Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
09-15-93 Agenda and Packet
AGENDA FILE CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1993, 7:: CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTEi _ CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. *Item Deleted. 2. Consider an amendment to the City Code regarding temporary sales. OLD BUSINESS 3. Continue discussion of Boulevard Alternatives North of Highway 5. NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 11:00 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. Item Deleted 1. Revised Concept Unit Development for mixed high density (190 dwelling units) and neighborhood commercial uses on 62.05 acres of property zoned RSF and vacation of a portion of 86th Street. The property is located east of Hwy. 101 and north and south of 86th Street, Mission Hills, Tandem Properties. CITY OF i CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner DATE: September 9, 1993 SUBJ: Temporary and Seasonal Sales B ACKGROUND Almost two years ago staff proposed a temporary sales ordinance. This proposal was reviewed by the Planning Commission but never the City Council. The issue is surfacing again because there has been a request from Target to have pumpkin sales during the month of October. The ordinance currently requires temporary sales to go though the interim use permit. Staff believes that the process is cumbersome and does work for these type of uses. ANALYSIS Attached is the original staff report regulating temporary sales. Staff supports the concept that temporary sales should be limited to seasonal sales of produce, Christmas trees, flowers, etc. If these types of sales meet the criteria outlined in the proposed amendment, then they could be given a permit administratively. All other types of temporary sales including merchandise, clothing, etc. would be required to receive an interim/conditional use permit. As outlined in the attached report, temporary sales is listed as an interim use in the following zones CBD, BF, and BG districts. An interim use requires a public hearing before the Planning Commission and review and approval by the City Council. This process can take over two mcnths. Staf is of the th' -tandards developed . ^uld a". :' esu .JseQ alpro•ed administratively. Ter porary sales would still be limited to the CBD, BG BF districts. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment allowing for administrative approval of temporary/seasonal sales of produce, Planning Commission September 9, 1993 Page 2 Christmas trees, flowers and closely related products in the CBD, BG and BF District. These approvals are subject to meeting an acceptable site and site standards. ATTACHMENTS 1. Temporary Sales Staff Report dated October 25, 1991. 2. Letter from Tammy Larson, Target, dated August 23, 1993. 3. Section 20-381 of the City Code regarding Interim Use Permits. 4. Minnetonka application for temporary Christmas tree sales. CITY 4F o 11111100rCHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM Er. �:._ . TO: Planning Commission r 1 -5 FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planner II DATE: October 25, 1991 SUBJ: Temporary Sales, Christmas Tree Sales BACKGROUND Throughout the year, the city receives requests from people to sell on a temporary basis. Temporary sales can include seasonal sales such as produce, locally grown or brought in, Christmas tree sales, flower or pumpkin sales, seafood, Minnesota Twins merchandise, velvet paintings, etc. These types of sales can add flavor to a community, like the road side stand, the farmers market, and the ice cream vendor. There are seasonal sales which are transitory in nature such as ice cream vendors that drive throughout the residential areas of the city. Other types of temporary sales are carnivals, bazaars, fairs, or street dances. Currently, the city does not have a mechanism to review these requests, except through the Peddlers and Solicitors Ordinance. Thus, they generally have been prohibited in the past, except for the occasional produce stand or a Christmas tree lot. These are either grandfathered in or allowed since they are located on land used for agricultural purposes. The city' s Peddlers and Solicitors Ordinance states that persons shall not engage in solicitation in the city without registering with the city and violation of this ordinance is a misdemeanor. While this gives the city some idea as to who is in the city crrductira this tv''e of business, it does not give the city much c_ .tro. far as . _gu?ating some of the larger issues , including revocat_L._ of a registration permit or dealing with those people who want to stay at a fixed location. The purpose of the Interim Use Permit is to allow a use for a brief period of time until a permanent location is obtained or while the permanent location is under construction and to allow a use that is presently acceptable but with anticipated development will not be acceptable in the future. Temporary sales uses could be added to �u4r PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Temporary Sales October 25, 1991 Page 2 the those uses listed under the interim use permit. The two month period to obtain a permit is a problem even if the ordinance is amended. In most circumstances, it would take longer to get a permit than the use would be in business. The purpose of the conditional use ordinance is to include those uses which are not allowed within the zoning district, but may under some circumstances be suitable. Again, many uses which would be seasonal or transitory in nature would not be desired under a conditional use but may be acceptable on a temporary basis, for example ice cream vendors in the RSF zone. There are two issues for your consideration. The first issue is to develop some criteria for allowing Christmas trees sales for this holiday season, and secondly, does the city want to develop an ordinance regulating temporary sales. ANALYSIS The purpose of temporary sales is to allow within the city certain uses which are transitory in nature, as either accessory or seasonal uses, in a manner that will assure compatibility with the underlying zoning district and adjacent properties. The main areas of concern with temporary sales are location, compatibility with surrounding uses and safety issues, including traffic and building code. A larger issue is that of competition for those businesses that have paid the price to establish a permanent residence in the city. Consideration should be given to any request to ensure that it meets all city standards. The city would want to permit only those temporary sales that are unique in nature and do not fit into any other classification of the zoning district including permitted, conditional or interim, and are not the type of use that would benefit by circumventing the planning, site plan review and building permit process. By their nature most temporary sales locate near major collectors for the visibility and have a limited time of operation. Staff ' s concerns include the following issues: 1. Traffic safety issues. Acceptable space for any off- street parking and traffic circulaticn generated by t:,e use must be provided. Curb and gutter with a drive approach is desired to provide safe turn movements. By their nature, these uses located on major collectors, a safe access to the site is necessary to reduce hazards. All sites should be encouraged to be in an existing approved site plan. Temporary sales should not conflict Temporary Sales October 25, 1991 Page 3 with the primary use and should have hours that off set each other. 2 . Night lighting should be compatible with surrounding adjacent uses. 3 . Hours of operation should be compatible with adjacent uses. 4 . Signage should be limited to wall signs so they do not become a safety or traffic hazard. 