10 acres owned by the school district. 13 (2/91 ) Park users include school classes, area residents and residents from the community at large. Name: Curry Farms Park Type: Neighborhood Park Size: 6 acres Facilities: Sand Volleyball Court Open Field Off-Street Parking Play Area Partial Trail Loop Comments: Curry Farms Park is intended to serve as the primary recreation area for the surrounding residential area. The master plan for the park which involved extensive neighborhood input includes a ball field, two tennis courts. a play area. volleyball court. a small off-street parking lot and a loop trail system. Name: Greenwood Shores Park Type: Neighborhood Park Size: 3.6 acres Facilities: Picnic Area Beach Area-Lake Ann Comments: Greenwood Shores Park abuts both Lake Ann and Lake Lucy. Facilities on the site include a grassy picnic area and a beach area. The site slopes from east to west toward both lakes with a drainageway roughly bisecting the tract. Tree cover within the park is extensive. In 1986.. the city completed a bituminous trail which connects Greenwood Shores Park and Lake Ann Park around the eastern side of Lake Ann. Name: Herman Field Park Type: Neighborhood Park Size: 11 .75 Facilities: Undeveloped Comments: Herman Field is presently undeveloped. A master plan for the park calls for an open field area suitable for casual ball games. a picnic 14 (2/91 ) shelter, play area. off street parking and various areas for imaginative play activities. all interconnected by a walkway system. Name: Lake Ann Park Type: Community Park/Playfield Size: 98 acres Facilities: Tennis Court Ball Fields (6), 1 lighted Swimming Beach Picnic Area Play Area Natural Wooded Area Open Space Sand Volleyball Courts (2) Horseshoe Courts (2) Soccer Field Trails Boat Access Off-Street Parking Fishing Pier Group Picnic Reservation Areas Canoe Rack Comments: Lake Ann Park is located in the central developed portion of the community on State Highway 5, approximately 1/2 mile west of County Road 17. The topography of the site is gently rolling and the western quarter of the park is in dense tree cover. This natural diversity affords a variety of both active and passive uses. A swimming beach is located on Lake Ann which forms the park's northern boundary. During the summer months, lifeguards supervise the swimming area. Future plans call for a new picnic shelter/community room adjacent to the swimming beach area. Name: Lake Susan Park Type: Community Park Size: 28 acres 15 (2/91 ) Facilities: Picnic Shelter Sand Volleyball Court Off-Street Parking Tennis Courts (2) Baseball Field Archery Range Boat Access Fishing Pier Basketball Court Comments: Lake Susan Park is designated as a community park. however, it also serves as a neighborhood facility for both residential and industrial developments. The park contains a picnic shelter, volleyball court. picnic area. off-street parking. tennis courts, a Babe Ruth baseball field. archery range, basketball court and a boat access on Lake Susan. Name: Lake Susan Hills (Outlot E) Type: Neighborhood Park Size: 62 acres Facilities: Undeveloped Comments: This park contains a large amount of wetland area. Future use of the park will be limited to passive activities including off-street trails. Name: Lake Susan Hills (Outlot F) Type: Neighborhood Park Size: 18 acres Facilities: Undeveloped Comments: A preliminary sketch plan for this park includes softball fields, basketball, tennis, a soccer field, picnic area, off-street parking, trails and a sliding hill. Name: Lake Susan Hills (Outlot G) Type: Neighborhood Park Size: 10 acres Facilities: Undeveloped 16 (2191 ) Comments: A preliminary sketch plan for this site ircludes off-street parking, a play area, trails, hockey, volleyball, tennis and a softball field with a soccer field overlay. This park lies adjacent to both residential uses and office/industrial uses. Because of this, the site will host neighborhood recreational activities as well as use by area employees. Name: Lake Susan Hills (Outlot H) Type: Neighborhood Park Size: 4 acres Facilities: Undeveloped Comments: This park is irregularly shaped and contains steep slope areas restricting usage of the site. Sketch plans call for a play area, trail connection and open space. Name: Meadow Green Park Type: Neighborhood Park Size: 20.7 acres Facilities: Ball Fields (2) Basketball (1/2 court) Play Area Ice Skating Rink Tennis Courts (2) Soccer (Fall) Off-Street Parking Picnic Tables Trail Easements Comments: Meadow Green Park was acquired as a part of the Chaparral development. Existing facilities serve both neighborhood users and residents from other portions of the community. The eastern edges of the park will remain as natural areas because of the presence of a creek and run-off detention pond. 17 (2/91 ) Name: Minnewashta Heights Park Type: Neighborhood Park Size: 2 acres Facilities: Ice Skating Picnic Area Open Space Play Area Comments: Minnewashta Heights Park covers four residential lots in the Minnewashta Heights Addition. Some tree cover exists on the site and several depressional areas are frequently damp, particularly in the spring. Name: North Lotus Lake Park Type: Neighborhood Size: 18 acres Facilities: Sliding Hill Ice Skating Rink Tennis Courts (2) Play Area Ball Field/Soccer Sand Volleyball Courts (2) Picnic Area Comments: North Lotus Lake Park is located on Pleasant View Road. The site slopes from north to south toward Lotus Lake with the upland developed and the lower lake areas in wetland vegetation. The size of the parcel and its access to Lotus Lake make this park an important recreational facility. Name: Rice Marsh Lake Park Type: Neighborhood Park Size: 30 acres Facilities: Play Area Ball Field Picnic Shelter Off-Street Parking Comments: Rice Marsh Lake Park lies on the southern end of the Chanhassen Estates neighborhood. Approximately 1 .7 acres of the park is 18 (2/91 ) now being used for the play area and ball field. A service road skirts the northern boundary of the site to provide access to a lift station. The balance of the park is marsh area consisting largely of cattail vegetation. Rice Marsh Lake Park is now classified as a neighborhood park because the limited facilities are used primarily by area residents. In the future, however, this classification may change as the park may become more significant as a community-wide facility. Rice Marsh Lake and the surrounding marsh area afford an excellent opportunity for the development of a natural area. Walkways through the wetland area could provide users the opportunity to observe nature and study aquatic plants and animals. Name: South Lotus Lake Park Type: Neighborhood Park Size: 7 acres Facilities: Boat Access Off-Street Parking Play Field Comments: South Lotus Lake Park consists of two detached segments of land. The property bordering Lotus Lake contains a boat access that serves community and area residents. The upland portion of the park contains a parking lot and has space for a future ball field. The land area of this park may be expanded when TH 101 is eventually realigned and improved. In addition to city parks, other facilities both public. semipublic, and private provide recreation spaces. Schools are notable examples among this group. Within Chanhassen. two public schools exist: the Chanhassen Elementary School and Minnetonka West Junior High. They provide the following facilities. Name: Pheasant Hills Parkland Type: Neighborhood Park Size: 11 Acres Facilities: Undeveloped 19 (2/91 ) Comments: This parkland was acquired in 1990. The area consists of a combination of wetlands and hills, a mix of active and passive uses are proposed. Name: Chanhassen Elementary School Type: Public School Size: 10 acres (recreation area) Facilities: Baseball/Softball Diamonds Tennis Courts Football/Soccer Fields Play Equipment Running Track Open Space Comments: The site is relatively flat with some slope on the western edge and has little or no existing vegetation. Name: Minnetonka West Junior High School Type: Public School Size: 15 acres (recreation area) Facilities: Hockey Rink Football Field Tennis Courts Baseball Diamonds Field Hockey Indoor Swimming Pool Open Space In addition to the public schools, one parochial school provides recreation space. St. Hubert's Catholic School, which is located on the eastern edge of the business area, is utilized for some recreational activities. A play area, ball diamond, and open space comprise facilities that are used primarily by the surrounding residents. Semi-public and private facilities comprise the final categories of recreational spaces. In Chanhassen, private facilities exist on both small and large scales. Major facilities include the Bluff Creek Golf Course. Bluff Creek provides an 18-hole golf course which is open to the public. The American 20 (2/91 ) Legion in Chanhassen is another major semi-public facility. Adjacent to the Legion building is a baseball diamond which is used for both organized and casual games. The remainder of the private facilities are composed of land parcels used primarily by segments of the residential population. Most of these areas are lake access points. the usage of which is restricted to designated residential lots. In some of these residential outlots, other recreational facilities such as tennis courts are provided. A detailed analysis of private recreational facilities will not be conducted as part of this report. At the point in time in which these private facilities become extensive enough to diminish the demand for municipal facilities. these areas will be considered. At the present time however. these areas provide services to only a minor percentage of the total population. Demand User surveys constitute an important tool in the assessment of recreational demand. Two levels of information are presented herein: regional and local. Caution must be applied in interpreting user surveys and it is not generally recommended that this information be the sole basis for maKing decisions on adding new facilities. For example. high levels of desire for specific activities do not necessarily indicate that more facilities should be built. Rather. it may indicate that a lack of information exists and that potential users are not knowledgeable of facility availability. While tennis courts may be heavily desired. the perceived need for more might be satisfied by informing users of periods during the day when tennis courts are unused. Considered in conjunction with other data, user preferences can be a significant tool in analyzing recreational demand. In a regional context, two surveys were conducted as part of the 1985 State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Local government officials and the general public were surveyed as a part of that effort. Their resulting preferences were as follows: 21 (2/91 ) Local Government Officials Preference List Bicycle Paths 7.7 Hiking Trails 7.1 Cross Country Ski Trails 7.0 Fishing Piers 6.9 Nature Study Centers 6.6 Walking Paths 6.6 Horseback Trails 6.5 Swimming Beaches 5.8 Public River Accesses 5.6 Boat Launching Sites 5.6 Natural Park-like Areas 5.4 Campgrounds 5.4 Hockey Rinks 5.1 Basketball Courts 5.0 Skating Rinks 4.5 Tennis Courts 4.2 Picnic Grounds 3.9 Baseball/Softball Fields 3.9 Football/Soccer Fields 3.8 Citizen Priorities for Recreation Facilities Natural Park-like Areas 5.8 Fishing Piers 5.7 Bicycle Paths 5.5 Walking Paths 5.5 Hiking Trails 5.5 Campgrounds 5.4 Public River Accesses 5.2 Swimming Beaches 5.1 Nature Study Centers 5.0 Boat Launching Sites 4.9 Horseback Trails 4.7 Picnic Grounds 4.4 Cross Country Ski Trails 4.1 Skating Rinks 3.3 22 (2/91 ) Citizen Priorities for Recreation Facilities. continued Tennis Courts 3.2 Basketball Courts 2.5 Hockey Rinks 2.0 Baseball/Softball Fields 1 .9 Football/Soccer Fields 1 .9 In 1987. the City of Chanhassen conducted a survey of resident preferences for park facilities. Residents were asked whether the City presently had "too many", "just enough" or "too few" of a variety of recreational facilities. The top seven responses. all having a "too few" frequency of over 50 percent deal primarily with the trail network, including: paved bike paths, walking paths, and jogging and hiking trails. The other three top ranking facilities which over 50 percent of the population surveyed felt there are too few were; swimming pool. open air shelter. and fishing docks. The following is a summary of the survey results and related nformation. CHANHASSEN RESIDENT SURVEY-FACILITIES Too Many Just Enough Too Few Freq. % Freq. % Freq. 1 . Paved Bike Paths 4 2 67 31 148 68 2. Walking Paths 3 1 75 34 141 64 3. Swimming Pool 4 2 87 40 128 58 4. Open Air Shelter 3 1 96 44 120 55 5. Fishing Docks 5 2 105 48 109 50 6. Jogging Trails 2 1 108 49 109 50 7. Hiking Trails 3 1 107 49 109 50 8. Racquetball Courts 5 2 111 51 103 47 9. Camp Grounds 3 1 117 53 99 45 10. CC Ski Trails 3 1 118 55 98 44 11 . Indoor Tennis Courts 7 3 118 54 94 43 12. Playground Equip 0 0 129 59 90 41 23 (2/91) Too Many Just Enough Too Few Freq. % Freq. % Freq. 0/0 13. Ice Arena 5 2 127 58 87 40 14. Weight Lifting Equip 6 3 126 58 87 40 15. Neighborhood Parks 3 1 132 60 83 38 16. Natural Areas 4 2 133 61 82 37 17. Boat Launches 14 6 124 58 81 36 18. Nature Centers 3 1 138 64 78 35 19. Tennis Courts 3 1 142 65 74 34 20. Golf Courses 4 2 143 65 72 33 21 . Picnic Areas 0 0 148 68 71 32 22. Skating Rinks 3 1 148 68 68 31 23. Beaches 4 2 154 70 61 28 24. Baseball Fields 8 4 167 76 44 20 CHANHASSEN RESIDENT SURVEY - PROGRAMS [past 12 months] Would your household Does your household participate in: currently participate? Yes No Yes No Freq. % Freq. % % Freq. % Freq. % Open Swimming 144 66 75 34 26 85 38 134 61 Aerobics 127 57 92 42 34 62 28 157 71 Indoor Skating 125 57 94 43 40 54 24 165 75 Swimming Lessons 105 47 114 52 37 48 21 171 78 Softball 102 46 117 54 28 58 26 161 74 Tennis (Ige/les) 101 46 118 54 43 40 18 179 82 Racquetball 101 46 118 54 32 52 24 167 76 Indoor Run Track 100 46 119 54 41 42 19 177 81 Baseball 93 42 126 58 31 49 22 170 78 Indoor Tennis 92 42 127 58 53 28 13 191 87 Soccer 78 36 141 64 27 45 21 174 79 Little Lge Baseball 76 35 143 65 45 29 13 190 87 Weight lifting 71 32 148 68 21 46 21 173 79 Would your household Does your household participate in: currently participate? Yes No Yes No Freq. % Freq. % % Freq. % Freq. % Youth Gymnastics 68 31 151 69 48 24 11 195 89 Children Dance 60 27 159 73 45 23 11 196 89 Martial Arts 55 25 164 75 64 12 5 207 95 Youth Hockey 53 24 166 76 74 8 4 211 96 Adult Hockey 41 19 178 81 37 19 9 200 91 Need Although the street and its right-of-way is a form of public open space which may accommodate several forms of recreation such as walking and bicycling, most-recreational open space functions are provided oy parks and other recreation facilities. Considerations of location and design quality are more important than size standards for various recreation areas; however, as general measures of adequacy. standards can be utilized. Prior to establishing standards. it is first necessary to categorize various types of park facilities. In the Facility Inventory section of this report. the Metropolitan Recreation Open Space System classifications were given. These categories have been applied to the City of Chanhassen with minor modification and consolidation resulting in the following components. CHANHASSEN OPEN SPACE SYSTEM Component Use Service Area Neighborhood Area for intense recreational 1/4 - 1 mile Park/Playground activities such as field games. court games, crafts apparatus area, skating. neighborhood centers. Community Park/ Area of natural or ornamental 12.000 - Playfield quality for outdoor recreation 20,000 pop. such as walking, viewing and picnicking; and may contain areas for intense recreational facilities such as athletic fields. 25 (2/91 ) Regional Park Area of natural ornamental 3-5 quality for nature-oriented communities outdoor recreation such as picnicking, boating, fishing swimming, skiing, hiking and camping. Linear Park Area developed for one or more Not (Trails, parkways) varying modes of recreational applicable travel such as hiking, biking, snowmobiling. horseback riding. cross country skiing, canoeing. and driving. The most commonly applied type of standard is known as a population ratio standard. This standard is expressed as a number of acres of park land per one thousand people and is used to provide a general guideline for the assessment of future needs. In this report, a generally accepted standard of 13 acres per 1 .000 people for municipal park lands will be used. Additionally. the following component standards will be utilized: Neighborhood Park/Playground - 5 acres/1 ,000 population. Community Park/Playground - 7 acres/1 ,000 population. Standards have not been applied to the Linear Park component because of the nature of this type of facility. Linear Parks typically serve not as a single entity but rather as a connecting link between major facilities or significant natural features. As such. they become part of the entire municipal park system and are not isolated individually. Population Ratio Standard Application Chanhassen estimates that it's existing population was 11 ,100 as of December of 1989. This figure will be used in an assessment of existing need. Chanhassen projects that the city will contain 17.783 people by 2000 and 30.378 by 2010. 26 (2/91 ) The following charts assess park needs by components and analyze both present and future needs. Assessment of Present Need - Population: 11 ,100 (1990) Existing Std. Applied Component Acreage Standard to 1990 Pop. Net 1990 Park System 411 ac. 13 ac/1000 144 ac. +267 ac. Neighborhood 225 ac. 5 ac/1000 56 ac. +169 ac. Park/Playground Community 186 ac. 7 ac/1000 78 ac. +108 ac. Park/Playground Linear Park Not Applicable Assessment of Future Need - Population: 17.783 (2000) Existing Std. Applied Component Acreage Standard to 2000 Pop. Net 2000 Park System 411 ac. 13 ac/1000 231 ac. +180 ac. Neighborhood 225 ac. 5 ac/1000 89 ac. +1369 ac. ParklPlayground Community 186 ac. 7 ac/1000 125 ac. + 61 ac. Park/Playground Linear Park Not Applicable 27 (2/91 ) Assessment of Future Need - Population: 30.378 (2010) Existing Std. Applied Component Acreage Standard to 2010 Pop. Net 2010 Park System 411 ac. 13 ac/1000 395 ac. + 16 ac. Neighborhood 225 ac. 5 ac/1000 152 ac. + 73 ac. Park/Playground Community 186 ac. 7 ac/1000 213 ac. - 27 ac. ParK/Playground Linear Park Not Applicable NEIGHBORHOOD PARK/PLAYGROUND Standard: 5 acres/1000 people. Purpose/Comments: Neighborhood Parks/Playgrounds are recreational facilities which are intended to serve populations residing within a 1/2 mile radius of the site. These facilities typically contain playfield areas which accommodate uses such as field games, court games. ice skating. picnicking, play apparatus and in some cases, neighborhood centers. Although 5 acres is generally recognized as a minimum size. smaller parcels have proven workable particularly in areas where larger tracts are impractical due to development patterns or natural conditions. Existing Supply: Chanhassen currently contains 17 park sites ranging in size from 2 to 62 acres. all of which comprise a total of 225 acres. An application of the recommended standard reveals that the city should have 89 acres of neighborhood parks in 2000 and 152 acres by 2010. The existing land holdings surpass even the 2010 projection by 73 acres. In addition to the neighborhood park sites, Lake Ann Park will serve a secondary function as a neighborhood park when residential development expands into the vacant areas presently surrounding the park. Need: In the introductory narrative, it was stated that standards are merely one tool in the comprehensive assessment of future park needs. Chanhassen's 28 (2/91 ) neighborhood park sites graphically depict this fact. Although the city had adequate land in terms of total acreage requirements. neighborhood parks/playgrounds will be needed in several areas because of locational criteria. This situation will become more evident as the residential base of the community continues to expand and housing occurs south of Highway 5. Areas which are deficient in Neighborhood Park lands are shown on the map entitled Neighborhood Parks and Service Areas. COMMUNITY PARK/PLAYGROUND Standard: 7 acres/1000 people. Purpose/Comments: A Community Park/Playground is a recreational facility which serves as a focal point (or points) of a community's recreational system. As such. they typically provide facilities which appeal to a broad spectrum of users. Activities may include archery.. fishing, nature study, sailing, soccer. tennis, court games, field games. hiking. picnicking. and sledding. Community Parks/Playgrounds contain facilities designed to appeal to active and passive users, both of which are often accommodated on one park site. Typically. the location of this type of park is determined by the existence of major natural features or close proximity to population concentrations. Service areas are generally up to 3 miles with park sites providing facilities for populations of 12,000 - 25.000 people depending upon size and design considerations. Existing Supply: Five facilities are presently categorized as Community Park/Playgrounds. Lake Ann Park which lies in the north central portion of the city contains 98 acres of passive and active recreational spaces. Bluff Creek Park in the southern section of the community contains 21 acres of passive area. In 1985 the city added a third community park at the south end of Lotus Lake. South Lotus Lake Park. which contains 7 acres, has been classified as a community park because it provides boating access to Lotus Lake. The upper portion of the park also provides neighborhood recreation for the surrounding residential area. The other existing community parks are City Center Park and the recently acquired Bandimere (Lake Riley) Park. Chanhassen's five community parks total 186 acres of land. 29 (2/91 ) Additionally, Chanhassen Estates Park which is presently categorized as a neighborhood park may at some time be re-categorized as a community park. This change may occur as the result of the sites development as a natural wetland interpretive area. Until such development occurs, however, this park site will continue as a neighborhood facility. Need: Application of the standard for community parks calls for an existing acreage of 78, a 2000 total of 125 acres and a 2010 acreage of 213. At the present time. the city has 186 acres in this category for a 1990 positive net of 108 acres, a 2000 excess of 61 acres and a 2010 shortfall of 27 acres. Lake Ann Park is presently divided into two general areas: the western half which is wooded accommodating passive uses and the eastern half which contains areas appropriate for active uses. The facilities in the eastern half of the park are currently over used and are in the process of expansion. Throughout the planning period of this report (2000), Lake Ann Park should continue to serve as the city's major Community Park/Playground. Its location is appropriate to anyone residing within Chanhassen's Metropolitan Urban Service Area. In 1989. the City of Chanhassen acquired 30 acres near Lake Riley for the establishment of a second major community park. This facility. when complete. will provide facilities for youth programs such as soccer. softball and baseball. Due to Chanhassen's growing population and the popularity of youth and adult athletic programs, the city will need to consider the establishment of a third major community park and/or expansion of Lake Ann Park and Bandimere (Lake Riley) Park within the next 20 years. Facility Needs- The needs analysis for the Chanhassen Park System started out in a general sense by examining the needs for various types of park facilities. Further analysis will now be conducted targeting on specific facility needs. Standards are available for specific types of recreational facilities. They will not. however, be used in this report because their validity seems to vary widely from community to community. For example. one national standard calls for one baseball diamond for every 3.000 30 (2/91 ) people. Applying such a figure to Chanhassen, the city should contain 2 or 3 diamonds. At the present time, Chanhassen has fifteen diamonds, all of which are marginally adequate to cover existing demand levels. Because of the questionable nature of specific facility standards, the Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission has drawn up what it views as facility needs by category. Baseball - Softball: The city currently has fifteen diamonds which accommodate baseball and softball games. The majority of these are scattered throughout the community in neighborhood parks with the six diamonds located in Lake Ann Park utilized primarily for organized league games and tournaments. At the present time, it is estimated that the City is deficient by 4 diamonds. Present demand calls for two additional regulation little league fields and two softball fields. It is estimated that by 2000. the city will need to add additional diamonds to cover both existing deficiencies and additional future demand. This projection assumes that a portion of the existing facilities-will be lighted to increase existing efficiency. Tennis: Chanhassen currently has nine tennis courts serving the population. Four of these courts are located on the Chanhassen Elementary School property and are lighted for night use. One additional court is in Lake Ann Park. two at North Lotus and two at Meadow Green Park. Picnic Areas: Picnic sites are available in Lake Ann Park as well as in other neighborhood parks scattered throughout the community. These areas are currently adequate to serve existing demand. As future facilities are added, additional picnic areas will be required to serve increased population levels. Picnic shelters should be located in close proximity to tot lot areas. Shelters may vary from windbreak structures to fully enclosed buildings depending on intended usage. Ice Skating: Chanhassen presently contains 7 family skating areas and 3 hockey rinks. The demand for hockey facilities is currently intensive. Additional hockey rinks are needed to satisfy both short and long term demand. Football/Soccer: Soccer has been gaining popularity in recent years. At the present time. both league and casual play is accommodated at fields in city parks. 31 (2/91 ) Most of the fields are under recommended minimum sizes. Two additional full size fields are needed to handle present demand. Prior to 2000, even more fields will be required. Future park expansions and additions should contain adequate open field areas so that when needed, they can be readily converted to accommodate football and soccer. Passive Recreation Areas/Nature Study Areas: Chanhassen is rich in natural amenities which are appropriate for passive, nature-oriented recreational usage. As the population continues to grow, additional areas will need to be acquired. It is particularly important that the usage of passive areas be closely monitored since such areas have relatively low carrying capacities and can be easily over used. Horse Riding: The Park and Recreation Commission feels that there is a future need for equestrian riding trails. At the present time. riding is limited primarily to private land. The accommodation of future riding areas may be implemented in conjunction with the acquisition of a future major community park or on selected sections of a community trail system. Snowmobile Trails: Well marked snowmobile trails currently exist within Chanhassen. These trails are not part of the park system but are established by a private club utilizing both public land and privately owned parcels (with owner consent). This system works well at the present time because of the large expanses of undeveloped land within the community. As more of these vacant parcels become developed. the city may need to provide areas appropriate for snowmobile use. TRAIL PLAN The 1980 Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan addressed trails in recognition of increasing public interest. The Plan contained recommendations for implementation of a moderate system of regional trails and local walkways/bike paths. The intent of the system was to connect major points of interest throughout the City. The map entitled 1980 Trail Plan depicts this system. The 1980 Plan contained goals and policies pertaining to recreation. The following policies were directly applicable to the trail system: 32 (2/91 ) 1 . Provide a balanced park system which includes neighborhood parks. community parks, special use facilities, schools and private developments; all interconnected by a linear trail network. 2. Abandoned right-of-ways should be preserved for public use whenever possible. Since 1980, two events have occurred to further public interest in the establishment of a trail system. First, Chanhassen has seen unprecedented growth since 1985. From 1985 through 1989, the City issued 1694 building permits for residential units. This building permit activity is indicative of the amount of new residential development that occurred in recent years and the amount expected to occur in the future. In reviewing proposed developments. the need for an overall trail plan linking neighborhoods and parks became apparent. The second factor contributing to the heightened awareness of trails in the City of Chanhassen is the development of trail systems in adjacent communities. Chaska and Eden Prairie have been active in developing trail systems. Since many Chanhassen residents pass through both communities on a regular basis, they see the trails in place and observe them being used. The exhibit entitled Eden Prairie and Chaska Trail Connections identifies locations where the Chaska and Eden Prairie trail systems intersect the Chanhassen border. Planned trail connections occur at four locations along Chanhassen's eastern boundary with Eden Prairie. Additionally, Eden Prairie's plan identifies a trail segment along Lake Riley Boulevard. approximately one half mile east of the border. Along Chanhassen's western border. Chaska's trail system intersects Chanhassen in three locations. Chaska's trail plan differentiates between roadway trails and greenway trails (off-road). Audubon Road which forms the common boundary between the two communities is included in Chaska's plan as an identified trail segment. Increased public awareness of trails has translated directly into increased demand for such facilities by Chanhassen residents. In April of 1987. the 33 (2/91 ) City commissioned a survey to determine resident interest in park and recreation programs and facilities. Four out of the top seven most popular activities involved trails. Sixty-eight percent of the residents indicated that the City has too few bicycle trails and 64, indicated that the City has too few walking trails. The responses also indicated that 65% of Chanhassen's residents think that more funding should be available for the development of trails. TRAIL TYPES Trail networks can accommodate various transportation modes. Walking, jogging. roller skating. bicycling, cross country skiing. snowmobiling and horseback riding are frequent uses of trail systems. For the purposes of this plan. Chanhassen's trails are categorized into two general classifications: walkways/bikeways and nature trails. Walkways/Bikeways: Walkways/bikeways are trail facilities designed to accommodate both bicycle and/or pedestrian usage. Materials used for the construction of such trails in Chanhassen vary with the location and function of the route. For example, trails in open areas along major roadway corridors should be 8 feet wide and paved with bituminous surfacing. In areas of heavy activity. separate trails for pedestrian and bicycle usage may be needed. In developed areas, trails may be constructed of concrete with a smaller overall width respective of tighter right-of-way conditions and development constraints such as landscaping, mail boxes, driveways, etc. Depending on location and form, walkways/bikeways may also accommodate activities such as roller skating in the summer and cross country skiing in the winter. Nature Trails: Nature trails are designed solely for pedestrian usage. They can be used for functional purposes such as trips to school but in most cases they are designed for purely recreational usage. In the southern portion of Chanhassen, for example, they may be used to provide public pedestrian access to areas isolated by extreme topography, tree cover or other factors. The surfacing of most nature trails will consist of mowed turf. In addition to the two major types of trails, special use corridors may also exist. Special use corridors may accommodate activities such as snowmobile trails, 34 (2/91 ) equestrian trails and trails for exclusive use of cross country skiers. This plan does not specifically address special use corridors. At the present time, the provision of such facilities is not financially feasible. Of the types of special use corridors available, snowmobile trails are currently the most popular. The City of Chanhassen cooperates with private clubs to designate snowmobile routes which connect to routes in adjacent communities. Because of the significant amount of vacant and rural land within Chanhassen, snowmobiling can be accommodated without interference with urban residential neighborhoods. As the community continues to grow and additional residential areas are established, suitable snowmobile trails will be come harder to find. It is realistic to assume that at some point in the future when the community becomes largely urban, snowmobiling will be confined to specific park areas. Until that time occurs. the Park and Recreation Commission will continue to work with the local snowmobile clubs to establish appropriate routes. EXISTING SYSTEM At the present time. Chanhassen has small segments of both walkway/bikeway trails and nature trails. The map entitled Existing Trail System - 1990 identifies the existing system. Existing trails include the following: Trail: Lake Ann Park Type: Nature Trail Description: The nature trail in Lake Ann Park meanders through the wooded area in the western portion of the site connecting a parking area with the swimming beach. Trail: Lake Ann/Greenwood Shores Park Type: Walkway/Bikeway Description: This trail which was installed in 1985 connects Lake Ann Park and Greenwood Shores Park covering a total distance of 2,200 feet. The trail is bituminous surfaced and is 6 feet in width. In addition to the paved trail, a wood chip walkway parallels the alignment of the walkway/bikeway. The old wood chip trail is used primarily by joggers. 35 (2/91 ) Trail: Lake Lucy Road Type: Walkway/Bikeway Description: Lake Lucy Road was upgraded in 1987 from County Road 17 to Galpin Boulevard (Co. Rd. 117). As part of the road improvement project. a 6-foot wide walkway/bikeway was constructed immediately adjacent to the traffic lanes on both sides of the street. The traffic lane is separated from the walkway/bikeway by painted striping. Additionally. signage is used to alert motorists of the possible presence of pedestrians and bicycles. Trail: Kerber Boulevard Type: Walkway/Bikeway Description: The Kerber Boulevard trail segment extends along the street from County Road 17 to West 78th Street. The trail consists of a 6-foot wide bituminous pathway along one side of the street and a concrete pedestrian walkway along the other side. This system includes an east/west connecting link to Powers Boulevard that passes through the Saddlebrook neighborhood. Trail: Lake Drive East Type: Walkway/Bikeway Description: In conjunction with the Lake Drive East street improvement, a 6-foot wide concrete sidewalk/trail was installed along the north side of the street. This trail segment currently extends from T.H. 101 to Dakota Avenue. Trail: Carver Beach Type: Nature Trail Description: Carver Beach Park contains a wood chip trail extending the length of the park from the northern to the southern boundary. The trail which parallels Lotus Lake passes through steep terrain areas and is suitable only for pedestrian use. Trail: Carver Beach Road Type: Walkway/Bikeway Description: The Carver Beach Road trail segment consists of a five foot wide concrete walkway along the south side of Carver Beach Road. It serves as an access to the Carver Beach playground area on the north side of the street. 36 (2/91 ) Trail: Laredo Drive Type: Walkway/Bikeway Description: The Laredo Drive trail is a concrete walkway along the west side of the road. The facility's primary users are elementary school children walking to and from Chanhassen Elementary School. Trail: Fox Chase Trail Type: Nature Trail Description: Fox Chase Trail consists of a wood chip pathway extending from Fox Path to the southern end of the subdivision. At its existing terminus. the trail is approximately 200 feet from the northern terminus of the Carver Beach Trail. Although the trail is presently surfaced with wood chips. the alignment is level and could easily accommodate a paved walkway/bikeway in the future. Trail: Chanhassen Pond Type: Nature Trail Description: Chanhassen Pond Park contains a wood chip trail which extends around a portion of the pond area. PROPOSED SYSTEM Chanhassen's long range trail system plan is shown on the map entitled Trail Plan. The system provides trails connecting major parks, neighborhoods. commercial areas and regional points of interest. Additionally, it provides trail connections to adjacent municipalities and to the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. The long range plan represents an extensive overall system that will take years to implement. Segments such as the one along TH 101 , north of TH 5 will be costly due to limited right-of-way, difficult terrain and existing developed conditions. Some segments can be installed more economically either as a part of new developments or as part of street reconstruction projects. Regardless of the timing of the construction of the entire system, it is important to focus on the overall plan since it will provide the vehicle for the systematic acquisition of required property, easements and right-of-way for the next 15 to 20 years. Chanhassen's long range trail plan contains a combination of trail segments located along streets. within parks and limited use of trails that are located 37 (2/91 ) between private lot lines. Advantages and disadvantages of each of these types of trails are listed below. Trail Location Advantages Disadvantages Along Streets -Easy monitoring -Motor vehicle -Readily identifiable conflicts route -Maintenance may -Readily identifiable require specialized route equipment -Easier to finance - -Abutting property construction can be conflicts combined with street improvements Within Parks -Few vehicle conflicts -Very difficult to -Trails can follow monitor natural features such -Public familiarity as drainageways requires promotional -Development cost may effort be grant eligible Between Lot -Few vehicle conflicts -Abutting property Lines -Trails can follow conflicts natural features such -Perceived security as drainageways problems -Additional sidewalk system may be needed -High maintenance In order to ensure uniformity and safe use of trails by members of the public, a set of standards has been developed to guide the development of the trail system. Although the standards may be impractical in some cases. every effort should be made to see that new walkway/bikeway trails are constructed in accordance with the following: 1 . In undeveloped areas and along major roadways, trails should be 8' wide to accommodate two-way bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Six-foot 38 (2/91 ) wide trails will be constructed to adapt to the continuity of existing 6' trails and trails of lesser widths may be installed in existing residential areas. In residential areas. trails should be constructed of concrete. 2. Where possible. walkway/bikeway trails should be separated from motor vehicle traffic in order to improve safety. 3. Avoid long steep grades: 6.0% maximum slope preferred. 8% maximum where unavoidable by existing terrain. 4. Use flatter grade or slope at intersection with streets or other trailway; 2.0% maximum to allow adequate time to stop. 5. For drainage purposes, 1 .0% preferred minimum slope; not less than 0.5% to be used. 6. Use 0.02'/foot minimum cross-slope or crown; 0.04'/foot maximum. 7. Provide clearance for vertical obstructions (trees, powe' poles, signs, etc.); four-foot preferred minimum. two-foot absolute minimum for bicycle facilities. 8. Shape and compact subgrade to 100% standard density. Excavate and remove all topsoil, black dirt, peat, muck or silt soils from beneath pathway: backfill with select grading material. 9. Provide positive surface water drainage away from trailway with shallow drainage swales or ditches. culverts and/or storm sewer as required. Subgrade of trailway to be minimum of two feet above water table. 10. Avoid sharp or sudden changes in horizontal and vertical alignment. Provide adequate site distance for bicycles at intersections and on vertical changes in alignment. Extra width and/or flatter curves required on long downhill slopes for additional reaction space. 11 . Bicycle trails to be marked and signed in accordance with the manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, latest edition. 39 (2/91 ) 12. Minimum standards shall be increased as necessary where required by poor subgrade soil, traffic volumes, hazardous conditions, or other special circumstances. IMPLEMENTATION - SYSTEM PHASING Chanhassen's long range trail plan is an extensive system. The eventual implementation of the system is dependent upon priorities and available funding. Trail segments have been broken down into three general phases with the phase one improvements having the highest priority. In order to rank trail segments, the Park and Recreation Commission evaluated each segment considering the following factors: 1 . Safety 2. Property Owner Desire/Acceptance 3. Capital Cost 4. Maintenance Cost 5. Continuity with Existing Chanhassen Trails 6. Number of Users Served 7. Linkage with Regional or other Municipal Trails 8. Accommodation of School Pedestrian Traffic 9. Potential Funding Sources Phase 1 is shown on the map entitled Phase One Trail System. The first phase focuses on three primary routes: TH 5, TH 101 (north of TH 5) and Minnewashta Parkway. The construction of the first two segments is timed to coincide with highway improvements. The segment along Minnewashta Parkway from TH 5 to TH 7 was requested by resident petition in 1988. The Minnewashta Parkway trail is also linked to the improvement of the roadway. Trail segments that are identified in either phase II or phase III are designed to eventually complete the overall system. Phasing is identified only for the walkway/bikeway trails. The timing of the construction of the nature trails identified on the plan is dependent on the availability of the property through which they pass. As properties along the nature trail routes are subdivided or otherwise become available, the City should acquire the ability to place trails along the identified corridors. 40 (2/91 ) Funding Sources The City of Chanhassen has a variety of financial tools available to fund the construction of a trail system. The following is a brief comment on each of these sources. Additional information on funding can be found in the Capital Improvement Program. The timing of the installation of the phase three trail segment connecting Lake Ann and Minnewashta Regional Park is particularly dependent on the timing of the development of the surrounding property. The Land Use Map identifies the trail along the alignment of the easement for the Lake Ann Interceptor. Despite this fact, the actual alignment of this trail may vary depending on the ultimate land use pattern in the area. Eventual connection of the trail may involve the placement of segments along local streets or possibly even the planned extension of Lake Lucy Road. Park Improvement Bonds - Municipalities commonly utilize Park Improvement Bonds for construction of major facilities. The authority to sell such bonds usually requires voter approval. Chanhassen passed its first park bond issue the late 1960's when Lake Ann Park was originally acquired and developed. In recent years. a referendum was approved to acquire community park property in the southern portion of the city. General Fund Money - If trails were determined to be a community priority. the City Council could allocate an amount of money from the General Fund for construction purposes. Outdoor Recreation Grant Program - Trails are still grant-eligible items under the Outdoor Recreation Grant Program. In order to enhance the probability of trails being funded. most communities combine them with other improvements which enhance public access to lakes. Park Dedication Fees - Park dedication fees collected from residential. commercial and industrial development can be applied to the construction of trail systems. In lieu of a cash contribution. a municipality can negotiate to have the developer 41 (2/91 ) provide the land and install the trails as a part of overall park credits. Chanhassen has a separate dedication fee for trail construction which is applied to all new residential, commercial and industrial development. Reserve Funds - Reserve funds which have been accumulated from a variety of sources can be used to construct trail systems. Tax Increment Financing - Chanhassen's downtown area and two industrial parks are located within tax increment financing (TIF) districts. Within these areas, trails can be funded through excess increment should such funds be available. Street Improvements - Street improvement projects have been responsible for most of Chanhassen's existing walkway/bikeway system. Lake Lucy Road which is the most recent example of a state aid funded road contains walkways/bikeways within the project. Trail improvements conducted simultaneously with street improvements is the most economical method of constructing trails. Intergovernmental Coordination - Coordination and cooperation between various governmental entities can be an effective method of constructing trails. It is fairly common for cities and school districts to jointly fund trail systems which benefit both parties. Capital Cost The cost of constructing trail segments varies significantly due to the availability of land, terrain, tree cover and street crossings. Because of the complexity of some trail alignments such as TH 101 north of TH 5. feasibility studies will be needed to accurately project estimated land acquisition and construction costs. MAINTENANCE COSTS In implementing a trail system, it is important to consider maintenance costs in addition to capital costs. Maintenance costs are the direct result of the level of maintenance desired. Some maintenance of trails is optional such as winter plowing to accommodate walking and jogging. Other types of maintenance such as seal coating and filling are required in order to protect the City's investment. 42 (2/91 ) The installation of a trail system will also result in increased maintenance staff requirements. In addition to maintenance personnel involved in sweeping, seal coating, plowing, etc., inspection personnel may also be necessary. Experience in adjacent municipalities has shown that one full time person is required during the summer months to travel the trail system making minor repairs and effectuating clean-up efforts. 2000 RECREATION/OPEN SPACE PLAN What does the future hold for the Chanhassen Park System? There is no simple response to this question. Its answer will be supplied, at least in part. by the recreation plan offered on the following pages. In previous material, the Chanhassen Park System has been identified and examined. Discussions have touched upon the supplies of existing facilities. present and future needs, physical characteristics. and socio-economic demand. all of which aid in the identification of a future action plan. This material, coupled with the identified goals and objectives, forms the basis for the recreation plan. The overall theme of the Chanhassen Park System may be best described as one which is "balanced". The community is striving to obtain an effective balance regarding both the locations of facilities as well as the types of facilities provided. Furthermore, balance relates to being able to identify when a facility is being over used as such an occurrence can actually destroy the natural character that makes a park attractive in the first place. Balance can also be described as diversity. Diversity in this case, meaning the provision of facilities which exhibit varying degrees of intensity; a system which contains facilities ranging from bustling athletic fields to the tranquil solitude of a nature trail. The integration of all of these elements can fulfill the goal of a balanced recreational system; one which is responsive to the recreational needs of all Chanhassen residents. In identifying Chanhassen's existing and future needs for park facilities, a number of basic points were identified: 1 . Generally, the City's total park system has an adequate supply of land through 2000. 43 (2/91 ) 2. A surplus of land for neighborhood parks exists. however. the locations of existing facilities will not be accessible for future residential areas, therefore, additional neighborhood parks will be required. 3. That the City has begun to implement a comprehensive trail network which will connect major facilities and natural amenities. 4. That the City needs to expand its existing community parks in order to satisfy future demand levels. Based upon these points and specifically identified site and facility needs. the following plan has been developed. General Observations and Recommendations 1 . Continue to urge the active support of civic organizations into the process of developing and maintaining the Chanhassen park system. The Lions Club has been active in donating funds to the Park Department. The Chanhassen Legion constructed a park shelter at Lake Ann Park. and the Chanhassen Athletic Association has supplied numerous equipment items in past years. The interest shown by these and other groups should be encouraged because it both involves the citizens with the recreation system and at the same time, removes some of the financial burdens such a system forces upon the City budget. 2. Continue to encourage future commercial. industrial, and residential developments to set aside tracts of land to serve as recreation areas or; at the discretion of the City, to provide a fee in lieu of land dedication. Continue to enforce trail fee requirements in order to fund future expansion of Chanhassen's trail system. As growth continues throughout the community, parcels of neighborhood park lands will become increasingly important to serve the recreational needs of the community and additional funds to develop these facilities will be required. 3. Continue to implement a system of uniform signs designating the locations and features of parks and recreation areas. Information such as the facility 44 (2/91 ) name, date of establishment and other pertinent historical data may be included. A system of unified signs will aid both residents and visitors in identifying different use areas. 4. In the past. Chanhassen has been very successful in securing land for park development. Because the emphasis has been placed on acquisition, very little money for development has been available. Over the next 10 years. Chanhassen will emphasize development of existing park parcels in accordance with adopted park master plans. Additional park areas will be acquired as new areas of the City experience expanded development. With the delineation of the MUSA line in Chanhassen, geographic limits to the community's growth have been defined. As a result. the community is equipped to predict and control where and when development will occur. This process should permit the Park and Recreation Commission to concentrate more on obtaining development monies instead of land in areas where such action seems appropriate. 5. The City should develop an overall master plan and planting program for all park facilities. Deciduous and evergreen species as well as mass shrub plantings should be considered in order to provide shade. texture, color, and other aesthetic and functional values. Plans for park facilities should serve to integrate and maximize both the natural environment and man made facilities on the site. 6. Vandalism in park facilities can be a major concern. While there are no direct means of eliminating acts of vandalism, certain techniques can be employed to reduce the frequency of such occurrences. Essentially, such actions can be broken down into two categories: the destruction of plant materials and the damage to structures. One of the most frequently recorded types of park vandalism involves damage to turf areas by automobiles or other vehicles. Such damage is sometimes accidental occurring during peak demand periods. The best way to minimize the impact of this problem is to provide clearly defined and adequately sized roadway and parking areas and to provide structural barriers at high traffic points such as intersections. Legible, easily seen signage prohibiting parking outside defined lot areas also can help. 45 (2/91 ) Young plant materials present another problem. The plants that are often installed in parks are of a very small caliber. Frequently, before a tree or shrub has had enough time to establish itself. it is broken off and-destroyed. A solution to this problem is to plant adequately sized nursery stock of if smaller materials are used, to stake and/or box in young plantings with a fencing material which allows them to grow to a sufficient size. A more successful method of maintaining these plant materials, particularly in high traffic areas, involves the use of mass plantings. Specimen plants or isolated species are the primary targets of vandals. Experience has shown that plants which are massed or grouped are less likely to be bothered. Preventing the vandalism of structures and equipment is an equally difficult task. The best method of accomplishing this involves the use of maintenance, lighting, and patrols. Structures and equipment that are well maintained tend to evoke a spirit of community pride and are less likely to be damaged than those that are allowed to fall into a state of disrepair. The additional combination of adequate lighting which eliminates shadowed areas and regular police patrols help to reduce this problem. 7. As future park sites are developed.. traffic control devices will be necessary in high traffic volume areas to ensure the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. 8. The City should continue to maintain a balanced recreational system which appeals to a broad base of the population and provides recreational opportunities for both active and passive users. 9. Recreational areas should contain facilities for commercial and industrial users as well as those for the residential population. 10. The Park and Recreation Commission should attempt to maximize community awareness in recreation programs and municipal facilities as well as in regional facilities such as the Arboretum and Minnewashta Regional Park through the quarterly newsletter, local newspapers. and other appropriate sources. 11 . Convenient public access should be provided to each of the City's lakes. 46 (2/91 ) 12. The City should continue to enlist the support of all community groups in promoting special events. Events like the golf tournament, Winterfest and the Fourth of July celebration help to increase the public's awareness of Chanhassen's parks and programs. 13. Efforts should be made to promote community awareness of the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge and Recreation Area and to solicit resident support behind the timely planning. acquisition, and implementation of the project. 14. The bluffs area in southern Chanhassen represents a unique physical feature; worthy of preservation. Prior to future development of this area. the city should modify zoning and subdivision regulations to ensure that development will be compatible with the visual appearance of the area. 15. The city should implement the trail plan found within this chapter. Chanhassen should work with other jurisdictions such as Carver County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation to ensure that future road improvement plans accommodate the local trail system. This effort is particularly important in the TH 212 corridor. 16. Future trail construction should accommodate horses and snowmobiles where feasible. Right-of-way along the TH 212 corridor should be considered for accommodation of such activities. Existing Parks - Recommendations Bandimere (Lake Riley) Park Bandimere Park was acquired in 1989 as a second major community park site. The facility should be developed in conformance with the adopted master plan. Bandimere Park has been identified as the future primary location for Chanhassen's youth activities. Since it will attract young people, many of whom will travel on foot or on bicycles. trail segments in and around the park should receive a high priority. In the future, an additional 25 - 30 acres north of the existing park site should be acquired to accommodate future facilities for youth programs. 47 (2/91 ) Bandimere Heights Park Bandimere Heights Park lies immediately adjacent to Bandimere (Lake Riley) Park. As Bandimere Park is developed with active youth facilities. Bandimere Heights Park should continue to serve neighborhood needs. Bluff Creek Park Bluff Creek Park exists as a steep drainageway and will never accommodate developed recreational facilities. Its main value is as a natural drainage course and possible pedestrian trail link. The only recommendation for this park is that the debris which has been deposited in the upper reaches of the drainageway be removed. Carver Beach Park The Carver Beach site presents a challenge in several ways. While the site totals 7.8 acres. it occupies a lineal strip of land containing steep slopes. The width of the park varies from a minimum of 30 feet to a maximum of 200 feet. These factors combine to dictate a rather limited number of uses for the park site. Carver Beach has two primary functions: first, it serves as the swimming area for the surrounding neighborhood; secondly, it has helped to preserve a significant portion of the lakeshore on Lotus Lake. The following recommendations are offered in the interest of enhancing both of these functions. 