5. Uses should be required to comply with all necessary Building Code requirements, including inspections for any buildings, or electrical connections, sanitary conditions, etc. Many of the uses require electricity to the site as well as a need for sanitary facilities. All necessary building inspections should be required to ensure code compliance. 6. Permission from the owner of the property with limitations as to the number of temporary sales for one location. A site should have sufficient area for the existing use (s) , as well as any proposed temporary sales. 7 . Each use should be given a specific time period that they could operate. 8 . Competition with mainstream merchants should also be given consideration with any temporary sales approval . An application for temporary sales could be made to the Planning Department. If the application meets the standards set out in the temporary sales ordinance, staff could authorize approval . In instances where a use may be temporary in nature but longer in duration, the Planning Commission may want to review these cases. Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission direct staff to draft a Temporary Sales Ordinance, but in the meantime use the following criteria to review Christmas tree sales: TL—POLY ORD1_N.ANCL. Application for Temporary Sales Permit. An application for a temporary sales permit shall be made to the Planning Department at least 10 days prior to the date of requested use. The Planning Department may deny an application or issue a Temporary Sales Permit. In authorizing temporary sales, the Planning Department shall impose such requirements and conditions as considered Temporary Sales October 25 , 1991 Page 4 necessary for the protection of adjacent properties and the public welfare in conformance with the standards provided in this section. Information Required for Application. An application for a temporary sales permit shall be accompanied by the following information: 1. A written description of the proposed use including requested length of permit and hours of operation. 2 . A description of the lot or property on which the requested use is to be conducted. If the applicant is not the owner of the property, the ownership shall be identified along with evidence of permission from the owner for temporary sales to take place. 3 . Vicinity Map. 4 . Sufficient information to determine the yard requirement, sanitary facilities and availability of parking to serve the use. Expiration of Temporary Sales Permit. Christmas Tree sales shall expire December 26. The site shall be cleared and all remaining debris removed from the Christmas Tree temporary sales site. Revocation of Temporary Sales Permit. 1 . The Planning Director shall, upon reasonable notice be empower to suspend or revoke the temporary sales permit of any person who violates any of the provisions of this ordinance or any of the conditions set forth on their permit. 2 . If, at any time, a permit under the provisions of this ordinance is suspended or revoked, it shall thereafter be unlawful for that person to operate, open, maintain, manage or conduct any temporary sales. Standards for Temporary Sales. Temporary sales shall comply with aeneral standards as provided bcicv, including any additic conditions as may be established by the Planning Department. 1. Acceptable space for any off-street parking and traffic circulation generated by the use must be provided. Curb and gutter with drive approaches is desired to provide safe turn movements. 2 . Night lighting should be compatible with surrounding adjacent uses. Temporary Sales October 25, 1991 Page 5 3 . Hours of operation should be compatible with adjacent uses 4 . Signage should be limited to wall signs so they do not become a safety or traffic hazard. 5. Uses should be required to comply with all necessary Building Code requirements, including inspections for any buildings, electrical connections, sanitary conditions, etc. 6. Permission from the owner of the property with limitations as to the number of temporary sales for one location. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE This item was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting on November 6, 1991. The Commission expressed the concern that maybe this type of use could be addressed under the Interim or Conditional Use section of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff pointed out that both of these procedures require public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council . Because of the short period of operation of these uses, staff feels it would streamline the review process to have an ordinance in place that would spell out the criteria for Temporary Sales to be approved administratively. The Planning Commission felt that the criteria developed in this report should be used for Christmas Tree sales this year and that an ordinance amendment for Temporary Sales should be submitted for their review. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Temporary Sales Ordinance for Christmas Tree Sales. ATTACHMENTS 1. Pte_ -. ling Cc:-_.nission "mutes dated November 6, 1991 . Planning Commission Meeting November 6 , 1991 - Page 35 place . Just for your advocation , we 'll be having the ordinance on the 20th requiring that all recreational beachlots coming into conformance and then after that we 'd like to do , throughout the winter take 1 or 2 at a time on the Planning Commission and bring it through that process . I think we answered a lot of questions . There were a few that didn 't show up but we had a representative from each of the associations . Emmings: Were they hostile to this or pretty receptive? — Aanenson: There was a few that are going to be sticky . Olsen: Because they admit that they 've expanded but they want to keep what they 've got . Aanenson: I think one of the most . . .issues too is some of these when the subdivision first was in place they had maybe 20 lots and now there 's been other additions to the subdivision put in with maybe 20-30-40 more homes going in and these people feel like they have a right so that 's kind of a — sticky point too . Emmings: Okay . That will be interesting . So are we doing here what we — kind of did to the contractors yards at one point? Is this the same kind of a process? Olsen: Yes , exactly . Emmings: Alright . Well , that will be interesting . That "s going to be . Olsen: Tough . Aanenson: So hopefully by the time the ice is out , we 'll have them all in — place and be able to enforce something . MOON VALLEY UPDATE. Emmings: I suppose we can all read this . Anybody want to talk about this? ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR CHRISTMAS TREE SALES/TEMPORARY USES . — Kate Aanenson presented thestaff report on this item . EMmings: Is there anything on the Christmas tree one , can this be done in any zoning district? Aanenson: Well it had to be compatible with the zoning district . Tn.; -._ would be one of the criteria . Emmings: Alright , what is Christmas tree sales compatible with? — Aanenson : I would consider that a retail and it would have to be in a commercial zone . Ice cream vendor I would say it would be compatible with the residential zone . Any retail would have to be in the commercial basically . Now some neighborhood if they wanted to have a street bazarre Planning Commission Meeting November 6 , 1991 - Page 36 sort of thing . If they wanted to block off the street and have a block party or something like that for a weekend . Ahrens: What about produce sales? Aanenson: That if it 's grown on the property . Ahrens: What if it 's not grown on the property like Kerber 's? • Aanenson : That one 's grandfathered in . There are some that are grandfathered . But if it 's grown on the site , that I guess we ask for somebody . If you have different feelings on that . But we have set up other standards too. I 'll take the time to go through some of those . The information that we require they submit and that the Director would have the authority to revoke , close them down if they weren 't meeting the conditions . Emmings: You 're suggesting that we adopt this ordinance . Aanenson : Well if you want us to apply it for Christmas tree sales . If you want us to come back with a specific ordinance , we 'd draft something up . If you felt comfortable looking at that . We 'd like something in place to evaluate Christmas tree sales only at this time . Emmings: Can we adopt ordinances without having a public hearing? Aanenson: I thought this was supposed to be under public hearing . Somehow it didn 't get under , meet that . • Emmings: Was it published and advertised? Aanenson: I don 't think so . Emmings: Then we couldn 't adopt it . Aanenson : No , so it needs to be , technically to be an ordinance it needs to be a public hearing . So if you feel comfortable as far as drafting an ordinance , I guess that would be what we 're looking for some direction . Emmings: Are you going to have to write , this is a fairly lengthy and detailed ordinance . Are we going to have to do this , something of this length for each and e ,c.r•, one of these things that comes along? Or - ecu goirg to *ry and do that , you know what i mean? L hat i' there sore we: that ..e write this into a single ordinance or d: to have one for Christmas trees? One for ice cream vendors? Aanenson: No , it 's one ordinance . It would fit under , we would create a section in the Code that just says temporary uses . Boom . It doesn 't go under each chapter . It doesn 't get amended . Emmings: Right but it seems to me that that chapter is going to have to have maybe something this long for each . You don 't foresee that? Planning Commission Meeting November 6 , 1991 - Page 37 Aanenson: No . No . It would just be a separate section in the zoning that would say , I found a place to put it . You know you look under general standards or supplementary regulations . Say like temporary sales and this would be the criteria . You wouldn 't have to put it under each one . I can — review that with Roger but . Batzli : I 'm just not tracking tonight I don't think . Why isn 't this just considered an interim use and processed under the interim use permit? Aanenson: Let me go back to my background information where I talked about that . If you look specifically under interim uses it lists specific uses — okay? And this goes back to what Steve is saying . If you try to go back and try to build criteria under each one of those , then you have to put this lengthy document under each one of those interim uses . So what we 're trying to do is cover all the zoning districts in one place and that would be this . If you tried to do it the way you 're talking about Brian , you 'd have to go back and develop the criteria under each interim use . — Ahrens: I think this is a good idea . Batzli : See I look under our current ordinance and under most where it 's — allowed , it 's temporary sales of retail things . I mean we 've already got it in our interim use . I don 't understand this . Emmings: Well as he says here , the purpose of the interim use permit was to allow . Batzli : I understand what we put in here . Aanenson : There 's a couple of problems with interim uses . Okay , you have to come to the Planning Commission and the . — Emmings: This is temporary sales that are kind of self limiting where there what we 're saying is , you can do this here temporarily until you do this . Until this event . I think there 's a distinction . Aanenson: And the other thing is , if somebody comes in for an interim , they have to go to the Planning Commission and the City Council . If somebody comes in for Christmas tree sales every year , basically we 're going to know where it 's going to go . You 've told us what criteria . Do you want them to come back through the Planning Commission and City Council — every year when we already know we 've got established criteria and we feel c�^fortable with that . That 's what we 're trying to do . Those types c " uses that we don 't have to bring back every year . Emmings: So it will be handled administratively . Aanenson : Exactly . You 've set Yorth the criteria that you want us to — evaluate those . And they come in 10 days before instead now we have people come in and we say gee , well really to get your Christmas tree sales you have to start in October to get throughthe whole process . So that 's really the intent of this . Emmings: That makes sense doesn 't it? Planning Commission Meeting November 6 , 1991 - Page 38 • Batzli : So you want . - Emmings: Are you tracking now Brian? Batzli : I 'm tracking . I understand what she wants now . You can 't call it - a temporary use . I just don 't like temporary use because temporary use is used in the definition of interim use . Emmings: How about temporary sales? Aanenson: Yeah . That 's really what it is . Except some are seasonal . Emmings: But basically they 're coming in saying I want a license to sell Christmas trees for 20 days . It 's kind of like getting a dog license . Batzli : Then the question is under , for example . If you look under our business neighborhood . One of the interim uses is temporary outdoor display of merchandise for sale . Then the question is , do we still need that in the interim use as a permitted interim use type thing? Emmings: I 'm starting to actually dislike you . Just kidding . Batzli : You 're not starting . You never did like me . Emmings: Okay , let 's talk about it . Batzli : We have a lot of places in the ordinance where we talk about temporary outdoor display of merchandise for sale which I thought included Christmas trees . Now the fact that we don 't want to have to make these people jump through some hoops to start in September , actually planning ahead for the Christmas trees they 're going to sell in December , I mean do we care? Do we want this easy little way for administrative approvals so we don 't have to see it? If we want that , why do we need it still under the interim use section? Is there a distinction that something we may want somebody to have a longer time period that we would want them to jump through hoops? Ahrens: Well the distinction seems to be that for existing retail shops where they may have on an ongoing basis maybe monthly sales , special sales where they pull all their merchandise out of the store and set it out in front of the store and it 's not a seasonal use . It 's not a special kind of use . It 's something they do on an ongoing basis . Right? Aane-son : sight . Ana' : t 's nc: a prcpe ty owner . T ,: s person is r' . somebody who 's just renting some space from somebody for a short perioa oT time whereas like you 're saying Joan , maybe the hardware store in the winter puts out their snowblowers and in the summer their lawnmowers are out . Emmings: Or they need no space at all because they 're driving around with their ice cream truck . But the other one applies to someone who has an established location and they 're doing something on a temporary basis I guess . I don 't know . I never thought about it . Have you looked through the ordinance to see if these things fit together? Planning Commission Meeting — November 6 , 1991 - Page 39 Aanenson: Yes . Paul and I spent some time going through that and like I — say , it specifically talked about Christmas tree sales but we also wanted to know what your feelings were on other temporary sales . If you wanted to look at something like that . Those types of uses . -- Conrad: What governs , I guess my question will be secondary . Brian are you , try and finish your concern . — Emmings: Your hypertechnical concern . Batzli : No , I don 't have any hypertechnical petty concerns thank you . No , — let 's move on . Conrad: Okay , what governs a carnival coming to town or the Renaissance — wanting to move from Shakopee up here or an outdoor