1 . Additional picnic facilities should be added at the beach area. 2. The shoreland area of the park should be retained in its natural state. The preservation of the-lakeshore and the vegetation it contains help control the quality and rate of runoff into the lake. Lotus Trail which is an unpaved street that abuts the park is subject to significant runoff and soil erosion. 3. A pedestrian bicycle trail should be installed traversing the site from north to south. This trail will for a link in Chanhassen's overall trail network which will eventually connect to other significant points throughout the community. 4. Existing regulations should be stringently enforced in order to avoid park/neighborhood conflicts. (2/91 ) Carver Beach Playground Carver Beach Neighborhood Park should continue to serve as an active play area for the surrounding residential area. At the present time its users are composed primarily of young children. Since the park is surrounded by an established neighborhood. the installation of seating and the provision of specific recreational programs may increase the usage of the site by elderly individuals. 1 . Implement a planting program for the park site. At the present time, vegetation exists only around the perimeter areas. Additional shrub and tree cover could be accommodated within the park, particula'ly on the western end. 2. The Carver Beach Neighborhood Park lacks definition on the northern boundary adjacent to Hiawatha Drive. In order to clearly define the park as a separate use from the residential area, plant materials and/or architectural barriers should be installed. 3. The Park and Recreation Commission should conside' the inclusion of "cultural" recreation programs at the Carver Beach site Such programs could be tailored to both young and old participants and may consist of such items as lectures, craft and hobby programs. evening movies, and other social gatherings. The Carver Beach Residents Association should be contacted about the planning of and participation in such events. 4. Construct a picnic shelter. Cathcart Park Cathcart Park represents a unique situation in that the pa'k lies within the municipal limits of Chanhassen but is maintained by and actually owned by the City of Shorewood. This arrangement has worked well in recent years as the facility has adequately served the needs of both northwestern Chanhassen and Shorewood residents. Based upon this, no change in this park is recommended under this plan. 49 (2/91 ) Chanhassen Hills Park Chanhassen Hills Park, which was acquired in 1986, is presently undeveloped. The master plan for the facility should guide the installation of future facilities. Chanhassen Pond Park Chanhassen Pond Park while classified as a neighborhood park, provides a special opportunity for the surrounding residential neighborhood. Most neighborhood parks are consumed primarily by active facilities. Chanhassen Pond Park is different in that it will never see a ball diamond. tennis court. hockey rink or similar facility because its soil function is that of a passively oriented natural area. Chanhassen Pond is the frequent home of ducks. geese, and other waterfowl. Because of natural terrain conditions. its function and habitat are expected to remain the same in the future. 1 . A limited parking area should be constructed in a location off of Kerber Boulevard. Such an improvement should be adequately screened and landscaped. 2. Develop a master plan and planting plan for the area emphasizing native Minnesota plant materials. 3. Provide natural environmental housing. roosting areas, and food for a variety of species of wildlife. 4. Develop a trail network which permits observation from high points as well as close to habitat areas. Such trails should contain grades suitable for access by handicapped and elderly individuals. 5. Seating areas should be provided for observation purposes. 6. The water quality of Chanhassen pond should be continuously monitored in order to continue its safe usage by wildlife. 50 (2/91 ) City Center Park The land area behind City Hall contains some of the most intensively used recreational facilities in the City. Present activities include hockey, baseball, ice skating, and soccer. The recreation area west of the elementary school which is contiguous to the City Hall site, is also heavily used. Planting and development plans for the entire area should be drawn up with the cooperation of the school district. Curry Farms Park Curry Farms Park was acquired in 1987. The master plan for included the park area identifies off-street parking. a softball field, a volleyball court and tennis courts for future construction. Future facilities should be constructed as outlined in the adopted master plan. Greenwood Shores Greenwood Shores Park although not large in size. is an important component of the Chanhassen park system. As future development takes place and additional contiguous recreational lands are acquired. its role will become even more significant. 1 . Greenwood Shores Park is presently serving as a neighborhood park for the surrounding area. 2. As additional development takes place within the area, efforts should be made to acquire additional land west of Greenwood Shores Park on the divide between Lakes Lucy and Ann. 3. Within the boundaries of the existing park, access to Lake Lucy should be provided. This access should accommodate pedestrians only and should permit the hand launching of canoes, fishing and observation of the lake. 4. Additional picnic facilities should be added to the park. Emphasis should also be placed upon developing a planting plan for the picnic area. 51 (2/91 ) 5. Consideration should be given to adding play equipment adjacent to the beach area. Herman Field Park In 1984 a master plan prepared for Herman Field which, to date, has not been implemented. The master plan which has been modified slightly in recent years calls for a park which will be a unique component in the Chanhassen system. The park plan emphasizes creative play and active game facilities. A small ball diamond/open field, picnic area, picnic shelter and parking lot will serve adjacent neighborhood areas. Specific recommendations for Herman Field are as follows: 1 . Implement the 1984 master plan as revised. 2. Prepare and implement a landscaping plan for the facility. Lake Ann Park The idea for Lake Ann Park was conceived in the late 1960's. Shortly thereafter. voters approved a bond issue for the acquisition of the land as well as the planning and construction of facilities. Since that time. Lake Ann Park has been developed into a community facility of uncompromising quality. In order to maintain the park's attractive appearance and to enhance its function, the following should be considered. 1 . The general use pattern of Lake Ann Park defines the western half for passive uses such as hiking and nature study and the eastern half for active pursuits such as softball, tennis, etc. This pattern should be continued in the future. 2. A detailed facility and planting plan should be developed for future park expansion areas. 3. Lake Ann Park contains Chanhassen's only supervised municipal swimming area. As additional park land to the east is acquired, the present beach area should be expanded. 52 (2/91 ) 4. Restroom facilities are needed within the park. The Lake Ann Park master plan calls for construction of a multi-purpose building on tie north end of the park near the beach area. This building will contain restrooms, equipment storage. a concession stand and an enclosed shelter which can be used for year-round community events. 5. Since the parks inception, the City has provided a high level of maintenance for Lake Ann Park. In order to maximize existing and future park investments, this same level of maintenance should be continued. 6. Fishing piers/docks similar to those on Minneapolis lakes should be constructed on all of the City's major lakes. An eastern park expansion would be a logical place for such a structure since its ocation would not conflict with swimming activities. 7. The wooded area in the western portion of the park site should be developed and clearly marked with hiking trails. Significant trees and other plant materials should be appropriately identified along the pathways. Benches in scattered locations should also be installed in order to permit prolonged observations of natural amenities. 8. Trees removed because of disease or damage should be replaced in order to assure the continued aesthetic function of the park. 9. The bicycle paths to Lake Ann Park need improvement. The pathway connecting the park with the downtown area should be widened and landscaped. Within the park, a bicycle path should be installed which leads to the beach area. Such a path might be located in the eastern fringe of the wooded area thereby providing additional amenities to bicyclists without disturbing users of the trails in the wooded area. 10. The City should develop and implement a planting plan for the existing tot lot area. Such a plan might emphasize the installation of a windbreak and diversification of plant colors. textures, and seasonal changes. 53 (2/91 ) 11 . Lake Ann park is likely to remain as the City's largest park facility. As such, it will continue to require substantial amounts of machinery and manpower in order to continue its present level of maintenance. 12. A picnic shelter should be constructed in the upper parking lot of the boat access area. 13. In the future, Lake Ann Park should be expanded on the east side. A total expansion of approximately 25 acres should be added to accommodate additional active facilities and should serve the future adjacent multi-family housing. Lake Susan Park As part of the land dedication of the Chanhassen Lakes Business Park. the City received a 27 acre parcel. This piece represents only a portion of the 43 acre total but is probably the most important for park development because of terrain and locational criteria. Most recently the City acquired 6 additional acres along the west shore and 2 on the north shore. Its location on the northwest corner of Lake Susan makes it a likely future site for both active facilities and a possible boat access serving community wide programs and interests. The master plan for Lake Susan Park represents the specific needs of the surrounding neighborhood. Since the surrounding neighborhood includes both residential and industrial uses, this park will continue to be used as a community park. Upon construction of the facilities identified in the master plan, a planting program should be implemented. Lake Susan Hills Parks (Outlots E - H) Master plans for each of these parks should be prepared and implemented. Meadow Green Park Meadow Green Park consists of 20 acres of land surrounded by residential development. Existing facilities include two ball diamonds, picnic tables, two tennis courts, a basketball court and parking. Future improvements should include a picnic shelter. paving the parking lot and additional landscaping. 54 (2/91 ) Minnewashta Heights Park The Minnewashta Heights Neighborhood Park although small in size, represents a valuable recreational resource for neighboring residents. It is the only Chanhassen park site readily available to the area without crossing Highway 7. The size and natural characteristics will however. limit the amount of active play facilities that the site can accommodate. 1 . A planting plan and implementation program should be instituted with major emphasis on shrub and understory plant materials. 2. The existing summer picnic facilities and winter ice skating rink should be continued with future emphasis on construction of a multi-purpose picnic shelter/warming house. 3. The Minnewashta Heights park will probably never be heavily used. The most intensive use is likely to occur in the winter months during ice skating season. As such, it is most important function will continue to be its service as an open space area: a gateway to the Minnewashta Heights neighborhood areas. Therefore, future expenditure priorities should be on implementing a planting program rather than installing active play devices. North Lotus Lake Park North Lotus Lake Park contains 18 acres of rolling land bounded on the south by Lotus Lake and by residential development on all other sides. A master plan for the park was prepared in 1985 and facilities were installed in 1989. The park contains two tennis courts, a softball field/soccer field, skating rink, sliding hill, picnic area. picnic/warming shelter and parking. In the future, public water and sanitary facilities should be provided within the park. Rice Marsh Lake Park Rice Marsh Lake Park occupies 30 acres, the majority of which exists as wetlands surrounding Rice Marsh Lake. Because of the park's overall size and the amount of undisturbed wetland habitat, it should be considered as an important part of the City's future recreation system. Chanhassen has the opportunity to develop a 55 (2/91 ) nature oriented, passive park facility permitting public viewing of wildlife in its natural surroundings. The installation of boardwalks throughout the area could permit safe, convenient, and environmentally unobtrusive movement throughout the park facility. Rice Marsh Lake Park is presently categorized as a neighborhood park facility. Should the City develop it as outlined above. the park's function would relate more to the entire community than strictly to the surrounding neighborhood. 1 . A master plan for the entire park area should be developed. Such a plan should address the park's continued function as a neighborhood park as well as the development of the wetland area to serve the entire community. 2. The existing active area of the park should be improved. Consideration should be given to adding additional play equipment, clearly defining the parking area and installing trees and shrubs. 3. Construct a path from the upland area of the park to the open water of Rice Marsh Lake to permit the hand launching of canoes and other water craft. 4. The construction of TH 212 will isolate a parcel adjoining the southern shore of Rice Marsh Lake. This area should be acquired as part of the park system and held in permanent open space. South Lotus Lake Park South Lotus Lake Park is a seven acre facility serving both community and neighborhood needs. Existing facilities include a boat access, parking and picnic areas. Future facilities identified in the park's master plan include a ball diamond, tennis courts. a tot lot and additional landscaping. Future facilities should follow the adopted master plan. Treatment Plant Site Property on the south end of Chanhassen Estates is used as a small play area containing a swing set and slide. This site. which formerly was part of the Chanhassen sewage treatment plant. is not scheduled for future expansion. 56 (2/91 ) Regional Facilities- The Minnewashta Regional Park. Minnesota Landscape Arboretum, and the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Recreation Area comprise the three major regional facilities that exist within the City of Chanhassen. In the case of each of these facilities, the City has varying degrees of control in planning. operation, and maintenance. MINNEWASHTA REGIONAL PARK Minnewashta Regional Park lies wholly within the City of Chanhassen. Existing facilities include a boat access, parking. picnic areas and trails. The master plan for the park calls for additional facilities. In general. Minnewashta Regional Park does not duplicate facilities found in Chanhassen city parks. Therefore.. the facility is complimentary to existing municipal facilities providing a broad base of recreational opportunities for Chanhassen residents. MINNESOTA LANDSCAPE ARBORETUM The Minnesota Landscape Arboretum which is owned and operated by the University of Minnesota is a recreational resource not only to Chanhassen but to the upper midwest as well. The Arboretum is located in an area which places it in the same category as the Minnewashta Regional Park. Development in the surrounding area is not likely to occur until after 2000. The City of Chanhassen will continue to provide sewer service to the site with the Arboretum supplying its own water, maintenance of streets, etc. MINNESOTA VALLEY NATIONAL WILDLIFE RECREATION AREA The Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Area is located along the Minnesota River in the extreme southern portion of Chanhassen. Ultimate development plans for this area call for two facilities: a recreation area within which boating, fishing, hiking, and possibly snowmobiling would be permitted and a wildlife management area devoted exclusively to protecting wildlife and its habitat. 57 PROPOSED NEW PARKS Within Chanhassen, eight areas have been identified for assessing the need for additional parks. General comments and recommendations for each of these areas are as follows: ZONE 1 This area in Chanhassen is almost fully developed. Utilizing neighborhood park service areas, two small areas are park deficient. Because of land availability, additional park acquisition in this area is not recommended. Efforts should be directed toward supplying this area with convenient access to other existing park sites. This could be accomplished through the construction of trails connecting to Chanhassen's major parks and with recreational opportunities in Eden Prairie. ZONE 2 Although a significant amount of vacant land presently exists in Zone 2, most of the land has either been platted or is a later phase of a previously approved planned unit development. Because most of the land parcels in this area have been included in proposed residential developments, the City of Chanhassen has secured most of the required land for future parks with the exception of the eventual expansion of the Bandimere (Lake Riley) Community Park. The recreation plan calls for a 25 - 30 acre expansion on the north side of the existing park. In the southeast corner of this zone, an area exists that is deficient in its access to neighborhood parks. This area should be served either by the installation of a future neighborhood park north of Lyman Boulevard or access to other parks should be provided via a convenient and safe trail system. ZONE 3 The area identified on the map as Zone 3 is presently largely undeveloped. According to the Land Use section of this plan, this area will be serviced by sanitary sewer prior to 2000. As a result, additional neighborhood parks in Zone 3 should be considered as additional development occurs. Future park plans call for the construction of a trail encircling Lake Ann. The construction of such a trail could effectively link the eastern half of the area to 58 (2/91 ) Lake Ann Park. The western half of Zone 3 which lies between Highways 41 and 117 may require a separate neighborhood park. The land around Lake Harrison would be a possible site for such a facility. ZONE 4 Zone 4, is becoming fully developed with residential land uses. In the west side of this zone, residential areas exist with large lots (2.5 acres). Curry Farms Park was recently acquired in the eastern portion of Zone 4. Development of facilities in this area will adequately meet the recreation demand of residences in this area. Developments on the western end of Zone 4 are currently not served by a neighborhood park and acquisition of such is recommended. ZONE 5 The vast majority of land within Zone 5 is held in public or semi-public ownership such as the holdings of Camp Tanadoona, the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum and the Minnewashta Regional Park. Additionally. the area is not likely to receive sanitary sewer service until after 2000. Because of these factors. no additional major municipal recreational development is recommended within the next ten years. Prior to that time. however. Zone 5 may contain trails as a part of the City's overall trail network. ZONE 6 Residential areas within Zone 6 are effectively cut off from existing parks by major roadways on the north and south, Lake Minnewashta on the east and by the Chanhassen city limits to the west. At the present time. there are no existing public park facilities of any type within the southern portion of this area. In reviewing the needs of Zone 6. the most significant deficiency is the lack of neighborhood park facilities. Tennis courts, ball diamonds, open areas and picnic grounds are non-existent. Therefore, future acquisitions should accommodate such activities. A potential future park site is the area around Lake St. Joe. As future residential infill occurs. the City should be prepared through dedication and/or purchase. to acquire an appropriate parcel of land. Prior to that time. efforts should be focused 59 (2/91 ) on implementing the Chanhassen Trail plan in order to provide Zone 6 residents with safe, convenient access to existing park facilities. ZONE 7 Chanhassen's 2000 Land Use Plan calls for Zone 7 to be developed in a mix of residential and office/industrial uses. As future development occurs in this area. neighborhood park property will need to be acquired. Development proposals in this area should accommodate the trail corridors identified in the Trail Plan. ZONE 8 Zone 8 is presently not served by sanitary sewer and is unlikely to receive service prior to 2000. The northern portion of this zone will eventually be developed in urban densities and when this occurs. additional neighborhood park land will be needed. The southern section of this area currently contains large lot residential neighborhoods. In the future. a third community park may be needed in Chanhassen. In order to provide such facilities convenient to most community residents, this area is a likely location for such a park. If this occurs. approximately 30 acres will be required. Lake Access Chanhassen has a long standing goal of providing a public access on each lake within the city. The community contains all or part of ten lakes which are legally public waters and, as such, should be accessible. Because it is impossible for everyone to live on the lake, the establishment of public accesses is imperative if the entire community is to enjoy the amenities associated with lakes. The following examination of each of Chanhassen's lakes discusses existing accesses as well as possible future additions. As the city acquires land and access points in the future. close coordination should occur between the Park and Recreation Commission. City Council and local residents to assure that adequate facilities are installed which minimize environmental intrusions and maximize the rights of all concerned. 60 (2/91 ) Lake Minnewashta: The public access needs of Lake Minnewashta are adequately served by the regional park. Lake St. Joe: Lake St. Joe is a small body of water which is suitable primarily for fishing and passive uses. The DNR maintains a primitive access on the east side of the lake which is expected to be maintained in its present state. Lake Lucy: Lake Lucy does not see heavy power boat usage because of its depth, shape and associated aquatic vegetation. Additionally. the lake does not presently have an improved public access so the only source of power boats is from the existing private residences that abut the lake. Greenwood Shores Park provides a publicly owned. land based connection between Lake Ann and Lake Lucy. Utilizing the park, it is possible to launch canoes and similar non-motorized watercraft into Lake Lucy. Unless a more permanent access is provided to the lake, boat usage of Lake _ucy is expected to continue to be very light. Because of the fragile ecology of Lake Lucy, installation of a future access should be approached cautiously. In combination with improved access, the City may want to consider the prohibition of motors as has been enacted on Lake Ann. Such a prohibition may require the agreement of the current riparian owners or the establishment of a variance procedure to reflect their property rights. Lake Ann: Public access to Lake Ann is available at Lake Ann Park. Christmas Lake: Christmas Lake is multi-jurisdictional lying in Shorewood and Chanhassen which are located in Hennepin and Carver Counties, respectively. The Chanhassen portion of Christmas Lake as totally developed. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) presently has an access in Shorewood. Lotus Lake: South Lotus Lake Park contains a launching facility that provides public access to Lotus Lake. Rice Marsh Lake: Rice Marsh Lake is another water body •which is suited for passive uses. Rice Marsh Lake Park lies on the northern shore of the lake and 61 (2/91 ) development plans call for the construction of a pathway to the open water to accommodate the hand launching of canoes. Lake Riley: Lake Riley. like Christmas Lake. is multi-jurisdictional lying in both Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. The Chanhassen side of the lake is limited by the delineation of the MUSA line. Eden Prairie maintains a public access on the eastern side of Lake Riley permitting the launching of boats by both residents and non-residents. Chanhassen should work with Eden Prairie through the Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission to ensure that the Eden Prairie access is maintained and operated in a manner which serves both residents and lakeshore owners from both communities. Lake Susan: The City currently owns land on the north side of Lake Susan. Construction of park facilities now under way includes a boat access. Because of increased energy costs. community growth. and other factors. Chanhassen lakes can expect to see greater usage in the future. Chanhassen should monitor each of the city's primary lakes in order to suggest appropriate uses and control measures to provide all lake users with adequate opportunities for lake enjoyment. 62 3, MEMORANDUM ©© Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. ©e TO: Chanhassen Planning Commission and Staff DATE: September 9, 1997 SUBJECT: Bluff Creek Zoning Regulations 1:37 FROM: Mark Koegler • On two previous occasions, the Planning Commission has held general discussions on the implementation of the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan, with an emphasis on the establishment of new zoning regulations. The next step in the process is an in-depth look at the impacts and consequently the acceptability of the concept of using density transfers as a key implementation tool. You may recall that one of the principal concerns with density transfers is the actual application of the technique in the Bluff Creek Watershed area and the corresponding physical land use pattern that results. In order to analyze the impacts in mapping and graphics form, we had hoped to be able to utilize some of the computerized land use data that was developed as part of the Management Plan. In reality, however, we have found that problems with the data prevent its usage for that purpose at this time. As a result,we have reverted back to the time tested method of creating manual graphics to illustrate the concept. At the meeting on Wednesday, we will present graphics which illustrate the application of density transfers in a general manner. Additionally, larger scale examples will be used to examine the resulting development pattern that occurs when development is excluded from specific areas and the density is transferred to other, adjacent parcels of land. These illustrations are intended to allow the Planning Commission to gauge its comfort with this tool and its actual application to the Bluff Creek area. Schedule It is still the intent to adopt supporting regulations to assist in implementing the Bluff Creek Watershed Management Plan by the end of the year. In order to accomplish this task, the following schedule is proposed: September 17, 1997 Planning Commission - Review of Density Transfer October 15, 1997 Planning Commission - Review Draft Ordinance November 15, 1997 Planning Commission Public Hearing November 24, 1997 City Council Review and Action 123 North Third Street,Suite 100 Minneapolis,Minnesota 55401 (612)835-9960 Fax(612)835-3160 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 3, 1997 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak,Allyson Brooks, LuAnn Sidney, Craig Peterson, Kevin Joyce, and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONING 4.27 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED BN, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS, TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW AN AUTO DEALERSHIP AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN 18,494 SQ. FT. BUILDING LOCATED SOUTH OF HWY. 5,NORTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST AND EAST OF THE LEGION SITE, VALLEY SALES OF CHANHASSEN, ARGONAUT HOLDINGS, INC. Public Present: Name Address Carlos Cordavid 8029 Dakota Lane Eric & Deb Waleiski 260 Hidden Steven Peterson 8021 Dakota Avenue Matt Burton 8190 Marsh Drive David Jossi 250 Hidden Lane Shari Lindsey 250 Hidden Lane Stephanie Roy Hatteberg 8031 Erie Avenue Tracey Anderson 8043 Hidden Circle Mark Honnold 8051 Hidden Circle Bev, Sharday & Reza Aghelnyad 88061 Hidden Circle Laurie Sacchet 8071 Hidden Circle Cory Ploen 310 Hidden Lane Nina Cottrell 8044 Cheyenne Avenue Tony Pavlovich 8010 Hidden Circle Todd Michels 320 Hidden Lane Patricia Kelly-Michels 320 Hidden Lane Lisa & Barry Thompson 8000 Hidden Circle Dick Cottrell 8044 Cheyenne Avenue Doug McCarthy 8001 Hidden Court Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Derek& Siboney Hines 8091 Hidden Court Michael & Margie Buchner 8081 Hidden Circle Sherrie & Shannon McClard 8030 Hidden Circle Christopher Leser 8110 Marsh Drive Jim Paul Excelsior Bernie Wagnild Minneapolis Steve Kaufman New Jersey Quinn Hutson Eagan Gene F. Ernst Chaska Dwight Jelle Eden Prairie Stephen Dang Kansas Rick Van Doeren Edina Linda Fisher 1500 Norwest Financial Center Susan Sullivan 8141 Hidden Court Greg Gmiterko 8121 Hidden Court Richard Donnay 8109 Dakota Lane Ton Lander 9779 Creekwood Drive,Eden Prairie Bob Scholer 7212 Frontier Trail Dan Lorinser 8020 Erie Avenue Carol & Jim Udstuen 360 Hidden Lane Lois Savard 8080 Marsh Drive Brian Steckling 8040 Hidden Court Steve,Lowell & Audrey Swenson 8101 Hidden Court Karen& Steve Klinsing 8090 Hidden Court Laurie & David Lee 8100 Hidden Court Gary Disch 8170 Marsh Drive Rhonda Collins 8060 Hidden Court Jim & Pam Murphy 8021 Hidden Court Linda Giordanni 8120 Hidden Court Cindy Marengo 8150 Marsh Drive Dale & Zola Klabande 8160 Hidden Court Susie& Kerry Blake 8040 Hidden Circle Dave Cameron 8161 Hidden Court Mark Eastvold 8180 Hidden Court Dean W. Brown Family of Christ Lutheran Church Delores Blatz... 