concert.. Is that a temporary? Aanenson: We put a perusal in here that says if something of that nature , — that the Planning Director would take it to you and I 'm certain some of that scale , that would have to go through the Planning Commission , City - Council . Conrad: But let 's say right now a farmer had a field that wanted to have a concert on . What would govern that? Is there anything that would govern? I Aanenson: Right now without this temporary use? Conrad: Right . — Aanenson: I don 't think we would permit it . Conrad: Because you can 't do that in the . Aanenson: I 'm assuming it 's in the residential , yeah . — Olsen: We 'd say there 's no regulations permitting that . Batzli : Let 's put it more in perspective . We 're going to have an art — fair . At the art fair 10 to 1 they 're going to have a little donut truck . Do these people need to come in and get a temporary sales permit? Aanenson: Right now I believe they 're supposed to get a solicitation permit . Emmings : A what? — Aanenson: A peddlers or solicitors. And all it does , they 're registering with the City so we know who they are if we have a complaint . There 's no , — which gets into a whole different thing . It 's business licensing but that 's just so we know who 's in the city . Because we do have people that go door to door and they are supposed to register . Emmings : Now what 's the difference between the donut truck at the art fair and the Christmas tree sales? Planning Commission Meeting ' November 6 , 1991 - Page 40 Aanenson: Right now we don 't have any control . That 's what I 'm saying . We 're not controlling them . What I 'm suggesting is we have some sort of - control that we 're regulating where they are so we 're not creating a hazard . We don 't have any control . Right now unless they 're continually moving we say no . Because right now we 're just handling it as peddlers and - solicitors . Batzli : If this was passed they 'd have to get a temporary sale permit? Aanenson: Right and we 'd regulate where they would go . And we 'd say it 's an unapproved site . You 're creating a hazard . I mean if they 're plugging in for electricity , we want to inspect . That sort of thing . All health and safety issues . Ahrens: We 're going to put velvet paintings on a boat and moor it out in front of Steve 's property . Emmings: Go ahead . My torpedoes are armed and I 'm ready to fire . Elvis in velvet . Bobbing in front of my house . Yeah , that could get me going . Olsen: With some artificial Christmas trees . Batzli : I move that we do something with this . Aanenson: Would you like to see some sort of ordinance format? Ahrens : Sure . Emmings : I think it 's a good idea . Conrad : Yeah , for sure . Ahrens: I do too . Conrad: Broader than Christmas trees . Emmings: Yeah . I don 't know how that 's going to work but if you can do it . Aanenson: I 've worked with this type of ordinance before and it was successful . Betz' i : se -ond part cf the question _s the fa`'ners -a - _ __SLE relates - D * hF. one we looked at . The perk and rice lots . we handle these things via temporary sales rather than include it in the ordinance as a conditional use for those things? Emmings: What do you think? Olsen : It can be . Aanenson: Yeah . That would be a perfect site because you 're on a major collector . I 'm assuming that 's where we 're going to want those . You 've Planning Commission Meeting November 6 , 1991 - Page 41 got plenty of , you 've got controlled access . The parking . It 's a perfect — location . Batzli : But would you be able to have more control over it as a conditional use or would you feel comfortable doing it as a temporary sales? Aanenson: I 'd feel comfortable under temporary sales if it meets that — criteria . If you wanted to review it . Again it 's where it comes in annually . It 's an annual thing where you want to see it every year . Batzli : I don 't know if I want to review it until we have problems with it . Then we 're going to change the ordinance in a hurr>' so we review them I suppose . — Emmings: Okay , we 've got an item here on the amendment to the Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement . I see they finally passed that huh? Olsen: Yeah . Emmings: That took a while . Olsen: We 'll come back on a future agenda talking about lot area . Batzli : Kate , the definition of interim use is on page 1148 . It 's — defined , interim use means a temporary use . I 'd just stay away from it . Aanenson : That wording . Okay . — Ahrens: Can we vote now on these people? Emmings: Yeah , that 's next . Conrad moved, Ahrens seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p .m. . — Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director — Prepared by Nann Opheim City Council Meeting - De nber 9, 1991 Roger Knutson: It stops at the setback zone and the prior draft had continued, in such a way that the watercraft or any part thereof extends across the extended side lot lines of any lakeshore lot . That was dropped out . And the reference to boat lift was added. Identical change was made in Section 3. Councilman Mason: Why are we dropping that off? Roger Knutson: The original draft would allow you to moor your boat in such a way that it extended all the way to your side lot line. Your dock must be 10 feet from your side lot line but your boat went out parallel to the shore, it could extend all the way to your property line. The change says you have to keep that boat moored so it 's at least 10 feet from your property line. Mayor Chmiel: In other words so you're not encroaching on any adjacent property's water area. Roger Knutson: That 's right . Mayor Chmiel: Alright . Richard? Councilman Wing: No, I'm very pleased with this. I think it almost resolves some of the recreational beachlot problems by itself. Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to make your motion to move this item? Councilman Wing: Yeah, with just one quick look at Mr. Krauss. Paul Krauss: No, that 's fine. Councilman Wing: I would move then. Mayor Chmiel: Item (1). Councilman Wing: Item (1). Councilman Workman: Second. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment concerning Mooring of Watercraft. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. L 7 0. DEFINE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR TEMPORARY SALES/CHRISTMAS TREE SALES. Councilwoman Dimler: Item (o) having to do with temporary sales/Christmas Tree sales. When I first read this I guess I was looking for a reason why this w2s being ena-ted. S^ I though' the on' , as I was readin: thro- _ • ^ the ., '� -:ugh. the only concern I would have wou c be safe'y concer- _ ._ hat I could Possibly se.!- : hat we would want to .o sometiling iike tnis. So I checked with Scot parr to find out if there had been any safety situations in the past on any temporary sale -at all. He assured me that there had been none at all, and even if in the future that would be a problem, that this can be taken care of current regulations through the safety hazards. 6 City Council Meeting December 9, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: Right . That does. . . - Councilwoman Dimler: Seasonal sales, yeah. And also I'm wondering with trying to take care of one situation we aren't creating more problems than we're solving because as far as I can see, then we'd be regulating garage sales, Boy Scout Christmas wreath sales, lemonade sales. Perhaps bizarre sales and even our own t-shirt sales at our 4th of July celebration. I'm wondering if we really want to do that . Also I'm very uncomfortable with giving government the - authority to interfere with free market . I happen to believe that competition is good. Also, I don't see any fee schedule and I think enforcement would be a headache. So I am not in favor of this at all. I would move to deny item (o) . - Mayor Chmiel: Paul, would you like to clarify? Paul Krauss: A couple things if I could. Councilwoman Dimler, there is no ordinance in front of you tonight . This could probably. Councilwoman Dimler: I don't even want to proceed with this is what I'm saying. Paul Krauss: Well this could probably have gone to the administrative section. We have had problems with Christmas tree sales in the past and I think Scott can tell you where we had one in a residential neighborhood last year where we had a lot of complaints. I'm not sure of your conversation with Scott on this but this in part grew out of a memo I got from Scott telling us that we didn't have adequate controls over some of these things. What it is is basically, you know when you talk about free market , there's a lot of issues you can get into but I know that I've had a lot of complaints, not here but in other communities when you have somebody selling shrimp off the back of a truck who is not paying any property taxes and who is not a member of a business person's associations or anything else competing with somebody who's paying a fortune to be in the Festival Food. So there's a lot of different things that come into play and I. have had instances where these have caused traffic problems. They set up shop in a gas station on a major corner and people turning in. What this basically was was an outline that says right now we'd like to continue to do business as usual, especially with Christmas tree lots unless they show up in a residential - neighborhood which we won't allow. Councilwoman Dimler: And that 's according to zoning, not because you need an ordinance? Paul Krauss: Well but see in the past Christmas tree lots have always been kind _ of a hands off thing. People would call up City Hall and say what do you do about Christmas tree lots and there's nothing in the ordinance about it any place and people were told that and the guy took that to mean that he could set one up on his front lawn off of TH 7 and he did so. Councilwoman Circler: Not in a residential. Tnat wbuic be a zing violation. Mayor Chmiel: Well, some of those things are in residential areas. I've seen in Minnetonka just off of TH 101. Councilwoman Dimler: But are you then getting into home sales, which I'm involved in? 7 City Council Meeting - Dec )er 9, 1991 Paul Krauss: No. No, not at all. No, this gets more into. Councilwoman Dimler: Selling out of your home. Cosmetics. Paul Krauss: If Mr. Burdick is correct , and I hope he is. I heard the same information but once we get a shopping center up and if they want to bring in a carnival into town, are you going to want to regulate that? Well you might . Again it 's like the seafood shop setting up in a gas station or it 's the velvet paintings out on a fence on TH 5. Those kinds of things typically cause some problems and there's very little mechanism we have to deal with it . When the Twins got into the playoffs I . had several calls from National companies that wanted to come down, they go around the country whenever there's a big sporting event and they set up those stands. They wanted to do that here and I convinced them not to. Councilwoman Dimler : Okay. I guess I'm going to say that that would be going against the Constitutional rights because the Minnesota Constitution, Article XIII, Section 7 says that any person may sell or peddle the products, and I'm talking here about farm and garden, not t-shirts, that are grown or cultivated by him without obtaining a license to do so. Paul Krauss: Well there's no question that , the farm sales. Councilwoman Dimler: I'm just saying this would be a hazard to that . Mayor Chmiel: That 's completely acceptable and it 's not intended to be governed - by this respective temporary. Councilwoman Dimler: That 's not what I saw in here. I thought I saw something - about Kerber's being grandfathered in. Where did I read that? It must have been in the. Paul Krauss: Well it says that these are either grandfathered in or allowed since they're located on land used for agricultural purposes. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. The intent is not to govern that aspect of it . Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, but even if it isn't grown there. The shrimp truck can still come in, wouldn't it? Paul Krauss: No it can't . Councilwoman Dimler: Why not? Paul Krauss: That 's not grown in Minnesota. I mean it doesn't fall under the Slate Protection. Mayor Chmiel: We d_n': q_i:_ nave the ocean front. Councilwoman Dimler: I know but how do you prove. I know there's obvious but how do you prove the produce was grown in Minnesota? • 8 City Council Meeting - 'ecember 9, 1991 Paul Krauss: I don't try. I mean if someone tells me the potatoes came from here or from Idaho, you don't really try to do it . If it 's pineapples, it 's pretty clear. Even at that you use some discretion. I mean if a fruit stand is set up, I know I've dealt with them in different communities before, you just _ don't bother with them. But the ones that do cause the most difficulty are the ones who come in, I mean I've even seen stereos being sold by the side of the road. You know these operations tend to cause some problems because they're not here to warrant their stuff. They're not paying property taxes. They have signage all over. It 's those kinds of things you want to get at , not the other kinds. Mayor Chmiel: Something where it's in direct competition to what's existing within a community. Councilwoman Dimler: The produce sales are in competition with the new grocery store. Mayor Chmiel: But if they're grown here, that 's a different thing. Most other - things are brought in as Paul has indicated. The same thing with stereos as he said. There's a place within the community that will sell those items. Why should that individual have the right to sell within this community when we have _ someone here supporting it . Besides those things might be so hot you couldn't put them in your car. Councilwoman Dimler: Well that 's controlling the market to me and I don't think we should be doing that . Councilman Wing: Last Christmas out at Minnewashta Heights one of the neighbors decided to open up a Christmas Tree lot with signs, lights and it startled the neighborhood. I guess I wasn't personally offended by it but I think you got a lot of complaints on that one. I don't believe we had any control or any say at that point did we? Isn't this directed at that problem? Councilwoman Dimler: How about a public nuisance? Don't we have a public nuisance? Paul Krauss: Well that 's a very weak ordinance. Mayor Chmiel: This is a problem not only here but all over. I've heard the same thing just the other evening that I was at a Planning Commission meeting in Sherburne County. They have the same problem. Councilman Workman: I'll get on the side with Ursula because I think she needs a little help here, if I can. Councilwoman Dimler: Certainly. Councilman Workman: It seems like it 's too late for the Christmas tree sales. Almost . Paul Krauss: Well we never intended, basically what we did is lay out how we would deal with Christmas tree sales this year. It hasn't been a problem but we've been operating like this all along. We just kind of wanted your blessings 9 City Council Meeting - OE iber 9, 1991 to do it that way. Then outline some of the things that we thought we might like to get at in ordinance later on) If you don't want us to pursue it we won't . Councilman Workman: No, that 's not what I'm getting at because I think there's some middle ground here. The one that comes to mind for. me, and maybe the firewood was grown in Chanhassen but the firewood guys just come out of the wood work. In fact I was sitting in a driveway at my old home and a neighbor, they look at the stacks to see if you've got the fireplace or not. Well the neighbors got a false stack. They had the zero clearance look on it but they didn't have a fireplace and I kind of said to them, we