271 Hidden Lane Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff. Joyce: Sharmin, what would be the, we're in a business neighborhood zone there now. What would be the appropriate zoning for a piece of property that would accommodate the auto dealership. Would it be the BG zoning? 2 Planning Commission Meeting- September 3, 1997 Al-Jaff: Correct. And BF are the zoning districts where a auto dealership is permitted. Joyce: Okay. Did the applicant request the PUD? Al-Jaff: Correct. Joyce: Okay. It wasn't suggested or anything like that. Thank you. Peterson: We have both of those allowable zones available in the city yet? Both business fringe and BG? Aanenson: Yes. Peterson: Other questions of staff? Conrad: Ah yes. If we wanted to change the zoning, what would our rationale be? Al-Jaff: We went through the findings of planned unit development. Staff does not believe that the PUD zoning is consistent with findings... Aanenson: Or your rationale may be that it's no longer...change the comprehensive plan. Conrad: That would be what you'd be looking at. Peterson: Other questions of staff? Sidney: I guess I have a broad question addressing the neighborhood meetings. As a result of those meetings, have any changes been proposed to the application? Al-Jaff: Not to our knowledge, no. Peterson: Okay. Other questions? With that, does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? If so, please come forward. State your name and address please. Linda Fisher: Take me a second to get set here. Linda Fisher, 1500 Norwest Financial Center, representing the applicant, Argonaut Holdings, an affiliate of General Motors Corporation. Let me first introduce a number of individuals who are here with me this evening. Some of them are here merely to answer questions, if you believe there are any to answer, and others are here as part of our presentation. Then what I'm going to do is indicate to you how we would like to organize our presentation and if the Planning Commission agrees, we'll proceed through that. But first for the introductions. From General Motors Corporation I have with me this evening Steve Kaufman and Steven Dang. From Valley Sales,which is the operator of the proposed retail automobile sales store we have Jim Paul and I don't know if Bernie Wagnild has arrived yet. He was intending to come. Project architect, C &H Architects is represented by Mr. Quinn 3 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Hutson. And the landscape architect is represented by Ernst Associates, Gene Ernst. Westwood Professional Services, the civil engineers is represented by Dwight Jelle. Dwight's returning. I think he had forgotten to pick up a board that we used. The traffic engineer and firm is Benshoof and Associates and unfortunately they had an unavoidable conflict, a long standing unavoidable conflict with this meeting so no one from that firm is present this evening. Midwest Acoustics did some acoustical analysis for us, submitted with the application and Mr. Rick VanDoren is here from that firm. And let me, as I said, do an overview. We have been working with staff for a number of months on the proposal and of course have reviewed the staff report and in terms of, if I may say to the Planning Commission, we understand that there are two items raised by the application generally in terms of a rezoning and then also site plan approval. We believe that some of the issues are I think connected, and since this is our opportunity to introduce the proposal to you, and since a good part of our thoughts on the appropriateness of the use for this site are linked in our minds to the characteristics of the site plan that we've worked on, we would ask your indulgence to present the entire proposal. And we of course are going to be addressing in our presentation both the land use issue and the site plan issue but in our minds there's some connection and this is really our only opportunity in a public setting to do that. So you will see some overlap in our presentation. First, as an introduction we want to compliment staff. They've done of course a thorough and professional job and a comprehensive job. We also note for the record that we held two neighborhood meetings in July and August. They were very well attended in this Council chamber and we appreciate the attendance and the interest of neighbors. We've also had some discussion with another near-by neighbor if you will, the church property and have been trying to coordinate a meeting with them that would take place in the future. By way of background, we've been working on the project with staff for over 9 months. There's no question that staff was very up front with us and expressed concerns about the land use in the community as a whole and on this site. We've done considerable research regarding that issue but obviously like any others that reasonably differ with a particular position that might be taken by your professional staff, we wanted to go through the process and see ultimately what the City Council would determine. However, we wanted to work with staff in a collaborative basis on the site plan issues should the project ultimately be approved, and again because we feel that was the only way we could address some of the concerns regarding the land use. And so we have had many meetings with staff working on complying we think with your exacting Highway 5 design standards and some of the policy issues that are interwoven with those and we'll touch on those. I also just want to say by introduction, this is a very complex issue and I think it's the type of issue on which reasonable people can and frequently do differ, and this is no exception to that rule. So we understand there's some very strong feelings in the room on the issue and we respect those but just want to go forward with the work we've done and present that to you. So again we want to familiarize each and every one of you with all aspects of the proposal and here's how we've had it organized. I'm going to, by way of introduction, address the, tell you a little bit about the applicant and the applicant's experience in the retail automobile sales use. Something regarding the site location process that General Motors went through, and an overview of some key components of the PUD development plan and a summary of some of the consultant studies that are in the record, including some modifications to the submitted plan but not to the elements of the application that we presented at the second neighborhood meeting on August 27`h, and I'm going to do that by way of overview. We're not going to go through or ask our consultants to present any of the studies in detail. But I am then going to ask our project architect to walk 4 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 through the color site landscape plan and show you how the proposal lays out on the site and discuss the architecture and again through several work sessions with staff, we did a lot more than just provide high quality building materials. I think we tailor made the design to fit within a number of your standards that and I've, in the record you will see a very detailed narrative we prepared for the submittal. It goes through our analysis of how we meet the PUD findings. How we are consistent with the comprehensive plan findings. I don't want to repeat that but we certainly could if you want. That's a very detailed statement we presented that's in your packet. So in our opinion we think there's an attractive building that's equal to or better than similarly sized projects anywhere in the community and we want Mr. Quinn, Mr. Hutson to show you that. We'll then ask Mr. Ernst, our landscape architect to go through some of the screening and buffering we've proposed and the site sections and some of the modifications related to the fence on Lake Drive that we talked about at the neighborhood meeting. And then at that point, if you would let us, I'd like to come back to me and I have just a few ideas on the land use issue, generally, and another issue raised in the staff report that I think relates to both and that is kind of the question of control of the this type of use and so I want to address both of those at the end but I first want you to see what the proposal is. So with your indulgence I'm going to go through a couple of introductory items and then turn it over to Mr. Hutson, and we'll try to go fairly rapidly through this. Peterson: Ms. Fisher, I think I would like to respectfully disagree. I think the commissioners, fellow commissioners would like to see the zoning issue independent of the site plan so if you could re-orient your presentation to that we'd appreciate it. Linda Fisher: Well I can do that in terms of re-ordering but I guess I would very much ask, and request, and would be concerned if this request were denied and would make this part of the record. We've got two applications pending and have spent a lot of our client's time and money on both and we'd like to present the whole proposal. Now we certainly can address one issue first and then come back to the other and I understand that it's very possible you would take a negative action on one and not vote on the other but we still have, you're a recommending body and we still have a right to go to the City Council for a decision and I feel very strongly, having worked on this project for a long time, that we'd like to present, and this is our only opportunity to present, the overall proposal. And we still believe that the appropriateness of the PUD zone we've requested is in part, in our minds,related to the nature of the project and whether it can meet some of your other comprehensive plan criteria. So it's difficult for us to separate the two totally. Now we can separate in the order of our presentation but I can't see that you're prejudiced by our presenting all the material. I would assume you'd like to act with full knowledge of all the facts and that's all we're asking. We're merely asking to be able to present the proposal we submitted to the City in total. That's all we're asking. You will decide what to do with it. Peterson: I would like you to separate the two issues and then we can go to the second one at a later point in the meeting if we should... Linda Fisher: Well I, you know if I'm going to present characteristics of the applicant, the location, which I think you need to hear, it's hard for, you'll have to judge what that issue relates 5 Planning Commission Meeting- September 3, 1997 to. But, and I don't know what other Planning Commission members feel but if you forbid us to present characteristics of the site plan that we believe relates to land use, we think we're prejudiced and are not getting a fair hearing. I can't,I can't be stronger about that. I believe we want to present the overall proposal that we've reviewed with staff and the neighbors and will address both the land use issue and the site plan issue. I can't see how that, with a short agenda, there's any, and I guess, maybe I am going to put staff on the spot. I discussed with staff the fact that we wanted to present this overall proposal and we were never led to believe that we could not present the overall proposal this evening so I,I guess I'm concerned about that. We understand that there's a recommendation of denial but I just can't see why we're not being allowed to present our proposal as submitted because we see an overlap of the issues. Peterson: Well let's go through the first rezoning issue first and then if the commissioners feel as though they need more information to make that decision, then we'll move to the second part of the... Linda Fisher: Well I understand that but we feel that some of, that the way we have addressed, if you're going to cut me off I have no choice but I'm, I'll take this to the Council about a concern of not being able to present our entire proposal because we don't think that we're getting a fair hearing if we're not allowed to present the overall proposal. We think the two are linked to some extent in our argument and I, again, I don't have the gavel here. We'll have to respect whatever you do but if you're not going to, I don't know what you mean. If you mean that I can't allow our architect to show you the renderings and discuss how we've screened consistent with one standard in your comp plan. If we can't allow our landscape architect to talk about screening, then I, I have a concern because I think that's one of the reasons we requested a PUD zone as opposed to a straight BG zone and we were going to address that. So I think there's some overlap. We discussed with neighbors our request for the PUD zone and I think part of that is related to the control we feel the City would gain with a PUD zoning, whether you agree or not to rezone. So I feel that we would like to present our overall proposal and that's all we're asking for. One hearing before you tonight. Peterson: Again, I'd like to orient it, split it in half and if during your discussion we need more information to make that decision,then we'll begin the second half of the presentation. Linda Fisher: Well I'm, again. Not to belabor it and I'll keep going but I'm still unclear as to at what point you're going to cut us off in our presentation. I don't,I can't even interpret what you say but let me start. I really can't. Peterson: I think the issue that we're looking for is defining, is there a compelling reason to rezone. Very typical for us to review and not see site plans before we see rezoning issues. Linda Fisher: Again, we feel that the site plan proposal is linked to the merits of our rezoning proposal, and you may disagree with that but it seems to me that, and I've been doing this for over 20 years and I'm usually accorded,we're usually accorded the courtesy of letting our proposal be put before you. That's all we're asking but I can see that we're not getting anywhere so let me go forward. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Peterson: Please. Linda Fisher: And again I'm,just for the record, indicate that we, I think are dismayed that we're not,just not being allowed to present our overall proposal because we think the two are linked to some extent. Let me give you some information, and you'll have to cut me off if you think it's inappropriate, regarding the applicant and our site location process. The applicant is an affiliate of General Motors Corporation. They contracted to purchase the site from a landowner, Mortenson Development Company, who is here and may wish to speak to you, for development of a Pontiac-GMC retail automobile store. We believe it's important in your looking at the land use, generally and whether you wish to allow it in the City at all or else on this site in general, to note for the record that Valley Sales is a good corporate citizen and has been a strong supporter of local activities in the communities in which it's located. The principles of Valley Sales have over 80 years of experience in automobile retailing, and they currently operate in Apple Valley, Hastings and Waconia. The Waconia facility is basically proposed to be relocated to Chanhassen. One of the benefits we see of the facility from a land use standpoint is that it would have a number of employees at skilled, secured and high paying wages, and the majority of employees would live in the local community, or at least in, either within the city or very close to the city. And so that's some background on the applicant. In terms of the location, General Motors has been cutting the number of franchises substantially throughout the country and to emphasize a number of things in your comprehensive plan talks about generally such as service and convenience. Although this is a destination retail establishment, which I will address later. And we did an extensive search, or that is General Motors,principles working for General Motors, did an extensive demographic research and basically narrowed it's consideration to the city of Chanhassen, and working with real estate professionals, spent I think close to a year attempting to find a site zoned in the city of Chanhassen. And I think if you get out and I could do this. If you get out your zoning map you will see that you have a handful, literally a handful of BG zoned sites in this city and virtually none of them are available and we checked each and every one of them. The use requires approximately 5 acres. It needs reasonable visibility but it does not require visibility from the highway for cars as is one of the items we wanted to address in our drawings, and requires accessibility and available utilities. So we looked at multiple locations along Highway 5. Your BF zone is virtually not existent anymore in the sewered area of the city and is in the process, I understand of being considered to be phased out. There was no available zoned site in the community. We then turned our attention to sites designated commercial in the comprehensive plan. Your comprehensive plan, in terms of the map, designates your commercial sites one category C, Commercial. There is text in the comprehensive plan that your staff has read from and that we have reviewed,that talks about different types of commercial uses, and I'm going to address that in the moment. But does not map sites for different types of commercial use as obviously you zone for different types of commercial uses. And we recognized initially that this site was zoned BN. But in looking at a commercial zone site, when we couldn't find a site zoned BG,we thought at least that we could look at trade-offs in the impacts between the allowed uses under an existing zone commercial site and the use that we were proposing, and that then got us into looking at characteristics of the site plan and of the land use in general, and again I don't know how much of this you're going to let me present but it's in the record in terms of our application. So we then came to the site, after 7 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 having reviewed every BG zoned site in the city, and there were some advantages regarding this site in addition to the fact that obviously it was sized accordingly and was available. There's an existing landform on the north which aids in screening the parking, which you may think is a site plan issue but we also believe relates to the appropriateness of the land use in this location. There were no trees or significant wetlands and the site,there's suitable access and the use at this location, the use at this location, regardless of the site plan layout, doesn't require road improvements as perhaps might be the case at some other location. So all of that told us that there might be, could we meet some of the other comprehensive plan criteria, and you have a book, an appropriate use for this site. Other uses that are allowed on this site, as you know, are a convenience store with or without gas, shopping center, neighborhood oriented retail, if that can be defined, drive-in bank, restaurant,health services, office, and we thought many of these uses would in all probability, in some cases draw customers from a much greater area than the neighborhood. So that was some of what we looked at when we tried to come up with a site that we could propose to develop on in the city of Chanhassen. Now here's where you need to tell me what I can or cannot do. We wanted to go, describe for you what the proposed use is, other than just saying car dealership. I'll just tell you what I want to do and you tell me if I can do it. Peterson: I think Linda, the only thing we're looking, we don't need to see is building materials and structure used so if you have a narrative that goes. Linda Fisher: Okay, so I can describe for you the use. Okay. Because I think again it, in our mind relates. I'm not trying to be argumentative but I don't know exactly what you mean in terms of what we can or cannot present. Okay. Let me describe for you, because I think there might, may be some confusion what the specific characteristics of the use is that we're proposing. I'm going to get to your comp plan. Okay. We are proposing a retail automobile store,but there are a lot of characteristics of those. What we're proposing here is again a one story, low profile building. I won't address the design. New and used cars and personal utility vehicles and General Motors service and parts,which we might add there is no current General Motors service in the city of Chanhassen, to my knowledge. I think Mr. Wagnild by the way has arrived, and we, this is a subjective opinion but some would think that having the availability of service in reasonable proximity to those who might use it as a benefit. Others might disagree. That's a subjective consideration. But it was one of the things that we looked at in providing the service. There would be no heavy or medium duty truck sales. There would be no body work at this facility. No quick lube so some services would not be provided. The hours of operation that are proposed would be more limited than a typical retail shopping, or potentially more limited than typical retail shopping which could be open 24 hours or at least on Sundays. The hours of operation proposed are Monday through Thursday, 7:00 to 9:00 or 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Fridays 7:00 to 6:00. Saturday 9:00 to 6:00. New car delivery would be restricted to normal business hours and off loading would be internal to the site and we've established a general area for that. We've talked about no overhead paging of employees and communication by cell phone, and no balloons, flags or pennants in terms of other characteristics of the use. Now, let me ask you another question. Are we allowed to characterize in words the architecture, landscaping and screening or not? I don't know what you, may I do an overview or not? Peterson: Give an overview. Again, details aren't appropriate right now. 8 Planning Commission Meeting- September 3, 1997 Linda Fisher: Okay. Again, a picture tells a thousand words and so that's normally not what we'd like to present to a Planning Commission. But, and I think the staff report indicates and agrees that it's a very attractive building. We have come up with a building that we believe is compatible with your Highway 5 corridor design. A huge part of your comprehensive plan is design oriented. We spent an inordinate amount of time on your Highway 5 plan and the materials are outlined in the record and it was not just materials review we did. We went through a very exacting work session with staff on the design and we're very proud of it but it's easier to show so I'll go on. On landscaping and screening we thought the appropriateness of the use for this site was in part dependent on whether it could be screened from Highway 5 because there are many elements in your comprehensive plan that discuss that in terms of the parking. And whether we could do some reasonable screening from the neighborhood. That's why we think again there's some relationship. I will summarize Mr. Ernst's drawings we spent a lot of time on. I'm disappointed you won't let us present them but I'll summarize it. There is an existing landform on the north, and our drawing shows, and the staff has seen, that the landform alone, together with supplemental plantings, screens the parking totally from Highway 5. So there will be no views of any of the cars from Highway 5. There will be filtered views of the building and there's no questions an attractive building that meets your standards, so earth berm and plantings on top of the berm screen the cars from view and we have illustrations of that. The perimeter has been substantially landscaped and buffered and we did extensive sections of these so that through a combination of measures, the parking would be screened from residential view and would be really no different in impact from any other neighborhood business zoned use. Again, a picture tells a thousand words. I want to indicate for the record that again you,but just for the record, that at the second neighborhood meeting we did propose, since we relied in part on the existing fence. We did propose and I called staff about this. That if the project is ultimately approved, that General Motors would replace the existing damaged fence, even though it's on residential property, with a new solid board on board fence, and we have a, and I can pass it out. We have calculations from our noise expert that that would reduce the noise levels from Highway 5 and from Lake Drive by 5 to 6 decibels in the neighborhood so it would be a benefit. And we're still proposing that. We also proposed, and Mr. Ernst has illustrations, to add additional plantings along Lake Drive and increase the size to substantially improve the buffer. I won't go into detail on the traffic study and noise study that were submitted in detail other than to indicate that the traffic study shows that the project would generate the land use. The land use. Not the site plan. The land use. Would generate substantially less traffic than other land uses allowed under the existing zoning. Again, a trade off. There's always with land uses a trade off but it was we thought pertinent that that was the fact and there are, there's a substantiation for that in the record. We did a very detailed noise study because that's a concern. It was a concern in the past. I'm barely going to summarize that because I think there's a lack of interest in hearing about it but it's in the record. Suffice it to say that this land use on this site as proposed would generate substantially less traffic noise than other allowed uses and in terms of service shop noise and one thing that's site plan but I think is important, is we have oriented the site plan, but I think it relates to the land use, such that all the activity is on the north. There is only one overhead door and it's on the north side away from the neighbors, which we think is important in terms of the land use. And our studies show that we will meet State noise standards, and in fact post development noise levels will be very comparable to existing noise levels and that is all we need 9 Planning Commission Meeting- September 3, 1997 to say on that. Again assuming, I'm going to keep going because it sounds like you don't want to see drawings so that's what I'll do. I'll keep going. In terms of a couple of other items I was going to, well. Again, we have information on lighting and signage which you may not want addressed at this meeting. In terms of land use, as I indicated before, we've spent a lot of time with your comprehensive plan and it can be read in a lot of different ways. And I think there's a number of issues here,just to lay it all out. Does the City, from a practical standpoint, given what little BG zoned land you have left, want to allow this use anywhere in the City? Under any circumstances, no matter how sensitively designed. No matter whether it's in proximity to a residential area or not. We don't know the answer to that question. That's one question that maybe the City needs to look at. We don't see a prohibition on the use, in the comprehensive plan. I mean generally now. We don't see a prohibition on the use in your Highway 5 corridor plan. A direct, express prohibition. We looked at the comprehensive plan language staff has cited and a number of questions are raised. Just questions and I throw these out as questions for you to consider. Getting to more specifically. It talks about downtown commercial. This site is not downtown, but you have a mixed use planned development for Villages on the Pond and I've reviewed the PUD agreement in detail,that has a substantial retail component that's not located downtown and I'm going to come back to that in a moment. Is that downtown commercial? Is it neighborhood commercial? Maybe yes. Maybe no. You have some language about large scale users. Mid size shopping centers and larger free standing specialty stores. Where does this use fit? Why shouldn't it fit somewhere in the community? And those are questions you need to ask as well as again, could it be compatible with this neighborhood. There's discussion in your comprehensive plan, which as I look at it was done in 1991. I know the Highway 5 plan came later. About after 1995, if development continues, maybe you need to re-evaluate commercial land use in general and I assume, I don't know where you are in your Metropolitan Council comp plan revisions but it might be something you might