were sitting out with some friends and I said number one, they're not home. Number two, they don't have a fireplace. The guy turned around and said well they're probably a bunch of jerks. I wasn't going to get in an argument with the guy. I knew the people was good people but I get a lot of hostilities from some of those people. They come all the way down from Brainerd and wherever and whatever and they've got a load of wood and they've got to get rid of it and they're quite aggressive which, and I won't bring up Mike Mason's velvet Elvis prints. I think something needs to be done. If the produce stands that are found in town in the Fall I appreciate and so what I mean by getting along with Ursula, I understand the free market thing and so I don't want to do something that we don't want to do. And are we doing that with this. It does start to get a little, we need control but maybe we ought to sit down and figure that out . Pick out who we don't like and I don't know how to do that because there are State laws to go by and we've got to figure out . Last year we restricted the sale of used cars at the corner of TH 101 over there which a guy said hey, wait a minute. People have got to sell their cars you know. It seemed like a good place to sell cars but it was causing a safety problem so I realize that but I don't like to keep people from being able to sell what they have because it 's important for them to do that . Frank Kurvers: I was just listening to this. Mayor Chmiel: Why don't you come up and introduce yourself. Frank Kurvers: I was listening to this, I mean controlling all these businesses and everything. What about the Schwann man? I mean you talk about things that people sell in the store. They carry about everything on that truck and a lot of people like their products which I'm one of them. Now are you going to regulate the Schwann man? He just gave $7 million dollars to the Mankato College of some of this profits. I think that 's a good business. Mayor Chmiel: But he didn't give anything to Chanhassen. Frank Kurvers: No he didn't . Councilman Wing: TL=C 's not a good analogy because Schwann is orde-Ad o^ p-ivat£ basis. Il _ire saying UPS can't come in and deliver a pacKagE 1 don't sea that . ,.._nk there's a need for control. I think the City hay always had a live and let live attitude. I don't see that this is cutting it out . It 's cutting out the problem areas but I still see, I like your corn stand. I'd protect that because I think we should have that . The raspberry stands. I don't see it hurting those or cutting those out . It is getting rid of some of the nuisance stuff. It does give Paul and Scott the authority to 10 City Council Meeting lecember 9, 1991 take action if they get complaints and it is in fact not in compliance with this. I think this just kind of cleans this up like the noise ordinance. We don't want to go out and pick on the community but if the complaint comes in, there's something here that our Code Enforcement people can deal with. And so I — see this as really pretty luke warm. I don't see it as really attacking anybody as I read it . Councilwoman Dimler: Paul, are we talking about then regulating like the Christmas Boutique at St. Hubert 's? The Fall Festival Sales at St . Hubert's? Our own sales of t-shirts at the 4th of July? Paul Krauss: Well in fact that 's an area where you've got to be careful that you're not doing charitable stuff. In fact you want a mechanism to be able to do stuff like that . The ordinance right now doesn't allow, theoretically allow any of this and if the Boy Scouts come and are making lawn furniture or something. Councilwoman Dimler: Selling wreaths. Paul Krauss: Well no wreaths is a door to door stuff. I mean my son does that . Councilwoman Dimler : So you're allowing door to door stuff? Paul Krauss: Oh yeah. That 's no problem. But you've got to be careful that , you know there's some classic events like the charitable sales and you want to make sure that they're called out separately. This is really gets to the stuff that you see when you travel up and down TH 7 or TH 5 in places where the more intensive things that pull into lots and take over part of the lot and put up their signs. Or the carnivals that show up with a lot of rides and people park in the streets. It 's those kinds of things. Councilwoman Dimler: It still seems to me like we can already regulate that according to existing, I mean safety concerns. They. must have some way to control traffic problems. If it's a nuisance, under the nuisance ordinance. Paul Krauss: We really don't . I wish Scott was here to relate some of the problems that his staff has had in getting at some of those. Councilwoman Dimler: Well I did ask him about it and he said there haven't been any concerns with specific temporary sales. Paul Krauss: Again, Scott and I conferred with this and this grew out of a memo that I received from him. Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, but couldn't you shut this operation down in a residential area just because of the zoning of residential and the neighbors were compiair.ir,g of the lights and the noise and the traffic? Paul Krauss: Well again, we're dealing with a classy use that wasn't regulated at all in the past . When they called up and got a secretary or somebody to say yes, we don't regulate Christmas trees, they understandably went ahead and put it in the residential area. You're right , it 's technically probably a violation of the zoning code. But at this point the guy had a 1,000 trees on his lawn and 11 City Council Meeting - Der 'ber 9, 1991 when we went out there, or he had 300 trees as I recall, and when I went out there and told him you're in violation and all this, which probably would have taken us, if we really tried to push it , it probably would have taken us a month - or two to get something written up and on the docket and everything to take action. By that time it 's the middle of February. But he had already made that investment and we felt we had to honor his ability to stay there and we just - asked him to keep the traffic down and watch out for his neighbors. Mayor Chmiel: I think it 's a little late for the Christmas trees as you indicated but maybe what we should do is just table this and have some additional discussions between you and Scott . Maybe Ursula can have some of her input as to her concerns and then go from there. Maybe if you'd like to make a motion to table this at this particular time. Councilwoman Dimler: Then I'd have to remove my motion to deny. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Workman: I think it was dead. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, you didn't get a second. There wasn't any second. Councilwoman Dimler: I thought you seconded it with your comments? Councilman Workman: Did I second it? Mayor Chmiel: No. No, there wasn't a second here. Councilman Workman: I said I was going to help her out . , ', Councilwoman Dimler: Then I'll make a substitute motion of tabling this item until we can look at it further. Mayor Chmiel : Okay is there a second? Councilman Workman: Second. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to table defining Administrative Procedures for temporary sales/Christmas tree sales for further clarification. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. P. APPROVE MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY ANNEXATION. Councilman Wing: I just didn't fully understand this and I failed to ask today or I wouldn't have brought this up. This annexation is done. Both cities have in theory passed these resolutions and that means that it 's going to be Victoria on both sides and Chanhassen's going to have a road ging right through Victc-ia ant it 's as _rile _s E . . Mayor .Chmiel: That 's correct . • Councilman Wing: Is that desireable or is it irrelevant? 