want to consider. Also there's a sentence in the staff report that an automobile dealership has a regional draw and does not cater, nor service neighborhoods only. We ask this question. What is a regional draw and what in today's commercial environment services neighborhoods only? And I underscore only. What is a neighborhood? Is it one block? Is it 5 blocks? Is it 10 blocks? Is it one mile? Is it in some communities such as Chanhassen perhaps the whole city? Can one land use, even under allowed under BN, serve both the neighborhood and the community in general and also region? You're talking about a site on which we propose PUD zone that is on a highway and if we are denied, you may hear from the landowner on going forward with BN zoning, but I think a number of those uses, and they may very well be preferable to the neighbors and the City and that's fine,but I think some of those uses would serve more than the neighborhood. And convenience store with gas, restaurant, some shopping uses. So all we say is, should a distinction be made on whether something does serve a neighborhood only and what really serves the neighborhood. We know you're not, we know we're not a drug store where your maybe needs for that sort of thing are served. But there are benefits to the community from this use, we believe, and so there's questions that need to be raised. There's a blurring of distinction between neighborhood retail and others. There was an article in the Sunday New York Times this last week that talked about, something that I found very interesting. The changes in grocery stores. You look at the uses that you allow under neighborhood business, and I've read them. You know you may hear a bank. You may hear a print shop. You may hear convenience food, going in and getting a hot meal. What's happening is those are available in some small strip centers but more and more the 10 Planning Commission Meeting- September 3, 1997 grocery stores are doing them. Kroger's is the largest national grocery store, and I took this right out of the article. What are they doing and Byerly's and others are following. They have their bank. They have their fast print. They have their Boston Market foods all allowed under your neighborhood business if alone. They have fitness centers. They have cookies. And obviously the scale's different but what I'm saying is,what really is neighborhood retail only and should that or should it not be a distinction. We're just asking. When you talk about the region now for metropolitan planning, there's talk about expanding the region. Maybe the region should be more than the seven county metro area. Maybe it should include 14 counties. So there's a whole lot of different ways to look at the language in your comprehensive plan. I'm not going to tell you we're an absolute,perfect fit but we do think that sensitivity in the design relates to the appropriateness of the use on this particular site. Again, I looked at Village of the Pond and I think their PUD agreement is instructive. Again, it's a PUD. It's a mixed use PUD. But there are a number of uses allowed. Entertainment, hotel, restaurant, apparel, that are going to serve more than a neighborhood, and the uses in that PUD agreement say, serving the neighborhood and the community. So we're saying there might be a lot of different ways to take a look at this. We also, and again this point I'm going to make would be a lot better illustrated by a drawing Mr. Jelle has but I don't know that you want me to show it so I'll take a shot again, letting you know I think I'm hampered without being able to show you a drawing. I think most of you have been on the Planning Commission for a few months. You know you had before you, you know the site adjacent to us is zoned BN. The Legion site, and you know there was a proposal by a developer, I think the project was called Chanhassen Commons, for a use on that site, and it did include, and staff supported it, what you think and we're not debating,perhaps is more close to BN. But remember, we're not trying to say we're BN zoning. We're requesting a rezoning. I'm going to come to the PUD in a second,why we requested it. We spent a lot of time when that proposal was still viable, we spent a fair amount of time trying to coordinate with that developer and we have a drawing we wanted to show you, and we know that plan's not out there now. We know that. But envision for a moment one mixed use PUD. Envision those two sites combined and envision a project that might include some of what you, I'll call it the Chanhassen Commons project, which by the way had a free standing restaurant which is now being proposed in the Village on the Ponds. Had a neighborhood component. We were proposing a connection with that site, which we didn't need but it would have worked. And then our project. Again, if I can't show you the site plan. Think of it as one PUD. And one of the things we were talking about, you're talking about pedestrian circulation. We're not saying someone's going to walk to buy a car. We'd never say that. I'm not sure someone would walk to do some other things that were in Chanhassen Commons, but what we were trying to work on is pedestrian circulation through the two projects, and then ultimately to the pedestrian bridge so that if for example you were in GM and you brought your car in and they said it would take you an hour in the morning to have it serviced, you might go to the bagel or the coffee shop on the adjacent site. Have a cup of coffee and come back. You had an hour. Maybe you'd walk across the pedestrian bridge to Byerly's. We're saying there's a bigger picture here, and that's still a possibility. We don't have that proposal this evening but envision that, and in my mind there starts to be a little bit different view of the entire, of how this thing might work together with the adjacent zoned site. Shopping center linked by internal circulation. Some of those sort of things. Again, separating you know the strong opinions of people in the room, and they're valid but I'm just saying talking in terms of land use. We wanted to show you that drawing. In terms of why we requested the PUD zone, 11 Planning Commission Meeting- September 3, 1997 because I was asked at the neighborhood meeting and also I think it relates to, and a question was raised earlier. On this particular site we had two choices. Again I kind of addressed, we looked at other sites. With this land use. We could have requested a rezoning to BG. And that obviously would not have been supported but we could have requested that and seen what the vote would have been at the Council. Or we could have requested a rezoning to PUD, and here's why we requested the PUD zone and that gets back into the site plan. We looked at the uses that were allowed in BG and there are a number of them that are fairly intense, and we were concerned that there would be justifiable concerns from the community that if this use went away after 25 years, or whatever, that other uses would then be permitted and you would have little control. We didn't think this would fly that way. We didn't think the community was entitled to that, and I talked to my client about it and said, that's not going to work. But certainly we wanted flexibility out of the PUD. We're not going to lie about that. There's no question about it. We've got a setback of slightly, of not under the ordinance. By the way so did Village on the Ponds. So did Chanhassen Commons. I can address that if you want. Yes, the PUD gives you flexibility, but it also gives you control. So what we wanted to do was propose a zone that is a rezoning but is not an overlay zone,and I've looked at that in your zoning ordinance. Becomes a zone on your map with a PUD agreement that we would agree even could be recorded against the land that would specify uses and that would have a number of very detailed restrictions that we have proposed and that obviously if this were ever approved, would be conditioned. And could provide more control than a permitted use. So we thought that that was important in looking at whether this use could fit on this site. That's how we see the two together. So that's the reason we went with the PUD zone, because there are potential off site effects from virtually any land use. And again on the land use, a question was raised and I think it's a good one. It's alluded to in the staff report, and addressed by the neighbors, that perhaps this use is somehow harder to control than other uses, and I'll just give you our opinion. It's an opinion. I don't think that's the case. If, and let me see if I can address this. Any land use has potential off site impacts. You're Planning Commission members and I've worked for virtually any land use. In Plymouth right now you can call the staff. They have an office tech project. They've had terrible complaints about and they thought it was an excellent use, and probably still is but there have been problems. You've had multi-family with problems. You can have a single family neighborhood with problems. Any number of uses can have off site impacts. You can have a shopping center approved, neighborhood shopping center. You can have a change in tendency and a change in management, which is some people said these are good fellows. What if it changes? You would have no more or less control over that. We think less because we'd have a PUD agreement, than you would with this use, so I guess we don't see anything about this use that given the structure we've proposed, could not be controlled to any greater or less extent that really,particularly any other commercial use allowed under the BN zone. That's our general view. And the other thing, again it gets back to the site plan. We wanted the design for the land use on the site to minimize off site impacts and to minimize the human complying. So rather than saying we'd have overhead doors facing the neighborhood but we'd keep them closed, and humans don't want to do that, we didn't want to bother with a human having to follow an order so we put the, one overhead door on the north screen, and opposite the residents and there are other issues so on the control issue, that's our view on it. Again, I'm overstaying my welcome, I can sense it. And so I'm going to stop at this point and we can address any questions you have. But again, we believe that we have a proposal that can be compatible with your overall comprehensive plan, with your 12 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 PUD zone and with a number of your other criteria and that minimizes off site impacts and has some benefits and you'll have to judge from that and we thank you for your patience and are available to answer any questions. And I'll try to do the best I can but if you shoot a question to me, but I may have to refer it to one of our other people, and I don't know whether you want questions now or after the public hearing. Thank you. Peterson: Questions of the applicant from fellow commissioners please. Conrad: Yes Mr. Chairman. You obviously know that we're fairly comfortable with the zoning. We've done a lot of planning. Not that we haven't. Therefore your job is to come in tonight and give us a compelling reason to change, because as I said,we're pretty comfortable with what we've done. We've been doing our comprehensive plan. We understand how we protect neighborhoods. We understand how we forecast where we're going to our residents. So when we change a zone, we have to persuade them, not only the residents that are neighbors,but the rest of the city, that it's for their good. And you've talked for a while, and I haven't heard a reason yet. So before we open it up to the citizens, I did hear one thing about noise and traffic. That there would be less traffic. If you have quantifiable things like that, I would sure like to hear it. If there's somebody in attendance that would quantify those things. Linda Fisher: That's in our studies. I can read these. Conrad: Do you have a chart of those reasons? Linda Fisher: I can go through that. There was, and you know we hoped you reviewed that packet. There is a very detailed traffic study with a generation table that I can pull out and review right now. Conrad: But just summarize for me. Yeah, I don't need the details. Summarize for me the reasons that we should tell our citizens... Linda Fisher: Well and I thought I did that but I will do it again. Conrad: No, you did not. Linda Fisher: We don't think this can be reduced other than traffic to a quantifiable numerical calculation. On traffic it can. Now let me just, without giving you, because I will, you've asked for that so I've got it here in my notes. We generate, and this was based on a detailed study, 43 p.m. peak hour trips and 590 weekday daily trips. An alternative allowed under the existing zone one, and I'm not going to go through the details because it's all in the report and your staff I think concurred in the analysis, generates 189 p.m. peak hour trips, so significantly more, and 2,493. 4 to 6 times I think more traffic on the weekday basis. It's one of those trade-offs in impacts that I was talking about. Another alternative,because you know that you have many uses under your zone so there are many alternatives as to what could go on the site. I think you know you understand that. So we did another alternative,taking a slightly different mix that included a restaurant, because that was proposed next door, and taking that mix we had an even greater 13 Planning Commission Meeting- September 3, 1997 disparity between this use, which is probably the, I think it's virtually the lowest traffic generator for commercial use you could find. I think virtually the lowest for commercial use. 315, that alternative. 315 p.m. peak. 4,062 weekday daily. So it's significant disparity. Traffic noise does the same thing. You have, and we didn't run those numbers because it, and Mr. VanDoren can address but your traffic noises is directly related to the amount of traffic generated by a land use, and so it's substantially less traffic noise. And then in terms of a benefit, again it's tied to the site plan for the neighborhood, and for the community, we're on record as saying if approved we would replace that fence and, well I'm just going to repeat it and it has a substantial benefit in terms of screening and not just screening our site. Screening traffic on Lake Drive and a5 to 6, and I will pass this out and introduce it into the record, a 5 to 6 decibel reduction in noise from, in the neighborhood, from Highway 5 and from Lake Drive. From traffic that is already on those roads or is projected to be on those roads,whether or not we're there. So again, we are proposed that, and I will, I'm going to pass it out just so it gets into the record because that analysis was just done because we just proposed that at the August 276 neighborhood meeting. I also have this evening a property value study that was just completed this morning that I will also pass out and introduce into the record, that is based on a study of a real estate appraiser,with his qualifications attached, who went to the neighborhood and also interviewed assessors in a number of communities listed that have car dealerships, and also interviewed real estate agents in communities that have, some communities that had car dealerships. Also did a study with actual sale prices of two homes near the applicant's facility in Apple Valley. Compared them to a control group of comparably valued homes, not adjacent to the facility to see whether there was an impact and found no negative impacts. And again that was just completed this morning and our client hasn't even seen it so I'm bringing it to you hot off the presses and I will pass that out. Again, a benefit. I can't say that you would say that these other uses would have a negative impact. We haven't studied that. I can't,but I can tell you that we don't find on a factual basis any negative impact. And so we think that the, where I think the land use starts to get related to the plan, that's why we proposed PUD, and a lot of cities have looked at this differently. With all due respect. And I understand everything you've been saying about your comp plan,but when you look at the overall benefits of the proposal, if you wanted to talk to your community in general about it, I think the quality of the building has a lot to do with it. We really do and that's why we worked on that. It's part of the land use we have to offer. You had leverage over us. You wouldn't necessarily have leverage over the next person under a BN site. Take a look at the architecture on the project that was proposed and take a look at this architecture. We've done more with this building. We had to just to meet your standards. We felt we needed to, to do exactly what Commissioner Conrad said. Have any basis for coming before you, in addition to kind of the arguments I outlaid before. What really is neighborhood retail that you're going to have to wrestle with. So we think what we've done in screening,what we've done in landscaping, what we've done in the land, in the plan and since we proposed a PUD zone and not a straight zone, relates to whether or not you ought to amend your zone. That's why I tried to put it together, in addition to some of these others. That's what we can tell you. It's a package in our mind. We came to you with a package and we said, what you see if you choose to approve, is what you would get. Not that we zoned to BG,come back with a site plan and play games with you. We could have come in with a BG zone. You probably would have denied it. Or let's say you approved it. The plan could have come later. I don't think you'd get the plan. We know we've got to go much higher here. The City deserves it and we know we have to. So we think 14 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 it's a package. That's why we've tried to combine... We understand you're going to vote on one maybe and not get to the other but in terms of our looking at it, you know as a package, that's why we went with the PUD. I'm not the only person with a stake in this. If any of our team have something to add that I haven't answered,please come up. I don't want to monopolize, but that's kind of how we looked at it. And the landowner may want to talk. I asked the landowner at some point when you open the public hearing to discuss a little bit about what his plans are for the site and I think that's pertinent also in terms of trade-offs of land use. Because I don't think the site's going to remain, I think you know... So I'm thirsty, I need some water. Yes. Brooks: I want to go back to one of your arguments. On the one hand you're trying to argue to us that your business is a neighborhood service because you're providing GM car service. In the next breath you're asking what is a neighborhood. I think it's here. And then the second question you're asking is what is a neighborhood service anyway. So I guess you're confusing me. Linda Fisher: Yeah let me. Brooks: No. Linda Fisher: Okay, go ahead. Brooks: Are you proposing that you are a neighborhood service or is your argument that nothing is really a neighborhood service anymore? You are part of regional service just like everything else. Linda Fisher: Well you know,you may at one point want to get the comments from the actual operator but the way, I think there's a lot of different ways to look at it. No,no, no, and I'm going to try to answer your question from my standpoint. I don't think we can stand here and tell you that a retail automobile sales use we're proposing provides the same type of daily shopping need as some of the uses that are allowed in this zone. I can't say that. I don't think any of us can say that. So if neighborhood retail means that, well certainly we're not saying we're that fit. Again we're asking for a rezoning. We can't say that and I wasn't saying that. What I'm saying is that those functions are being served in a lot of different contexts nowadays. We're just asking based on reading that narrowly in terms of neighborhood retail only as being what's allowed and what exactly that means. That's a different, a little bit broader issue. Now having said that, a car purchase isn't something you do on a daily basis. However as I said, if you talk about a service to a neighborhood or to if someone had a GM car in the neighborhood and if this were approved and wanted to bring some vehicle over to be serviced, and I tried to put the PUD, I think you might call that aspect of the use a neighborhood service,but no. We're not saying it's the same type of daily shopping need as something else and we can't say that. It's destination retail. It's not pull off a highway retail, and that's why we didn't need the visibility of the cars. A lot of people thought we needed that. This dealer, and again because we can't show you the pictures, we need to be a major roadway but they wouldn't have even applied if they needed the car. The old style car operation is not what they're proposing and I know you don't want to hear that tonight but if you wanted to get interested in that, that's a separate discussion. That's not what 15 Planning Commission Meeting- September 3, 1997 we're looking at. So there's no perfect answer, you know to your question, and again, if there's interest in the, well. I'll leave it at that. Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Thank you. Linda Fisher: Thank you. Peterson: This item is open for a public hearing. May I have a motion and a second please. Conrad moved,Joyce seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the Commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Before we do that. Yes,just hold on one second. Let me make a couple comments. I think that clearly over the last few weeks, myself and fellow commissioners have gotten phone calls and received letters that we appreciate. We are in receipt of the 120 plus names on the petition so I would ask for your somewhat indulgence. If you have, we want to hear every point and every issue but if it's repetitive to the person in front of you, I ask that you take that into consideration before you make your presentation. So we want to hear all the points but we also want to take into consideration the time of everybody else here too so, thank you. Please. Richard Donnay: My name is Richard Donnay. I've been a citizen, resident of the Estates for about 18 years and I was impressed with her presentation. Got to give her credit for doing a lot of work on this. You know we've seen things come in to intrude upon our area. We've lost some of the beauty, a lot of the beauty's been lost to McDonald's and Total and other kinds of public services. I guess you forget about the beauty that you lost and you start getting used to the conveniences and I think that's a major point with this situation where the conveniences to us are not going to be probably appreciated. It's just going to be a major business. The point I have is that these kinds of dealerships grow, it's going to be a growing business and I don't know if that area is going to be large enough. A good example of that is Waconia Ford where they moved out on the highway. They didn't have enough room and they've got new cars and trucks parked on the ditch right up to the road. These things grow and I don't know if you can get that to look good or not. But I do encourage the Planning Commission to hear the rest of the presentation for the benefit of citizens such as myself. The entire picture I think needs to be listened to here because I'm wondering about what the options are if they're not granted this development. What are we going to wind up with instead of that? I'm really impressed with the idea that if we have a neat, well groomed, well developed,professional, clean business, you know with good landscaping and so forth, maybe that's going to look a lot better and be a lot quieter than some of the things that we might get later. So we've got to look at that and I'm willing to, I would like to hear the whole story. I would not like to see us separate and control too much. I'd like to hear the whole thing. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Why don't we open it up for questions. Anyone else wishing to address the Commission? 16 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Eric Waleiski: I'm Eric Waleiski and I live at 260 Hidden Lane. That's right across East Lake Drive from where they're proposing to put it up. And I guess I have a couple of concerns with regard to the traffic study that they did. I think that with the amount of service bays that they're proposing, along with the number of new cars that they intend to sell at the site, that it could really increase the traffic flow through our neighborhood. You know if you just do the math and figure they want to do 600 cars a year. Figure 3 have test, or 3 test drives per sale. That's about 1,800 test drives. They have 15 service bays. Figure 3 cars through each service bay every day. That's another 45 cars a day. 300 day business year. You have about 15,000 cars driving through our neighborhood. The other alternative would be to go up and down Highway 5. I don't think that they're going to be, they can guarantee us anyway that that will be the case. And it's a concern to have those people coming through our neighborhood, mainly strangers so I just wanted to make that point. Thank you. Peterson: Anyone else? Cory Ploen: My name is Cory Ploen. I sent each of you a letter. I believe it should be in the packet. Hopefully you read that. A couple points I wanted to bring up is that I was really impressed what the staff put together. They're the ones I heard that 9 months heard this story. Heard the convincing arguments and all that. Yet after all that they still recommended to deny it. They probably know more about this project than anybody here and they still are against it so I'd like to make sure that's heard. The other thing is, we heard about the resale. I've done my own, not real scientific checking with real estate agents. People I know. I know a car dealership out in Glencoe. He stated that you can have valuations, devaluation up to 20% so I guess, you know there's many, many variables but to hear their side it helps a lot. It can hurt too and that's my concern from where I live. Convenience is just the last point I want to bring up. I think the convenience side of things, a dry cleaner, a coffee shop, those types of things, ice cream store, we can walk to with our kids and all that. Go to the Villages on the Ponds. Cross the pedestrian bridge into Chanhassen. Help that. The car dealership, there's nothing to walk by there so for the beauty of the neighborhood and all that, it looks good and I heard they have great pictures and all that but for what we would use on a daily basis, would bring us out of our homes into the community, I don't think this serves that purpose. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Steve Peterson: Hi. I'm Steve Peterson. I've been a resident of Chanhassen Estates for 13 years and a business owner in town here. What you would be doing by granting this application would be to sacrifice the safety, welfare and the lifestyle of the neighbors through this proposed development. I would submit that your duty is to the residents of this community and that denying the application would be supporting the residents. There's no doubt that it would be an increase in traffic. One thing that was not discussed was the type of traffic. The people who would be coming in and out of here on a daily basis to buy, test drive cars. Come in and look at cars. Would primarily be non neighbors. They don't know the intersection of Lake Drive East and Dakota Avenue, which is already very dangerous. It's the one where you go turning into McDonald's. If you've ever looked at that and watched the traffic there, it's horrible. It's 17 Planning Commission Meeting- September 3, 1997 amazing we haven't had a lot of accidents, and we'd be increasing the traffic at that intersection. It's only a question of time before somebody gets hurt there as it is. We don't need more strangers coming in on a regular basis. Some of the other uses that would be permitted on this property would probably draw people from the community who knew about the traffic flow, the traffic patterns. One lane ending without any signs, right by Ivan's Sinclair. And I think it would be a lot safer for the people, both in the community and those traveling in that intersection. In my opinion, the applicant has not shown a necessity for a zoning change and in my opinion they didn't even show good reason for one. I would urge you to stick with the planning that you've already, and the City has already put into this and not grant the change. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Tony Pavlovich: Good evening. My name is Tony Pavlovich. I live on Hidden Circle, adjacent or across the street from the proposed property. And you know we came out here about 9 years ago and built our home in that area. We were moving from Chicago, coming here with a job transfer and as a result of coming to this area,previously I was in Plymouth. And when we came back we said originally well let's go back and look in the Plymouth area again, and we liked it up there and so on and so forth. We had an opportunity to take a look at other areas and spent a significant amount of time deciding where it was we wanted to settle long term and raise our families. And when we came out to Chanhassen here, and liked what we saw. We had an opportunity to take a look at exactly, we actually reviewed the comprehensive plan ourselves at that point in time. And very specifically we understood what was happening with the city. What the plans were. We liked the idea of coming to an area that has a, what I'll call a small town atmosphere. I grew up in a small town and it's something that we've always appreciated. When we came here and we understood what the development of this property was proposed to be, we were excited about that and chose to build here. Now, in my opinion, what we have proposed before us is a change to that and I'm not exactly sure if this was granted, that is fair to us as citizens. We came here with an understanding. We appreciate what the city Planning Commission, the City Council members, the Mayor, where we've gone so far with our city. I've had relatives come from out of town. I've had relatives come from the Chicago area, come to visit. They take a look at what we've got here and are very impressed with what the City has done. And based on that, I think we should hold true to that and keep it as neighborhood business. And not grant what the proposed applicant is suggesting at this point. We like, each of you I think have received a letter from me that discusses everything from the safety issues and noise issues and lighting issues and so on and so forth, and these are all important. But bottom line I guess for me, I came to Chanhassen. I could have built in many areas in the Twin Cities. I came to Chanhassen understanding what Chanhassen was going to offer me, and I hope that now the rules haven't changed and I hope that we stick with the original plan. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Commission? Bernie, do you want to address that one issue of cars? Bernie Wagnild: The point about the number of vehicles is a valid one because it concerns us as well as it should concern everyone else. Cadillac at this time has a pilot program going on in different parts of the United States. They're rolling it out as they're able to, which allows the 18 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 dealers to stock many fewer cars. They keep the cars in regional holding pins. GMC Truck has I believe three test areas that this is going on. That's working out well. They're starting to fold that out. It's getting to the point, like someone said, over$30,000.00, the air gets a little thin up there. And not only for the customer but for us trying to floor plan those. The other thing I'd like to comment on. There were a lot of concerns voiced in the first neighborhood meeting, and the second neighborhood meeting, regarding test drives, safety, noise, those types of things. And I understand that those are really concerns. I've been an automobile dealer since 1975. Prior to that I ran a metropolitan dealership from 1969, and all those dealerships that I've been affiliated with or owned, have been as close, except for one, Hastings, have been as close or closer in proximity to many of the people that were at the first meeting. And we have not had, in all those years, calls regarding safety, road testing,noise, and those type of things, and I don't think we'd have them here. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Any further comments? Laurie Sacchet: My name is Laurie Sacchet and I live at 8071 Hidden Circle, which is also adjacent to the proposed property. And I just wanted to bring to you attention that 7 or 8 years ago we had to really get together and work against the TH 101 proposed routing. They were thinking of bringing that through Lake Drive and that we didn't feel was really appropriate. And we, you know really worked together. We were very collaborative. We all put our heads together. There was a tremendous amount of neighborhood interaction at that time. Maybe some of you remember that. And we came up with a solution or helped propose a solution that stands today. And now we know that TH 101 is routed in a totally different way and has in effect by- passed our entire neighborhood and I think everybody's happy about that. So we just want you to know that we're very, very adamant against the proposed development. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Before we close the public hearing, I'd just like to go on record by asking that sometimes in a group that has strong feelings like this, people who are for the project quite often don't feel comfortable coming up so I ask that anybody that is for the project that would like to speak,please come forward. Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Joyce moved, Brooks seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. I guess the first question that I would ask of each of us is do we have enough information to make a decision tonight or would you like more information on the structure and the site plan, or anything etc., etc.? Joyce: I think it comes down to the zoning. I have enough information. Sidney: Yeah I do too. Brooks: I have enough to make... 19 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Blackowiak: I too went to the open house and went through this very thorough packet so I feel I'm ready to make a decision. Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: I'm okay. Peterson: With that okay would you like to share your comments on the presentation this evening? Conrad: And I wouldn't mind. I haven't attended the meetings and I wouldn't, I think a gentleman stood up and asked to review the rest of the story. I'm not opposed to that but I will, I've been around here for a while and probably more than everybody else here combined so that's probably why he led off with me tonight. I'm probably part of the reason that the zone is the way it is. It made sense when we put it in. We knew we'd have residents living close by so the zone we put in literally did make some sense. But when I try to decide whether we should change the zone, you look for a couple things. Usually is it a bad zone to begin with, or did something change that we couldn't anticipate because boy, when you zone. When you plan,you make a guess based on the wisdom of the staff,but you still don't know what's really going to happen but you look for, you know when you make a change you look for a bad zone to begin with. You look for a better zone. Better. Not the same but better. You look for benefits to improve the community. Tonight we heard one or two,but you really want dramatic benefits because for 5 years, for 10 years you've been forecasting where you're going and you're telling the neighbors where you're going. That's probably the one thing government can do that they owe the residents forecasting. Even forecasting to those that are coming into town. The businesses. What are our requirements and you hold to them and I think that's what ar..y citizen that comes in here wants to see is, tell us what you're looking for so we know what the rules are. The other thing I look for is not just the neighborhood. They're important but it's also the rest of Chanhassen. Is there something that they're not getting? Is this an opportunity that they're missing? And then you look at the neighbors and you say, have we persuaded the neighbors yet? Are they demanding a change? And sometimes we don't care. But most of the time when they show up we do care. Tonight, and so I wanted, that's some standards that you should follow when you rezone. Not just that everybody wrote us letters,but that there's some things that you feel comfortable with and how you planned the city and I have a feeling that the applicant has done a, based on what I've seen in the staff report, they've done a good job. They'd be a benefit to the community but in this particular case, there was not a persuasive argument made for a zoning change. There really wasn't. Not close. And I think it's real important that I say that. Not close. I heard the one benefit,which is real. The noise and the traffic. I think that's real. That is, the residents you know, there are things going to move in here and from a noise and traffic standpoint, they're going to be worse than this. But overall, you know I didn't hear a compelling reason that would make me feel that we should entertain this from a city standpoint. So my bottom line is, I'm real comfortable with the current zoning. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Alison. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Blackowiak: I have to be with just about everything Ladd said. I will try not to repeat but again I did not hear any compelling reasons to change the zoning, and I think that that's one thing that really needs to be present before we go in and change any zoning. Ms. Fisher listed several characteristics about the land use that she thought were favorable to a car dealership but I would argue that they are favorable to any business or anything that would be going in there as well. They're not exclusive to a car dealership. The issue is zoning right now. Do we need to change the zoning on this parcel? And I feel that what we need, instead of changing the zoning is to really look at what a neighborhood is. What a neighborhood business is and to work on improving neighborhood businesses in Chanhassen. Especially so that we, or the City had leverage over them and saying that, implying that we would be able to exact some more high quality materials from them. But I would argue that we apply the same high standards to anyone that comes before the Planning Commission or before the City. We look for high standards and we would hold everyone up to those standards. We need good neighborhood services. We need to foster a sense of community. We've got a pedestrian bridge. We've got Villages. There will be something going on this parcel, but I feel that the transition from Villages, to the neighborhood, to the pedestrian bridge would be broken up by an auto dealership. 1 think we need a neighborhood business there. Something where, a place where people can meet. A place where people would use services and be able to go and see their neighbors on a regular basis as opposed to an infrequent purchase and hopefully less frequent return to the repair center. In short, I did not hear a compelling reason to change and I'm comfortable, like Ladd said, with the current zoning. Peterson: Thank you. Allyson. Brooks: Well I agree with everything that Ladd and Alison said and I don't see any reason to change the zoning. I don't think the, I agree with Ladd and Alison that there is not a compelling argument at all. I just, a car dealership is just not a neighborhood business and I don't really feel that there needed to be a philosophical argument about what a neighborhood business is. I think we really do understand it. And I think that we have to take into consideration the concerns of the community which are that they are not comfortable with changing the zoning of that parcel. They have safety concerns, which I think are valid. And concerns about quality of life such as Chanhassen is trying to be, like we discussed,more pedestrian friendly and have more community oriented... And that area,having a car dealership in that particular spot just doesn't fit with what we're trying to do with that area. So I guess I am going with not changing the zoning. Peterson: Thank you. LuAnn. Sidney: I think my comments are very similar and I'll try not to be redundant. I think in general I see in this case just too many things have to be changed to, or compromised to make this work. And specifically as a commissioner we're looking at zoning, land use and also the elements of the PUD ordinance. And what we're finding is that the applicant has proposed a use that doesn't meet the intent of the neighborhood business and one thing as a commissioner that we do is to look at the comprehensive plan and also the Chanhassen City Code and it's spelled out for us what a neighborhood business is. And this does not fit the classification in the Chanhassen City 21 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Code. I think another important thing is that I want to acknowledge that the neighbors, the neighboring property owners have purchased their property with the expectation that this parcel would be zoned neighborhood business and because of that, one of the reasons I can't support the request for a rezoning. I understand the applicant's strong desire to do business in Chanhassen. Certainly as a property owner in Chanhassen we were very drawn to this community. However, as a commissioner again, I think the major point is that there's no compelling reason to change the current zoning and I'm comfortable with how it's zoned right now. Peterson: Thank you. Kevin. Joyce: Well I think it was a unique proposal to begin with. My concept of a PUD is a partnership and that partnership is between the City and the developer. Ar..d I think you have an immediate problem right here because you didn't have the City, or at least the planning staff on your side. Then you have the neighborhood against you and now, since I'm the last guy here, it sure doesn't look like you've got the Planning Commission on your side either. And I guess that's the reason for my question initially is who decided on the PUD and since you went that avenue, I think initially you have to have some sort of backing from the community, from the city, some direction from the planning staff and it's just not there. So everything else that was said I agree with. I do want to give a little direction though to the City Council from at least my opinion. Ms. Fisher asked the question, do you even want this use? And I was here when you folks brought forth the McGlynn property and initially I was, I was against it just because I think car dealerships have a bad reputation. I mean it's something that, it's an uphill battle for you folks, obviously. And I went to one of the neighborhood meetings and I agree with you. I think it's a retail auto store. I think what I saw as far as some of the site plans, a::id that's all we're discussing here, okay. Maybe I'm out of line but I just want to say that what I saw in that scale I liked. I think it's a good use for Chanhassen. So in response to Mrs. Fishers, I think it's a use that we need in Chanhassen. I don't think we need any more coffee shops or bagel shops. The problem is you picked a site that just wasn't adequate for this use. Now you used a lot of resources and energies to put this thing together. I feel sorry that we had to give you all this bad news, but I still think you can find a suitable place in Chanhassen. I really do. I know it won't be easy, but as a direction to the City Council I think we could possibly find something on Highway 5. A thought. This is just a thought. Maybe something in the Gateway project. I don't know. okay. Highway 41 and Highway 5. The southwest, east corner. Okay. You know that's a big project out there. It's all industrial office and that kind of thing,but I did see your renderings and once again I'm saying in this scale, I think it's a good project. And also this would be an opportune for you to work with the City because we are reviewing our comprehensive plan. Right now. And I don't, Kate's looking at me. Aanenson: But you have to understand we went through this whole process. We explicitly told them that under no circumstances would we support Highway 5...commercial. So in defense of the applicant, this is the only site they could find, and in defense of the applicant, the PUD is what the staff advised them would be their best chance even though we wouldn't support them because we suggested if they changed the BN district, allow you, that opens up the BN district. So again, the staff led them in that direction...to go with the PUD...but we told them the staff would not support commercial along Highway 5. It's guided industrial and once we changed our 22 Planning Commission Meeting- September 3, 1997 comprehensive plan to say we're allowing commercial on Highway 5...open it up for other commercial. We went through that process over a year ago, so that's why we're at this point today and there's a whole history of that process which we slightly...in the staff report. That's why they're here today spending this amount of energy because we eliminated that option. Joyce: I appreciate that but I hate, I think it would be a good business in town here and I just hate cavalierly saying well,just because it didn't fit here we can't figure something out. Aanenson: Well they got that earlier from the Planning Commission that we wouldn't support that and that's why they decided to take...take the commercial, existing commercial and try to work it in, in defense of them. That's what they were given as direction. That's what they... Joyce: I just think they'd be a good tenant in Chanhassen and I just, and I would hope that they would come back with something that we could,this isn't going to work. Okay? Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. My comments are also not dissimilar to my peers. We are clearly tasked to listen to developers and the citizens and try to really interpret how the plans or put into the City Code and how they're interpreted. And obviously the applicant is of the perspective that this does fit within the Code and the PUD. You've heard my fellow commissioners say that they don't feel that way, and obviously we will pass it on now to City Council with that opinion, and mine is not dissimilar to that as I just don't see a compelling reason to rezone. And the only new item that I bring forth would be, I think the City has made a major commitment to pedestrian traffic and specifically as the pedestrian bridge is right there,that I think is also another pretty significant area that the City has made an investment in and doesn't necessarily in my eyes fit at all with the use of the car dealership, again more, less pedestrian oriented than we're looking for. So with that, may I have a motion and a second please. Joyce: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends denial of Rezoning 4.2 acres of BN,Neighborhood Business, to PUD, the preliminary development plans,parking lot, hard surface and sign deviations as shown dated received April 4, 1997. Peterson: Second? Blackowiak: I'll second that. Peterson: Is there any discussion? Joyce moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of rezoning 4.2 acres of BN,Neighborhood Business to PUD,the preliminary development plans, parking lot, hard surface coverage, and sign deviations as shown in the plans dated Received April 4, 1997, based on the rezoning to PUD and site plan findings. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: 23 Planning Commission Meeting- September 3, 1997 LOTUS REALTY SERVICES- PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HWY. 5 AND GREAT PLAINS BLVD WITHIN THE VILLAGE ON THE PONDS DEVELOPMENT: A. FINAL PLAT/REPLAT OUTLOT C,VILLAGES ON THE POND INTO TWO LOTS. B. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 5,300 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR A FAMOUS DAVE'S RESTAURANT. C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 14,848 SQ. FT. RETAIL BUILDING LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER. Public Present: Name Address Gary Disch 8170 Marsh Drive Rhonda Collins 8060 Hidden Court Cindy Marengo 8150 Marsh Drive Dale& Zola Klabande 8160 Hidden Court Susie& Kerry Blake 8040 Hidden Circle Vernelle Clayton 422 Santa Fe Circle Scott D. Schlachter 5633 Morgan Avenue So. Lois Savard 8080 Marsh Drive Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Help me understand the roof issue a little bit better. Walk me through it again, or walk me through it if you would. Generous: Okay. If you look at the roof elevation on the Building 4 you see that it has a flat roof cross area in the middle that is actually a flat roof elevation. The slope roof elevation on that building, observable from someone standing on the street is approximately 70% of the building. However, if you look at it from a birds eye view, it's probably maybe half of the building. The roof area. So we need clarification whether or not we should interpret it to mean that it's, was visible from the ground or what's visible from above. Peterson: And your rationale for that position, the rationale for their position was? Generous: Well that with the higher peak that would be in it, we were looking, primarily when we were doing the design we were looking at larger units and making it look consistent with our downtown area. The office, the Medical Arts building down on West 78th Street. Peterson: And that's the standard we've followed with the other buildings? Generous: So far. 24 Planning Commission Meeting- September 3, 1997 Peterson: Other questions of staff? Joyce: On this handout, remember this part of the handout. What exactly is this? Generous: That just shows you the sectors. If you look at the design standards, there are different, with any...slightly different standards Joyce: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. All right. I was just wondering, the dotted line looked like a thoroughfare or something through. Can you actually take your car and go through that whole dotted area? Through parking lots and everything like that. Generous: You can't get out to Highway 101 that way. Joyce: Okay. All right. Generous: It's just to delineate the different sectors within the plan and the signage standards are slightly different than some of the requirements. Joyce: Okay. Sidney: I have another question about the flat roof portion of that building. Would that be visible from other buildings in the Villages? ...see higher elevations. Generous: We may in the Village corridor develop up to four story or 50 feet. Sidney: Okay, so that might be visible then. Peterson: Other questions of staff? Joyce: Just one. Now that I understand what I'm looking at here. You said that we're adding 14,000 square feet of retail to Section 2 and taking it out of Section 1 then. Generous: Right. Based on the additional, there's a Building 2 that will come in the future that's approximately 7,500 square feet. Joyce: And you're, there isn't anything confirmed but we're looking at a restaurant on that site too. Generous: Correct. Joyce: Thank you. Peterson: The only other thing Bob, I think I don't normally preach this but within the packet I know it's some within your control but we didn't have a proportionate rendering. It's pretty 25 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 difficult to get...tonight so...points his forger at staff or the development team. It's pretty important that we have that for our packet so. With that, does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Commission please? Vernelle Clayton: Good evening Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. My name is Vernelle Clayton and I'm with Lotus Realty. I would like to have the rest of the group in here before we start but let me talk first just a little bit about the, are you going to do this one by one? Do the plat and vote on that and... I didn't say vote yes. I just said vote. Do you want me to talk about the plat first and then you talk? Okay. I would like to just,just a couple of comments. We don't have any problem with the change in number 5. Backing up to number 2. I just want for the record to say that I believe that we already have adequate cross access easements as a part of the covenants that are filed,but this is a good test. We should take a look at them before the plat's recorded and see that they fit. I do also want to state for the record that I would like, I will not actually formally object to item number 1,but given that we picked up the copy on Tuesday. I read it...that night. Caught it last night and we were still busy with Famous Dave's today, I didn't really get a chance to talk about it. But we'll have a chance to talk about it between now and the Council meeting and it's probably fine. I just want to understand what the ramifications might be. And that's all the comments I have on that. Peterson: Any questions? Kevin, any comments on replatting? Joyce: No, I don't have any. Sidney: No comment. Peterson: Ladd? Nor do I. With that, may I have a motion and a second:please. Blackowiak: I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition, PUD #95-2, subject to conditions 1 through 8. Condition 5 shall read, the applicant shall pay the City GIS fees in accordance with City fees at time of recording final plat. Joyce: I'll make a second on that. Blackowiak moved,Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Villages on the Ponds Second Addition, PUD 95-2, subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall grant to the City of Chanhassen a conservation casement over Outlot L, Villages on the Ponds as described in the conditions of approval for the Villages on the Ponds. 2. Provide cross access easements and maintenance agreements shall be dedicated over Lots 1 and 2, Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition for access and utility purposes. 3. The appropriate drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the plat over the stormwater basins and wetlands on the property. Drainage and utility easements shall 26 Planning Commission Meeting- September 3, 1997 be dedicated on the final plat for the stormwater basin and wetland up to the 100 year flood elevation. 4. The applicant shall enter into an addendum to the development contract/PUD agreement for Villages on the Ponds. 5. The applicant shall pay the City GIS fees in accordance with city fees at time of recording of final plat. 6. The proposed commercial development of 2.13 net developable acres is responsible for a water quantity fee of$9,287. This fee is due payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 7. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility improvements, the applicant or their successors shall supply the City with a mylar set of as-built construction plans. All utilities installed within the plat shall be owned and maintained by the property owners and not the City. 8. The developer shall pay full park and trail fees pursuant to City Code. All voted in favor, except Conrad who abstained, and the motion carried. Peterson: Next item. Vernelle, do you want to? Vernelle Clayton: I guess one of the things that I will talk about after we talk about the building itself, is landscaping. Bob and I have talked about that a little bit and we can deal with that after we talk about the building. I would like to say that we have Mika Milo with us. Most of you, I think all of you know Mika Milo from our prior presentations. We have Ken Merriman who is our expert leasing person and a delightful person to know. And we have Scott Schlachter from Famous Dave's. I would just like to say that I did invite all the folks that were here for the last session to come and sit in on this presentation, number one because they were so successful. And number two, because they all said oh,Famous Dave's. When are you going to open? But that is, aside from,the only other comment I want to make about Famous Dave's is, number one. Everybody seems to like them and want them here. Number two. I want to publicly express my appreciation for their patience with us as we have wrestled with their design. They've been not only patient. They've been understanding. They've been flexible and so far they haven't even gotten angry as far as I know. We have been working with them,not because their design was bad. But because it didn't quite fit what everyone's ideas and assumptions were as to what would be built in the Villages. To that end they've been very flexible. They are also under a little bit of a time line. They want to get going as soon as possible so staff has been actually bending the rules on when we can get the last copies of things into them and we appreciate that. We got Mika involved in some redesign. He got that copy to us in time to get it to staff and to Famous Dave's at the same time. We wanted both to review it. Famous Dave's had a few changes that they wanted to make and thanks to Mika who learned of a couple of them at 4:00 27 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 this afternoon and has been out in the hall making the color copy as you discussed car dealerships, I think we have a fairly complete presentation. You will see that there are some things that are completely different from the way it was described or set forth in the packet. We'll try to point those out to you as we go and I would like to introduce Mika Milo to discuss the elevations. Mika Milo: Mika Milo,principle of Milo Architecture Group in Eden Prairie. And your Honorable Chairman and Planning Commissioners, it is my pleasure to present now the two projects here that are really like one project. All on one site basically, sharing the same parking lot. One is the Famous Dave and then the retail building#4. I guess we'll first address the Famous Dave building, and you will see that there is some relationship, some visual relationship and correlationship between these buildings and color schemes. When we, like Vernelle said, initial design that was a typical,proto typical design for Famous Dave anc.they approached us here, in essence was a good design that would fit to the Village character in general terms. In terms of massing and the slope roofs and the size of the building and bulk and shape of the building. And the restaurant is obviously very welcome use for the Villages...in and outdoors. The problem we had is more, it was the character of the finishes and the materials that they are proposing in a typical design, and we have been working quite a while with them and they worked until we received, until we arrived to that point to present to you these change design that I believe now much closer matches the intent with the Villages and what we are trying to achieve there. I will show you what the material that was presented... This is the last roof, sheet metal roof and wood siding that was proposed. It was rather...raw wood appearance like northern...farmhouse combination with very... But in any case, we felt it is not really matching what we are trying to achieve here at the Village and we would like that building to blend more with the overall...design that we have, that are not so strongly, how would you say, woodsy. They're a little bit more sophisticated... and so we suggested to change the color of the roof as well as to change the finishes, the color of the roof would be darker than this red one and we suggested that also we finish for the wood siding becomes a solid stain rather than a transparent stain...and we also created a base that we propose of being...so this is basically what happened and I will show you the design that we are now proposing. I think you have the smaller,reduced copies. You have received that. Peterson: Bob, does the copy that you just gave us differ from...? Does the copy you just gave us differ from the one that's in our packet? It seemed to. Generous: Just the trash enclosure. Peterson: Oh okay, sorry. Al-Jaff: There were some changes that were made to the plans that you have attached so they are different. So what you have is the latest revision. Mika Milo: ...substantial change from these initial materials. The red roof that you see is more of the brownish color, darker...we are suggesting that darker color...stained color. The stain is a light brownish...and the wood frame around the windows to take a darker tone of this...darker 28 Planning Commission Meeting- September 3, 1997 one would be for the frames and around the... Then to have as a base of that...of approximately 6 inches above the ground and we use that teal green,teal color for...and we are considering or re-using that teal color because it might not be... Any questions that you might have? Vernelle Clayton: I think they might have some questions as to how it's different from what you had in your packet. Is that a reasonable assumption? The differences are four. The roof. Over the kitchen...here was too small for their HVAC... Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Brooks: I have a question. In your design...you state, in no case shall the architecture lead to the... This really does not, it's inconsistent with where you're going. I realize that Famous Dave's has an image that...when I look at that building that you presented... boy these are really far apart in architectural styles. We're talking about compatibility in Villages on the Ponds, and we're going from sort of very modern and glass and it was very nice to sort of rustic, western theme and I don't feel that, I just want your opinion on this. This doesn't seem to follow the design character reference book of what you... Mika Milo: ...that text reads like that and the intent is not to copy. Can you please read one more time that particular important sentence? That couple sentences. Brooks: However, in no case shall the architectural...of a Disneyland street or... The main goal is to create a pleasant...highway pedestrian oriented streetscape that has the base qualities of a traditional village. The building architecture... Mika Milo: Obviously I wanted to say,we don't any...temporary architecture dealing in the Village. However,we are basing the architecture on the traditional value, and traditional symbol and expressions of the architecture of the past times and especially the beginning of this century. Small town America and the intent would be very simply...we like to have some cohesiveness in the Village and a certain direction and...materials and design but I don't think that our intent is to really have very uniform, very similar everything. I think we do welcome some varieties. We do welcome some different architectural...and expressions that suggest building a village over the period of time that is composed of various...and not just the one single developer who is doing everything very uniformly. In that respect I think that yes, this is a very different than the office building, though the function is also very different. It is more rustic and woodsy and so on but it's also on the other end of the village and not directly next door to the office building. I think it's more now in an environment where that will fit rather well. Where we have the restaurant next, in opposite side of the pond is another restaurant and then we have also the AmericInn which are using all the siding and wood shingles and they are a little more rustic and woodsy type of design. I think that will blend with this area in general terms so I think. Brooks: But this is not small town Wyoming land...but it's just very, very different flavor from what I see being presented so far... I guess my question would be,when we're doing Famous Dave's, is this rustic wooded look the only look that they have for their restaurant because I 29 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 believe Alison...Maple Grove. Also this is right next to Highway 5 and all of a sudden we have this rustic, Wyoming look right on Highway 5. Mika Milo: Let me explain one thing only. We are talking about rustic. I would like to point out that... We talking about the creamy,beigey color... So I do think that I feel comfortable that we are close enough to...different. It still has some of that Wyoming flavor... I think there has been a tremendous transformation... Brooks: ...on your last building, you did such a great job of going beyond form...and even here you're saying, you know you don't want to guided...self expression but which does not... I mean it was going so great and now it's seems like we've gone back to traditional restaurant... This probably is a, I'll stop because it's probably a moot point anyway because...but I just wanted to make the point that I think that we're going in one direction and...this doesn't quite fit with what you were doing architecturally to start out with. Mika Milo: I have just one more thing to say. That this...they really have to more fit with the product...are of the Villages is more isolated and... Aanenson: I'm sorry I have to stop there because I think we have to be really careful about that type of thinking because we really tried hard to tie those pieces together architecturally. I understand what you're saying. We had the same discussion on the motel. Different...sitting out there and we worked really hard. We spent a lot of time reworking the hotel to get it to fit in so I'd be really careful about going down that path. It is part of the project. It is...Highway 5. To say well, it's not part of it. That's not true...staff and Sharmin spent an inordinate amount of time. We did give them a benefit. We were working up until, delivering plans until the last minute. We have changes tonight that we're not...we want to work with them. We've tried really hard. We got something that was completely different than what our PUD standards are. Sharmin spent a lot of time trying to get it to where we thought it worked. They can do different things. They can. They have. What is acceptable under the standards and that's where we're struggling. We're hoping to get a read from you tonight and that's part of the reason we put it on here tonight is get some direction. We're kind of at a standstill as far as some of these issues, but it is hard. It does, it is important what it looks like. Joyce: This was the same issue as American Inn. This is the same thing. Aanenson: Exactly. That's why what Mika says concerns me because we did spend a lot of time putting together...standards and the mission statement just as you read, that is important what it looks like...as a staff we were concerned... Brooks: And I do...architectural standards provided by...by other reasons. Aanenson: Franchises do have a certain style. We understand that but then we have to say well this PUD also has a certain style. Peterson: Well, we can sort out those issues as we continue the evening. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Vernelle Clayton: I just want to say one thing. That I agree with Kate that this is an important part of the Village. Just because it's on the edge and it's not a part of the core doesn't mean it's not important. It is also the first thing, and sometimes the only thing, not just this one but everything along Highway 5 for some people will be the only thing that they see. We hope that because of what they see there they'll come into the Village. However, I would like to point out one thing that we haven't brought out and that is,perspective. That we keep this in perspective too because just for example, the 30,000 square foot building that we saw on the south end was six times as big as this and Americlnn is eight times as big as this. So we need to keep the relationship of the mass and the overall impression in line too. This looks as big as the 30,000 square foot building,because they put it on the same size paper, and we all get carried away by that. Just looking at it in relationship to the building that we're coming, that we'll be talking about in a few minutes. It's less than half the size. It's in square footage it's one-third. One elevation is a little longer than the other. So the issue is, can the Village absorb this without being disadvantaged? Maybe we're too close to the issue because we've gone through many versions and this one, we feel it can absorb. Does it look a little western, or if you're from the south, does it look like a road house? Which is what they want. They want people to say oh there's a Famous Dave's road house. Can it be adapted to another use? Yeah. One of the things if you're looking for flexibility, then it's better not to have it brick. Brick is a very hard medium to change. Once you have a brick wall,you've got a brick wall unless you simply take the walls down. That's one of our concerns. The other concern is that in considering brick it really doesn't get at what everyone's issue is. The issue really is the design. But we've added a lot of elements to tie it in so I guess what we'd like to have you do tonight is think about, can the Village, because of it's mass, and it's relationship to this relatively small building, can we absorb it? I guess as a developer we're comfortable that we can. It's not perfect but we've come a long way and I don't know that we can make it much different and still have Famous Dave's in town. I'm not 100% sure we can do this and have Famous Dave's in town so. Peterson: Any questions? Blackowiak: Yes Mr. Chairman. Could we pass around the color rendering, the changes so that we can see. I'd like to see up close what has been changed. Peterson: As we're passing that around, this item is open for a public hearing. May I have a motion to open and a second please. Joyce moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: The public hearing is open. Anyone wishing to address the Commission,please come forward and state your name and address please. Gary Disch: My name is Gary Disch, 8170 Marsh Drive. I'm fairly close to this building that's going to be going in. One of the concerns that I have with the restaurant. I have no problem with Famous Dave's and stuff but I'm very close to it. I'm wondering if my back yard's going to be smelling like barbecue and I'm not the one doing it. You know. We're talking about huge fans, 31 Planning Commission Meeting- September 3, 1997 ventilators, whatever. What types of things are they going to do for our neighborhood. You know if we get all the smells all the time, the same thing on the other retail, somebody said there was going to be another restaurant there. I guess do we know what's going in there or are we just building it and see what comes? As far as the brick and stuff, you know she says we're over budget. Famous Dave's may not build here. I don't believe that. It seems like everybody wants to come to Chanhassen. It's getting to be a very viable space. You're right. There's brick. I like the brick, or the rock face. Why are we cheapening it up I guess. There's brick in Maple Grove. We shouldn't be pressured into making a western house, as what you said. I don't like the design either. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Lois Savard: Hi. My name is Lois Savard and I live at 8080 Marsh Drive and the look of this building is very important to me because I'm going to see it right out my back door. I live right on the corner. The looks of the building is fine with me. I like the wood. I like the western look. That doesn't bother me. The restaurant bothers me a little bit. I'm concerned about hours of operation. We like to have our windows open in the summertime. The smell, the barbecue smell is probably nice and that doesn't bother me as much. I'm concerned with the traffic and the noise and the everything that goes with a restaurant. I'm concerned about the view. Which side of the building we're going to see. Are we going to see the back of the building. Where is the trash going to be taken out, etc., etc. We have had the commitment made that we will have some landscaping done in our backyard. What it is we don't know so I don't know how concerned as homeowners we should be with the view. We don't know yet what the landscaping in our back yard will be. So those are my primary concerns. Peterson: Thank you. Aanenson: Let me just clarify exactly where this is... Joyce: So the retail would block any kind of views from their window Kate? Aanenson: There still may be an... Lois Savard: You'd be looking from the east elevation. Audience: The office building would not block her. Peterson: Anyone else? Scott Schlachter: My name's Scott Schlachter. I'm with Famous Dave's. I just wanted to answer a couple of the concerns the residents had as far as the smell. If we are a restaurant, there is going to be some smell from our charbroiler. As far as the smoking of the meat we have specially made ovens and we use about 3 ounces of wood to smoke. It's smoked for a very long time and because they're enclosed in smaller ovens, we don't use...wood and so there isn't going to be puffs of smoke going up and permeating the neighborhood. Well maybe a little bit but 32 Planning Commission Meeting- September 3, 1997 nothing that's going to be huge. Hours of operation. We open at 11:00, Monday through, seven days a week and we close, typically we close at 10:00. We're very family oriented,both for our customers and for our staff. Any other questions I can answer for anyone? Joyce: Yeah, I have a question. What about, one of the conditions on this is the applicant shall provide detailed sign plans to staff and obviously you don't have today. Could you tell us what, is the sign going to use that logo on the side of your shirt right there? Scott Schlachter: Famous Dave's, the letters,the script is what we'll use on the front of the building. Joyce: What about the pig? Scott Schlachter: No. Just the script. Joyce: Okay. So that's the sign then, right? Aanenson: Similar to what's shown on the... Joyce: But it will be a separate sign somewhere, correct? Aanenson: Scripted wall sign. Joyce: Okay, so there's no other pylons or anything else around there? Okay. Right, exactly. I'm trying to think of, okay. Generous: The only place it could be is on the directional signs. The little finger. Joyce: Oh, okay. All right. Peterson: Anyone else? Seeing none,may I have a motion to close the public hearing and a second please. Sidney moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Vernelle Clayton: Do you want to talk about the landscaping? Peterson: Pardon? Vernelle Clayton: Did we want to talk about the landscaping a little bit? Or do you not want me to talk anymore? Peterson: Can you do it briefly? 33 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Vernelle Clayton: Yes, I can do it briefly. The conditions are listed for Famous Dave's start on page 11 and basically what I have to say affects item number 2. A little bit of item number 3. Item number 4. And item number 5. And that will, essentially I'll say the same thing about the next plan because what it means is that we want to substitute the plan that you've already approved. When the staff reviewed this they didn't realize that the landscaping plan that was in, and it was our fault. We should have given them another copy along with that. The landscaping plan for the peripheral area covers that area and that's why the landscaper for this project didn't include it. Superimpose the landscape plan from the peripheral area onto this plan that we have actually more trees and shrubs shown on this plan...staff report recommended. Our landscaper misunderstood my instructions and didn't... The only other thing I'll say is... I would like to talk about the trash enclosure but I'd like to save that for the next project. Aanenson: I'm not aware of any discussions. Generous: Yes, this is part of the hardscape, landscape plan. And I just, we didn't have the detail on that area. It does meet the...provided they put that landscaping in. Aanenson: Sorry. Miscommunication. I wasn't aware of that change... Peterson: Right. Kevin. Joyce: Let me ask one question before I say anything. Now the trash enclosure, we're going to talk about on Building#4 correct, so we don't even have to deal with that right now? Aanenson: It includes both buildings... Joyce: I have mixed feelings about this thing,to tell you the truth. I'm not as adamant as Allyson is about the looks of the building. My concern is the view shed, where this is going to anchor our view shed. Building#3, #2 and #3 that will be on either side of that pond, come in to our Villages on the Pond so it's really two anchors to this whole concept. So as we were talking about the importance of this building, I think it's rather important. Rather than a side note. With that said, I feel like I'm in the position that I was back with the American Inn. I think it can be improved. I don't feel like I have a grasp on the design itself. I know you were talking about, the original thing that we received in our pamphlet,we had some rock facades on there. I certainly liked more. I know there's economics involved here Vernelle but this is what's going to stand out when people look at the thing. I think it's worth the investment. I'm interested in what the other commissioners have to say because I think there can be improvements here and I don't feel like I can really give any direction as far as that. I'm not real comfortable right now. So I would listen to what the other commissioners would have to say. Peterson: With that, LuAnn. Sidney: I think I'm sitting in the confused section too. I have mixed feelings about what has been proposed. I agree that the design of the building could be improved and what I mean by improved is that it might be closer to what's currently in the PUD design character reference 34 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 book. And I think what we saw today, or this evening is going the other direction. I'd like to see the use of river rock, if possible. ...but not in detail the building in Maple Grove and I said, oh that's nice. At least I recognize that it was a nice built building and I guess I would echo the fact that this is going to be an important view on Highway 5, representing the Villages. And I'm wondering if there are other alternatives to what's been proposed as currently shown to us this evening. I'd like to hear what the other commissioners have to say. Brooks: ...I'm pretty adamant about my feelings. I do not feel as though the design fits their reference book, at all. I mean I have mixed feelings too because I appreciate that Famous Dave's as a franchise wants to conform to a certain image. Unfortunately in the spot that it's in, I think that we set a certain tone for the development. I'm not sure that what I'm looking at, I'm not comfortable that this corresponds to it. The other thing is, we reviewed a rustic sign... It was a boarding sign and that was rustic and my understanding was the City Council turned that down because they didn't like it and they thought it... Well this is a lot bigger than a sign. This is a rustic looking building and I don't know if I'm as comfortable with that image and location that it's in considering what the whole purpose of the project... Peterson: Alison. Blackowiak: I guess I'm not really comfortable with this either. I went up to look at the Maple Grove property. I liked that a lot better than I like this. I heard the comments or the questions, can the Villages absorb Famous Dave's and I think that's the wrong question to be asking so early in the process. I think that when we get around to building 18 or 19 or something, then you can talk about possibly absorbing a smaller building somewhere on the interior and making it fit. But this is right at the corner of Highway 5 and Great Plains. Lots of people are going to be seeing it and it's an early building and it would set the tone so I don't think you want to talk about absorbing a building at this point in the process. So I would not be comfortable with moving forward this evening. I would like to see another revision utilizing more, I guess I liked Maple Grove so more in that direction. Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: I'm not going to be voting. I guess I just have a comment. Just a perspective. Famous Dave's is fun. The Villages can't be stodgy. Just stand back and say, tell the developer what design to follow. Buca's? Is that what you're looking for? Give them a restaurant. This is a 5,000 square foot restaurant, and I'm going to stop talking but 5,000 square feet. The design options, they can change these but you should, I think we need to give them some guidance if we don't like this. It's not a 30,000 square foot shopping center. Think about a visual that you have of a restaurant that you'd like here. You should let them know what that is. My only other perspective is, I think when it fits with the lake and other buildings, there is variety. Sameness doesn't, sameness, there's a limit to sameness so I'll stop there. Peterson: My comments I think are pretty simple in the fact that I'm not comfortable with what I've seen and I don't think I've seen enough. Talked about changes. I don't think staff's up to speed so I do think we need to see it back again. But back again with the comments of my fellow 35 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 commissioners along with I think architecturally I'm not comfortable with the lines and that are within the guidelines set forth. I mean these, there's a lot of language here, a lot of verbiage that clearly can, a building can be built and hopefully it is Famous Dave's that can meet those architectural standards. You know I think that building materials, even though the colors have changed, I think the same rustic feel is still going to eminent from that. You know the chimney doesn't seem to fit. The metallic roof like it is doesn't seem to fit. The railing doesn't seem to fit. I do see a lot like I did with the Americlnn in that I want to ride my horse up and tie it up to the railing, and I don't think that's the neo traditional look we're trying to achieve. So I would offer that I'd like to send it back to the drawing board to try to be more creative within the budget constraints that are there. So those are my comments. With that, may I hear a motion? Blackowiak: Okay. I'll recommend the Planning Commission table Site Plan#97-11 for a 5,300 square foot building on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Pond 2°d Addition. Brooks: Second. Peterson: Any discussion? Joyce: Yeah, I just want to make a quick comment. Being the first to speak I got a little bit of a feel from other commissioners and I have to agree with Ladd. I think this can work. I really do. I think this isn't bad and Ladd picked on something and I agree with. It can't be stodgy. It can't be, once you start becoming too restrictive on this thing, it's going to look phony. Brooks: ...happy medium. Joyce: There is a happy medium. Absolutely. And so my direction here is, I think we tweaked the American Inn. I did not like the American Inn. Okay. I like Famous Dave's a lot better than American Inn when we started. When we started with American Inn, that came a long ways. So I think tweaking here can get this through and I think this needs to be cleaned up before we can send this to the City Council. I think that was the problem here. That there was some cleaning up to do and I think that's all it is. I really do. But I think there's going to have to be a little more investment. I just think with a little bit of rock face there that we had, that river rock, whatever. I think that's the kind of tweaking that's going to go a long way. So that's my comment, but I agree with, I don't want to look at this Villages on the Pond and say oh that was a planned unit. I mean we planned it. I mean you couldn't make a move. Let's have a little bit of fun with it too. Peterson: Other than the rock, give them any more direction? Joyce: Well for instance, there was a suggestion about the screening. Now I didn't see that. I don't know what it's going to look like. I think it's a good idea. If it looks right. I think you're going to want some alfresco type of dining. I did not get that. I mean you know, you can't see that well seeing it. There's another issue that you know I think this whole concept was to bring people out. I mean I love to, except for the neighbors. I don't know, you know we have to put 36 Planning Commission Meeting- September 3, 1997 some parameters on that obviously but it'd be fun to have screened in, a place to dine screened in like that. I think that's a good idea. But it wasn't on there. Brooks: Alison...in Maple Grove and it's a little more modern. It's still fun. If we want to be fun, fine. It's still fun. It's still Famous Dave's. But I would say that style fits in a lot better than...St. Paul every day and it's cute. I mean I'll admit it, it really is a cute design but not for where we're putting it. And I think, I mean I understand...what they've done in Maple Grove... Joyce: You know I've seen Maple Grove and it is nice, but I don't mind this. I don't mind the concept. The look. Even the little bit of western in it. It's just, there has to be more, looking at detail. I mean that's the whole, that's what we've all looked at this thing is we've got to look at detail and what's going to have to go back, I don't' want to sound like a broken record but you go back to American Inn. It was very plain looking. Very ordinary looking. Once they started fiddling around with some of the stuff, I mean it came out to be pretty nice. And I don't think this needs as much tweaking if you will as the American Inn. Peterson: We have a motion and a second. Blackowiak moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission table approval on Site Plan #97-11 for a 5,300 square foot building on Lot 1, Block 1,Villages on the Ponds 2"d Addition. All voted in favor, except Conrad who abstained, and the motion carried. Peterson: The next one is the office building. Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, can I clarify one point? I think we overlooked. Do we need to address the issue of the 70%roof slope before we move on? Vernelle Clayton: That's on the next building. Generous: That's on Building#4. Blackowiak: Okay. So do we need to say anything about that before or do we just want to deal with that? Generous: That's part of your discussion for Building#4. Blackowiak: Okay,thank you. Vernelle Clayton: Thank you. Before I start, would anybody think that we have summarized your thoughts tonight wrong if we bring back this plan tweaked? Peterson: Define tweaked. I mean. Vernelle Clayton: Well, that's the hard part. But you're not saying start over. 37 Planning Commission Meeting- September 3, 1997 Joyce: Oh no. I'm not. Peterson: You've got a dispersion of opinions here. I mean I am concerned as far as architecture and all that. That doesn't necessarily mean start over but I just don't see it fitting in to the... Brooks: It would be nice if the options of other styles... Vernelle Clayton: Well Famous Dave's is evolving and their prototype is the one that you passed every day on West 7th in St. Paul and if you go to Stillwater you'll see the same one. That's the one they'll be building all over the country. This is not the one they'll be building all over the country. Maple Grove is not the one they'll be building all over the country. Aanenson: But every city has different standards. Vernelle Clayton: Right. The one in Minnetonka will look a little bit different, but very similar to the one on West 7th. So there is some, they want some continuity. Brooks: Which is fair but we can still...see the options... Vemelle Clayton: You wouldn't like them. This is it. I mean this basically what, we changed, that's basically it. Maybe we went too far. Maybe we should go back and simplify it. Well, we didn't, you didn't agree to become architects when you signed on for the Planning Commission so I just wanted to see. I don't think I know, but we'll work on it. With respect to Building#4, again I would like to have Mika Milo talk about the elevations. I'll talk a little bit about the landscaping. We went a little fast over the site plans when we talked about it. I think in the interest of time,because it's now almost 10:00, I won't just talk about the site plan but I certainly will answer questions if you have any. Would like to talk a little bit about the trash enclosure first because we deferred it to this portion. Do we have the colored copy of it somewhere? We have a black and white copy I think. Did I give you a colored one with that? It probably looks a little better. I'm looking for the... The staff report says we had trouble...There didn't seem to be any obvious place that worked that wasn't right in the way of something. It was either in the way of neighbors. In the way of the people looking from Highway 5. Or in the way of the people walking across the ponds. Or walking up from the north. And so we got out some pictures that we had taken from Celebration and they had the trash enclosures right in the middle of the parking lots, and therefore they could have far fewer and it seemed to work for them. It seems to work here we think. We decided that we'd put a roof on it to match, to coincide with, there's a language in our covenants that say that any other, I forget what the wording is but it's in your staff report. Auxiliary structures have to be, have to coordinate with the architectural style of the surroundings. And we put a standing seam roof as we have, will have on many structures in the Village and have on one of the adjacent buildings. I just want you to take a good look at the landscaping now so we don't have to talk about it again. Our thought was that we would hide it quite well with large hedges. Again, the staff didn't have this when they wrote up the report and so staff, you know using good judgment suggested we put a couple trees there. We've got on our landscaping plan we've drawn in the trees. We'll go either way. Although there is something to be said for a large hedge. With two trees we'll have to have lower plantings, or we can have a 38 Planning Commission Meeting- September 3, 1997 large hedge and it's just an option I'll just point out to you. I guess I'd like to have Mika talk about the, oh no. I would like to talk just a little bit,ah however I changed my mind. I'll come back and talk about the roof thing after you've seen the elevations. Then you can have it in perspective. Mika Milo: ...we are going to propose that building to be a building...more of a traditional, old town. The main street buildings are composed of these taller buildings and...other than just one single building and one shopping...The building really looks like being composed of three... three buildings. The north building, middle building and the south building. The north building is the one that is closest to the Highway 5 and the face of that, narrower face of that building is that elevation...elevation in the north end of that building. The building you have the smaller... And so that is the north building we are talking about and the south building. The forms are different, because they look like the buildings are composed of three buildings. The only thing that is...unifying is the standing seam sheet metal roof that...north and the south. The middle building looks like a flat roof building from outside. The middle building is also what we're projecting... presenting you almost to seeing north and south. But in general terms... We don't see that directly relationship. We could possibly...than the sheet metal and that would be really even more difficult. So the way we have it now, there is some homogeneous approach...here but yet there is a different amount... But there is quite a bit of variety. The north building here is the stucco building. The middle building is the brick building and the south building is the siding... The stucco building or...temporary looking element here that...but it is very stylistic and more in the modern sense of why it just actually all glass... That will have also the sheet metal roof like the other buildings. At night it will be lit. It's going to...roof of that building will be a signature building. That way, and we have said and that's actually the...The awnings are rather very lively and playful. Stronger colors that will bring... The materials for the buildings are more, not attention crying type of colors and materials but the awnings are really colorful and therefore... On the north end of the building...glass element,we are suggesting to use that light green glass... It can be a little bit clear glass but I think a light green would be nicer. The other buildings may be also light in the gray or the clear glass...so they don't like too much to have colors you know and this is...so I think the light green or the light gray would be acceptable for the retail. The north building, the middle building is brick building with some...stone type of brick which is... Very good quality and... On the one side,on the facing parking we are proposing that those be... On the other side facing the street, that could be a darker green or teal color...connecting the building with the roof. You see the buildings are in general of terms looking...on the side facing the Great Plains Boulevard and the parking because this is one building. The north building here. North building here... The south building is the...wood sided building with very light...and also darker colored stain for the framing around the windows and we are using a... On the south side, we're using the same, probably the same color of the awning. And the wood siding, and you see at the base of that building we are proposing the...that one but I think it will be very good idea... The colors are blending and working together even though they're very different. We think they are good combination and give enough spark and interest... We believe that that building will be a good projection of the main street architecture...and connect the office building that we have planned for the... 39 Planning Commission Meeting- September 3, 1997 Vernelle Clayton: I would then like to address just briefly the issue of one person hearing one thing, another person hearing another thing when you're reading the same language, and that's with respect to the overall roof. I, and a whole lot of the rest of us, assumed when we were talking about that condition, the 30/70%condition, we were talking about what you saw when you walked up to a building. Is this looking like it's a flat roof... That was my assumption. And if I would, I would have said you're crazy if it was anything else. I mean that's just what I understood and the rest of us understood. Staff, and possibly...so you'd have their rating before we went through this process. We still can do that. We can take it to them as part of their review when we take the building to them. Nancy's question was,you know I understand what you're saying. Tell me what the down, tell us what the down side would be. And so I said to Kate, that's going to be your role to tell them what the down side is because I guess I don't,just frankly I don't understand why we care what we see from looking down from the air. I'm kind of baffled. I have to say that and I don't mean to be, I'm not trying to be difficult but I don't understand it so. The reality of this particular building is that it wouldn't look like this if we made the roof steeper from... Aanenson: We're not asking...the other office building was improved... We're not saying you have to... I guess we're saying that was our interpretation... A couple ways we can handle it... Peterson: How much of the HVAC will you see as it's designed right now? Vernelle Clayton: Well this is all, it will all be shielded because this is actually the top of the roof. The HVAC will just be down in here like this. Aanenson: So it acts as a parapet. Vernelle Clayton: A parapet. And someone asked earlier, would you be able to see it from the rest of the Village and the two story buildings. Actually Bob I don't think so because of the grade. Generous: ...four story. Aanenson: Or from the neighbors. Generous: What's residential. Vernelle Clayton: Except that the elevation goes down so dramatically from here. Mika Milo: ...so there is practically, there is no way that anybody will ever see the equipment... Vernelle Clayton: Any questions on that? Joyce: Kate,just to clarify then. If we were to approve this, we would strike condition 6? 40 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Aanenson: Maybe it'd be better if you'd add some modification, and again the intent is to screen the equipment so if you want to put, a pitched roof with the intent, as shown on the site plan... mechanical equipment. That would exclude the neighboring residential property. I guess I'm not sure that you're making that interpretation for all the future uses but based on this... Joyce: I mean a PUD, it's kind of like a variance but not a variance type of situation. Aanenson: A variance within the PUD, or interpretation of those standards. So if you agree and acquiesce to say well...but we want to modify 6 to say. Joyce: But we're not, my only concern is we don't have a problem with other sites saying well there's precedent set here or something like that. Vernelle Clayton: Now that you've said that, it's in the Minutes and we agree. We'll take each case by case. Maybe it will never come up again,we don't know. Peterson: Other questions? Blackowiak: I have a question. What is the downtown standard? You were alluding to that earlier. Can you clarify that please Bob? Do all buildings have to have 70% roof slope in downtown? Generous: Not downtown. Within the Villages on the Ponds. Blackowiak: Okay. What's the downtown standard, or is there any such thing? I mean you talked about Crossroads Medical Building. Aanenson: Pitched roof element. Blackowiak: Okay, so you don't have a percentage. Generous: We were trying to quantify it within the Villages on the Ponds design standards condition. That's why we put the exception in that created the occupiable space if you will... Blackowiak: But basically you intended to say 70%,not from where you stand on the street but overall? Okay. Joyce: Thanks. Vernelle Clayton: The only other thing I have on landscaping then is number 4 relates to whatever you want to decide with respect to the trash enclosure landscaping. Number three, add an overstory tree and shrubs or hedges at the north end of the parking lot. And I just want to show you what, where did it go? Can you hand me that one. What we have, which is... landscaping which is essentially taken...there's a slight modification in the...landscaping which 41 Planning Commission Meeting- September 3, 1997 is essentially taken from the...but there's a slight modification in the boundary here but this was, this plan...taken from the landscape plan that you approved for the overall project. Aanenson: And we haven't seen those. We'd like to get a chance to review those before they go to Council to make sure... Vernelle Clayton: That would be fine. You do have the plans that we submitted. Aanenson: Sure. We just haven't had a chance. Vernelle Clayton: Yeah, that's right. Aanenson: If you just want to modify that condition to...we thought the tree element with the trash enclosure would help as far as reducing...and also kind of create kind of an island out there. That's what we were looking for. And again we're open to discussion on that. That's kind of what we were thinking on that... Peterson: This item is also open for a public hearing. May I have a motion for the same and a second please. Sidney moved, Brooks seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Commission,please come forward and state your name and address please. Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Brooks moved,Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. LuAnn. Comments. Sidney: I have a few comments. I had been looking at the design as it's presented and the... drawing and I was a little concerned but after I saw your color sketches and the materials, I really warmed up to the building. I guess I don't have a great concern about the roof at this point. I understand the intent and it does serve the function of the retail building. I do have some concerns however with the element of the silo, and I can understand it might lend some interest but still I don't know if that's the kind of thing I want. That's right at the corner of that entrance to the Villages. So I would suggest maybe something else, I was thinking...maybe different landscaping or some other elements other than a silo because to me that's again,back to the Famous Dave's argument of it looks kind of western. This looks kind of farmstead. I'd like to have it more European looking if possible. And I guess about the trash enclosure. I guess I'm a little concerned about having that as an island. I really don't like to drive into a parking lot and see that type of thing in the middle of a parking lot. I'd rather see a tree, or some type of other piece of plantings. And also that type of enclosure might work in Florida,but I'm not sure at 30 below in Minnesota somebody's going to be willing to tote trash out that far into the parking lot. 42 Planning Commission Meeting- September 3, 1997 I can see people just kind of putting it outside the door for you know, a convenient time so I'd question that as one of the things in the plan. Aanenson: Mr. Chairman, can I comment on that? We had a lot of internal discussions on that, and maybe I can tell you where we ended up on that. If you look at the retail building, it's almost a triple sided building. You've got the presence on Great Plains, which you want to have... You've got the presence on Highway 5 and you've got the other entrance road coming in... It really limits the design of the building, what they're trying to do...but the other one that really gets difficult...so in putting it in the middle, we really... It's nice to have it inside the building... but for the retail building, that's really tough to have the look we're trying to get there and still accomplish that. If anybody's got any suggestions,we spent a lot of time on this. Joyce: Have you had any problems with...? Aanenson: No. Haven't. And they have to walk it across. Peterson: There's one by Subway too. Aanenson: Wendy's is actually between the buildings. Like some of them we have been requiring to actually put in the building. That's a first choice. To try and put it in the building. But because of the presence we're trying to create with the awnings and that, it just seemed to detract from the building. We struggled with it. Peterson: Okay, thanks. Brooks: Well I like this building. Now this is a building that I think of as fun. This is more fun, and I actually like the glass silo. I think this is where we're taking an element of American architecture and doing something funky with it. So instead of taking a ranch building and making it look like a ranch building, we're taking a feature from our past and playing with it, without I think...Disneyesk. I mean there's no neon involved here. We're making a glass silo and I think that's cool. I think you want to do something fun. I think it's fun without doing the main street replica thing. But I have to say that I really liked this building and this is the type of design that when we talk about Villages on the Ponds, that I think we're looking for. Not Disney World. It's funky and it's still a small town feel. It's pedestrian friendly, and it has some interesting elements that you don't see in other places. So those are my comments. Peterson: Alison. Blackowiak: I agree. I like the building. I'm not an architect but I'm just the type of person that I know what I like. Famous Dave's, I didn't have a lot of affection for but this I like. I like the silo. The issue of the trash enclosure. I don't think there's a good place to put it on the building. So in the middle of a parking lot, although it might not be my first choice, I think is a good compromise. The landscaping I will let staff and the people work out because that's just something that's going to have to be decided later but I think that that's a good spot for the trash. I don't think you want to put it on the building because just like Kate said, there's not a good 43 Planning Commission Meeting- September 3, 1997 place to put it and the building is nice the way it is. I like it. The 70% roof area, I would tend to side with what staff said. In other words that overall it should be 70% sloped but I don't even know if I want to tackle that issue. I think City Council can have a work session and can work it out so I will kind of I guess defer to what they think but my interpretation would be 70%overall and not 70% from the street because if it would have been 70% from the street, they would have said 70% from the street and not made exclusions for roof patios or that type of thing so I can see where the issue is but I don't even think I want to get into that. I like it overall. Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: Yeah, it's a neat building. Peterson: Beat that. Joyce: I was going to say. This is exactly what I envisioned the Villages on the Ponds. It's great. I think three facades. I really do,and that leads up to my, the business about the 70%. The interpretation I had is what the staff said. However, I can definitely see putting in a condition allowing this to avoid that because I think it would deter, if we forced the 70%. I like this very, very much. I wouldn't want to fool with it. I like the silo I'm sorry to say LuAnn. I think it's cool. I really do. I think it's a real nice, it could be kind of a trademark or something of the, of our Villages on the Pond. I think the trash enclosure's kind of neat too. I would suggest we really do a nice job on it. I don't know how you do a nice job on trash enclosures but if it works we can use it in other places. But I think it's a good idea. I mean it's what this is all about. It's trying to find different ways of handling things and the form to functionality situation so I liked the idea of the trash enclosure. I suggest that you really do a good job on it, however you do a good job on trash enclosures, I think will work. Great job. Peterson: I also think it's a great building. My first impression was I didn't like the silo. And the second impression was I liked it so I think it's going to be one of those controversial things where half of your audience is going to think it's great and half of your audience is going to think it's just totally off the wall. As it relates to the roof line, I think it works in this case if properly screened. If it's not properly screened...work. With regards to the trash enclosure, it's proven that it will work not connected to the building. You know I'm leaning more towards shrubs for what it's worth. I think that if your primary reason Kate was heat, 105 degrees outside, whether it's sunny or cloudy isn't going to make a great deal of difference if there's shade...hide it more pleasantly with the shrubs. With that, can I have a motion and a second please. Joyce: Well I'll make a motion. The Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #97-12 for a 14,849 square foot building on Lot 2,Block 1,Villages on the Pond 2nd Addition, plans prepared by Milo Architecture Group dated 7/23/97, subject to the conditions 1 through 11. Adding onto condition 3 that the staff review the landscape plan. Is that right Kate? Aanenson: Yes. Actually it's 3 and 4. 44 Planning Commission Meeting- September 3, 1997 Joyce: Adding onto 3 and 4, the staff review all the landscape plans. Kate could you help me on item number 6, or condition number 6. To provide a pitched roof element to screen equipment and then. As shown on site plan. Aanenson: Dated September 3rd. Joyce: I just want to make sure this is, going site by site on this. That it's just this project only. Aanenson: ...remaining silent on it, I mean the general interpretation on the 70%... Joyce: Exactly. Thank you. Okay? That's mine. Is there a second? Sidney: Second. Peterson: Any discussion? Joyce moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #97-12 for a 14,849 square foot building on Lot 2, Block 1,Villages on the Ponds 2" Addition, plans prepared by Milo Architecture Group dated 7/23/97, subject to the following conditions: 1. Increase width of landscape islands. Landscape islands less than 10 feet in width must have aeration tubing installed with the trees. 2. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement and provide the necessary security required by the agreement. 3. Add an overstory tree and shrubs or hedges at the north end of the parking lot area and have staff review the landscape plan. 4. Add two trees to parking lot landscaping in landscape islands adjacent to trash enclosure and have staff review the landscape plan. 5. Add planter boxes to west and south sides of building. 6. Provide a pitched roof element to screen the roof top equipment as shown on the plans dated September 3, 1997. 7. Provide the City with a detail on the trash enclosure for approval. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure. 8. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The building setback line and erosion control fencing 45 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 shall be denoted on the final grading and drainage plans prior to issuance of a building permit. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. 9. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 10. The sidewalks and trails on the site shall be constructed in conjunction with the overall site improvements and prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy unless inclement weather conditions prohibit. 11. The sanitary sewer and water lines and storm sewer on the site will be privately owned and maintained by the property owner and not the City. The contractor will be responsible for obtaining the appropriate sewer, water and plumbing permits from the City's Building Department. Cross access easements for the utilities and driveways shall be dedicated over the lot. All voted in favor, except Conrad who abstained, and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE, CHAPTER 20, ARTICLE XXX, TOWERS AND ANTENNAS, TO ALLOW FOR TEMPORARY MOBILE TOWERS. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions of staff? Conrad: So tell me where it can be located. It said non-residential. Aanenson: So it's consistent with the underlying district. So we don't allow those in a residential district except for city parks, so they're not allowed in any residential single family district. But they are allowed in city parks. ...the City Council can do a lease. That would still be the... Conrad: But it's on a truck. So it's located in a parking lot. Aanenson: Well whatever the site's going to be. It's in close proximity while they're under construction. Conrad: And normally there's a fence around all our sites. So there's a fence around the truck. Generous: Mr. Chairman. The site that was on Quattro Drive, they had a...Eden Prairie water tower and really it's a trailer. 46 Planning Commission Meeting- September 3, 1997 Aanenson: Yeah. They're not fenced. We did have one in the City, right. Council...putting it in the ordinance someplace. We've had other people request to test the site before they put in an application and want to put in a temporary one... Conrad: It just seems strange to me that we get a 90 foot tower and a trailer that we can just drop off. Peterson: Modern technology. I saw it. It was there. Conrad: Yeah. Aanenson: They have to do the telemetrics to see if the site works first. Conrad: And I can understand that, yeah. But do we allow them 120 days? Aanenson: Well that's up to 120 days. If it's more than that, they have to come back through the process for an interim use. Conrad: And you feel that's right? Aanenson: In surveying... Joyce: They did it with that problem we had over. Aanenson: Correct, on Quattro. Generally just like to test on one of the City's water tower site. A couple days to set that up temporarily. But this one being a situation where testing would be a few days. This would be, if there's...when they're under construction, the other one is to test it. Blackowiak: I like Ladd's comment about the fence though. In terms of liability, don't we need to be concerned with. Aanenson: They still have to meet the setback requirements. Conrad: So the truck has to be parked the appropriate number of feet away from the side yard or whatever. Aanenson: Those underlying standards but because it's not permanent,you don't really make an investment in a fence if it's not permanent. And there's still some liability issues. Whoever the underlying property owner is. We had the same discussion when we went through it before. The underlying property owner, if they're going to put it on there, there's some insurance liability that they would take on... It's not on our property so there's liability to the underlying property owner. And that's...on a business property, it's their responsibility because they're allowing it on their property. So that would be negotiated with whoever has the...some security. So it's really not an issue of the City, as far as that point. If it was a lease on our property, then it'd be 47 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 an interest of the City and we would have them, if it was a park or something like that, we would have them... Peterson: Other questions? This item is a public hearing. May I have a motion to open it for the same and a second please. Brooks moved, Joyce seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the Commission,please come forward. Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Joyce moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners? Joyce: I don't know. The 120 days I can see that being a little bit long. But otherwise it's fine. That's fine. I'm fine with it. Peterson: LuAnn. Sidney: Yeah, it seems reasonable. Peterson: Allyson. Brooks: Well I would agree that 120 days is kind of long but... Aanenson: ...standards were for somebody to construct one. If they were given a site... That was given to us by the industry. Peterson: Alison. Blackowiak: I'm fine with it. Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: I have a problem with it. Peterson: Do you know what the problem is? Conrad: It just seems real strange. One,I'm not wild about towers in general. And two, we're putting that on wheels now and. I just, well yeah. You put the word cow in there and then. I don't know. It's like, why. I can see the testing. I can see a limited testing time period. That makes sense. 120 days to me does, why do we need the tower up? They survive so far. I have a cell phone and I just, you know. I don't really have a problem with it ever. To put a tower on wheels and just park it without the same requirements we had before. 48 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Joyce: Well it would have the same requirements, wouldn't you? Aanenson: It has to meet the setback requirements. They have to get a building permit. It still have to meet the wind loads. The reasons these are coming about, for instance...or in a situation where the Council approves one, or Eden Prairie approved one but we worked to get it off site. We didn't want it...and in assisting in that we allowed them to put the cow on the site in order to get it in a better location. So that was advantageous for us. To have this leverage... Conrad: Okay. I can hear the... Aanenson: Yeah, that was one address. I don't think we'd want temporaries all over the place. Conrad: And we're not going to, right? Aanenson: I hope not. Actually the one. Conrad: We're not opening, seriously. ...we're going to have 5 or 10 mobile. Aanenson: The good news is NSP is not allowing them on their high tension power lines. We've got one that's coming...not adding another tower. So they've had enough pressure... Peterson: I don't have any additional comments. Brooks moved, Sidney seconded to approve an amendment to the City Code, Chapter 20, Article XXX, Towers and Antennas, to allow for temporary mobile towers. All voted in favor and the motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: Aanenson: Talk about the meeting on the 17th. We'll be talking about the Bluff Creek plan. ...element of the comprehensive plan. We do have a car dealership application down in the BF district. The one that the Council approved...resolved on Famous Dave's that will be back on. With a complete application. That's what will be on the 17th. And again we do have Mr coming for the workshop so we may start a little earlier. Actually the 1St is the work session. We'll probably meet somewhere. Blackowiak: 6:00 then or something? Okay. I will not be here on the 17th. I will be gone. Just so you know. On the record. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Sidney noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 20, 1997 as presented. Chairman Peterson adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - September 3, 1997 Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 50