12 CC: Don Chmiel To: Chanhassen City Council Attention: Paul Krauss From: Tammy Larson, Target Chanhassen Date: August 23, 1993 — Subject: Greenhouse and Pumpkin Request While making plans for our new Target store in Chanhassen, I have been made aware of Chanhassen's ordinance on outdoor sales and storage. I have been in contact with several people from the city including — Don Chmiel and Paul Krauss and was happy to hear that the ordinance will be reviewed to possibly allow businesses to have temporary structures up for promotions. — Target has two programs that include temporary outside structures. One program is the Halloween pumpkins we sell from October 1 through — October 31 which are housed in a wooden bin outside the front entrance doors. Our other program involves a temporary greenhouse structure which is secured to the ground with a ballast weight program. The greenhouse is kept up from May 1 through mid-June. — I understand that the ordinance change will not be known until after the second City Council meeting in September. In order for us to — carry pumpkins for the month of October we would need to have that approved before September 1. We are willing to follow all of the City ordinances, but ask if our pumpkin promotion could be approved by the City before the September meeting. Attached are details of our two promotions and also a diagram of where the temporary structures would be located. Your considerationn of this request is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or comments ple- ce call rre at 949-8631. Thanks again. RECEIVED U[ 2. 1993 CITY OF CHANHASSEiN • Pumpkins Structure: The pumpkins are held outside in a wooden crate on the side of the entrance doors. Dimensions: 4 feet by 42 inches and 4 feet high Timeframe: October 1 - October 31 We have Halloween\Fall activities planned in each Target store in October including pumpkin carving demonstrations. Plant Hut\Greenhouse Structure: The greenhouse is a temporary structure secured to the ground with a ballast weight program. Dimensions: 20 feet by 40 feet Timeframe: May 1 - Mid June Supplier: Holasek' s Greenhouse in Chanhassen Resources Needed: Electricity, water , and a data line. Target decided to provide outdoor greenhouses due to guest requests for us to carry bedding plants and hanging baskets. There were ten metro area stores with a greenhouse last year . We received many positive comments from our guests on our selection, Quality and price. We shopped different competitors including Cub, K-Mart , and Frank ' s and found our quality to be as good or better and our everyday price at or significantly lower than our competition. The greenhouse is kept up to Targets high standards of cleanliness. In providing a greenhouse for our guests we would not only be satisfying our quests needs, but also supporting a local business in Chanhassen. Your consideration for a greenhouse at our Chanhassen store would be greatly appreciated. . 7.---- . 1 - - _ ______________ 1 % . . • L . 1 . • • . • . . . . 1 , • ,_. i . . • . . . . . . • . i 2:21 1,.., . . . — .....1'"C% 4) 1 8 t _ I c i 1 ct—• _ t E ' 1 — • 1 1 I . 1 . ) i i t "4 Jusu4v3 . . — , Cilv.t s.-• ..4 __---------7 -r • Cv .... 1 — — , . I . 1 I ; j • ': 1 g, . . . 1 , 1 I ,,, I , i s . • 1 , i I S . . . '' • i i 1' . t. I. • I- 'ly.... . .1''' '• . li C ' ' (. ..() A.- •-.. '14 -: • .' -.'i-w1.1-z', i 3 . . -. ' i • ' _ 1 It.....44 1 i 1 .. • . , - i • ZONING § 20-381 (3) Nonresidential structures. Commercial, manufacturing and industrial structures shall ordinarily be elevated on fill so that their first floor(including basement) is above the regulatory flood protection elevation but may in special circumstances be flood-proofed in accordance with the state building code. Structures that are not elevated to above the regulatory flood protection elevation shall be flood-proofed to FP-1 or FP-2 classi- fication as defined by the Uniform Building Code as adopted and amended by the city. Structures flood-proofed to FP-3 or FP-4 classification shall not be permitted. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 21(5-21-2), 12-15-86) Cross reference—Technical codes, § 7-16- et seq. State law reference—Condfitional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-378. Residential uses. Residences that do not have vehicular access at or above an elevation not more than two (2)feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation shall not be permitted unless granted a variance. In granting a variance the city shall specify limitations on the period of use or occupancy of the residence. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 21(5-21-3(1)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-379. Commercial uses. Accessory land uses, such as yards, railroad tracks and parking lots may be at elevations lower than the regulatory flood protection elevation. However, a permit for such facilities to be used by the employees or the general public shall not be granted in the absence of a flood warning system that provides adequate time for evacuation if the area would innundate to a depth greater than two (2) feet or be subject to flood velocities greater than four (4) feet per second upon occurrence of the regional flood. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 21(5-21.3(2)), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-380. Manufacturing and industrial uses. Measures shall be taken to minimize interference with normal plant operations espe- cially along streams having protracted flood durations. Certain accessory land uses such as yards and parking lots may be at lower elevations subject to requirements set forth above. In considering permit applications, due consideration shall be given to needs of an industry whose business requires that it be located in flood plain areas. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 21(5-21-3(3)), 12-15-86) DIVISION 5. INTERIM USE PERMITS Sec. 20-381. Purpose and intent. T e p w anc . �: di1 J _-_ interim uses is: (1) To allow a use for a brief period of time until a permanent location is obtained or while — the permanent location is under construction,and (2) To allow a use that is presently acceptable but that with anticipated development will not be acceptable in the future. (Ord. No. 120, § 2, 2-12-90) Supp. No. 2 1187 § 20-382 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 20-382. Application, public hearing, notice and procedure. The application,public hearing,public notice and procedure requirements for interim use permits shall be the same as those for amendment as provided in article II,division 2, except that the permit shall be issued for the affirmative vote of a majority of the entire council. _ Although specific submissions required to complete an application for an interim use permit may vary with the specific use and the district in which it is located, all applications for such permits must include at minimum a site plan that clearly illustrates the following: proposed — land use,building and functions,circulation and parking areas,planting areas and treatment, sign locations and type, lighting, the relationship of the proposed project to neighboring uses, environmental impacts and demand for municipal services. — (Ord. No. 120, § 2, 2-12-90) Sec. 20-383. General issuance standards. — The planning commission shall recommend an interim use permit and the council shall issue interim permits only if it finds that such use at the proposed location: (1) Meets the standards of a conditional use permit set forth in section 20-232 of the City Code. (2) Conforms to the zoning regulations. (3) The use is allowed as an interim use in the zoning district. — (4) The date of event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty. 4 (5) The use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future; and - — (6) The user agrees to any conditions that the city council deems appropriate for permis- sion of the use. (Ord. No. 120, § 2, 2-12-90) Sec. 20-384. Termination. An interim use permit shall terminate on the happening of any of the following events, whichever first occurs: (1) The date stated in the permit; — (2) Upon violation of conditions under which the permit was issued; (3) Upon change in the city's zoning regulations which renders the use nonconforming. (Ord. No. 120, § 2, 2-12-90) Secs. 20-385-20-400. Reserved. — Supp.No.2 1188 TEL : Sep 09 93 15 :37 No .016 P .01 st-It"bland fax transmittal memo 7671 IECOMI " PERMIT APPLICATION Ce. i�+ ililQls TZ=1 _NEMEM ;es duration from i. Fax+ to Faxd -�� '7 -)• t tiectrical/other permits needed YES No subject property address P. Y . D. No. Applicant Address City Zip Contact person Phone Property Owner Address City Zip THE FOLLOWING MUST BE SUBMITTED: 1) Written permission from property owner who also agrees to clean up the site if the applicant does not. 2) All applicable licenses and approvals from the city, county or other appropriate jurisdictions. 3) Submission of a $100 deposit at the time of permit application. The deposit will be returned upon timely restoration of the site. 4) Site plan which shows lot lines, existing structures and designates sales area. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1) Site to be located in a suitable off-street location and not extend into adjacent right-of-way. 2) Sales do not unreasonably interrupt vehicle circulation on the site or obstruct parking spaces. 3 ) Requirements for sight visibility clearance at street as required by the city to protect public safety must be met. 4) No more than one sign with maximum dimensions of 4 ' x 4 ' . 5) Site is to be kept In a neat and orderly fashion. 6) No more than one temporary shelter not to exceed 120 square feet. 7) Site to be cleaned up and the site is to be restored to its prior condition within 10 days of completion of sales or depc" t 14217 17. - forfeted. awar i.. 7: reEponzibility i insure stipulations and conditions of approval are complied with and that the activity will be executed in a manner consistent with Section 300 . 15, Subdivision 13 of the City of Minnetonka Zoning Ordinance. I understand that it will take five working days for City review of the permit and the site to determine compliance with the ordinance. Applicant Signature _ -_ 3, CITY of _i ‘' CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner DATE: September 9, 1993 SUBJ: Highway 5 Northern Access Boulevard Alternatives and Environmental Assessment BACKGROUND This item appeared before the Planning Commission on July 15, 1993. The purpose of this meeting was to provide information on the two proposed alternatives for the boulevard north of Highway 5 and recommend a preferred alternative. At that meeting, the Planning Commission tabled any recommendation for a preferred road alternative, largely because of the impact of land uses on any road alignment. Since the Planning Commission meeting, the Task Force has completed their study and the Highway 5 Corridor Land Use Design Study has been completed. Because MNDOT has delayed the Highway 5 improvement project one year, there isn't the same urgency to select a preferred road alternative and approve the Environmental Assessment document. Staff is recommending that the Environmental Assessment Document and the Corridor study be reviewed concurrently by the Planning Commission in the context of the Comprehensive Planning Process. ANALYSIS The Highway 5 Corridor study includes several elements besides the design and alternatives for the access boulevards, they are: parcel site analysis and concept plans parks, open, space and trails landscaping and urban design Planning Commission September 9, 1993 Page 2 The Environmental Assessment document is a detailed report of the environmental impacts of the boulevard alternatives. The task force had made a recommendation that the preferred alternative is the northern alignment with the cross over "c" east of Galpin Boulevard. Once the Planning Commission has made a recommendation of the preferred boulevard alternative and approved the Environmental Assessment, the City Council will have to review and approve an alternative. At this point, the Environmental Assessment will be,put out for public comment and published in the EQB monitor. After any modifications made to the document, another public hearing will be held. The Park and Recreation Commission will be reviewing the Parks, Open Space and Trails element of the Corridor Study and making recommendations to the Planning Commission. The HRA will also be reviewing the Corridor Study. SUMMARY The purpose of this item before the Planning Commission tonight is to discuss the procedure for reviewing these two documents. Staff is recommending a series of three meetings; two on the Corridor study and one on the Environmental Assessment A public hearing would then be held on both documents. The Highway 5 Task Force will also be invited to the public hearing. ATTA CHMENTS 1. Article in Chanhassen Villager dated September 9, 1993. 2. Report from Paul Krauss dated July 15, 1993. 3. Planning Commission minutes dated July 21, 1993. 4. Highway 5 Corridor Study. b /1B t-' 1`•--:.•11 -flil i Iga .91 3 1:74,,„„,,,,„::N , • 3:..„. ., io. „yr:4,i, ....,„. .„Ili . . . v.. = Y9ua E AEUNiir ii i "IJtrrr ;.4: 1� __- w• O � z�V ;; 111 .L�1 O ee.0a T. 1.1.: ' CLI 4— 12,,,ic.$ 8m i 4.igIV il 44004 ,,„, at ....„, .:_tarm= ...I ; _ - -, 31 _, -0 ...-3 2 n• R la , Q 4�•1 , W rw. . ,'r, - a__ ~' L (.. IuwyiuQpa .. : dlia � ,.:1i -0 -- ., 14 AGA . u uel I11P - - ilk Pi �� =_ ..,1 - , -:::: ,„ ,,,,...:: I bt3 ssE.ex _; �' vammonim LG a o u�'' o p N 59 , LCC 2�� O 1 I _�/� IJI111'! U a 514 :-. CC $ .-- E "/'�� ° > i:(3,! J cca3 r T i z 8-'4 •^\ U L r i m C 4 �jJy� 1: ILA I 11 Co; k ea N'D a a (•1, . •;;ii, (fin I::;,,::� 4 CU ^ 1b41 1111 4Lit pti• .E E ,terii ' i 1 t 4 O 300Egre ucaw ' '1 • �a. U d res= mss >, u :;o�XL:111U 0. L. Gtlik 9 a$ 3 c$ • -1. ,• PM 8 i,:. ., ...„,„ _ '^ _� ' o Ei.S. u 3u e 03 VJ S ga , c I `_ r 1 ■ .—yx�' t u hs- v uW 0 >,..2 1 a ,. u ii___ , ..- ; . is p LO E 58: 5$ 6 1 E Y •- . - o 2:2 -a *:1 Vill WV". .:: MM.ifir . tro �. p 1diiK a c S1 Y. t�gv°tH o ar3oG v ~ n < I ° 2- . . u Q Ci -8..2 25 � ev4:. 1.._ cif, °-K E i° c 5'0 .. ° - u_- ..+ -01t2,4-1442 � .-62--2 u Y Hu4wr° re S _ Ea3�ee-5X3iem-ya a ca •oa, cd= Em� w _Qe we. A. we .n'a 8_aE ,n v-' c ya it.214,4 ii ,,.-5-' 1:0• 44 O �Cgn.igz 3 ., `0 `4•°u.. P y14 I. u e '�5 1oG qq m� 3 .° " E.. u E� , y� t >t� x 4i re .. C 3.° g..E 3.t. W Y w ='.a N N 8 O Q >g L >(� u a ;a >' Y u {/.U. C 7 O A C S U m O _'3 Q C O °C .2... Y - G Y- 6 e•• .p y t F C x d C G O : v -.o z; U Y , C uz °'^m N m>,u . %"6 Y w o.uo -- 3 c .y0 CX-451E =-� �3 � r`T=E o sl.m h 'c 0 . � Fc vN u�'v g c ' c'V_ a- yC� E .. u- u O7 . 7 p�ap E.2 b' d u 41 u-t > a. c .7:, .. _!„2.s u °:ro 1 m u V o g• ,1-,.. E u LL aUln�a-E 2 52 2 cc=cn m 0 ciao .= em-tfa T. Z .(1) 4*I ;04 ° u Z ct g ma mo g , a) 4 CA °" ,, a raroll Z 4111Vt&',01,16/ Z0 i i _ •x3• � Z 'el o¢o • �I flit y--- L ¢ z-- crLI4cgc • , , -. Si, • a \�.-. - � 7 g c-3 u >>y o .t t.. StL tyy Y , Q _ -• ._ .. C 'o; W p' a.:-a..6-.5-... ;g o 1 : _ _.3 aim. u - °u•°u 1 7 t l o. -.5")."3 "-g E - - ....1.` >ei 5 4 p4 m� a c e c -c Bim°- $ -9.2_ .-uE o , _ IRE E o e* O 1°. $ © l� q� oga 1-6 .- 2 � yu 4�E u ...5. o 1 v E . ..5 K.5•9- ■.° $Z u S u _F•E •j.'. yR 4u o`i $rt mai > tE3gp.,7uuutD w . .L� y moo^ . co' u- c.; - 'y1a0- ° Ec ' cmc –m 4 .5 0E 'N4 .` F m1 ,79.0.9,92 ;: c .:0 .•ya a. _ ■ nE.: mE8dc -1-to . . e• 9 J! i-. ru2�fid " „-Qi.4 Z'u 'EV. ta2t1o3u 3 `o.cu g 1' ude 3 'e hEo m v "2 ,- >.m5 > : 8 ° c 7 " — � e�� ` u �teLE �� $: �aa ��->a $ ° o 3� y . > -.....ffi. a_ t 2c Q A 2 2,o.s m 2= `� mi•t N ° ° G H c "� mt ■. o a,� E z Er.� `o 'rte' A- 0". .0-.-z C u m EER-°• E ' -0-.E. 9-.-,-20.,11I-(3.:-.. 2p3'11ur2! u '� 3 ct. .--.5 .122 = o v-- " c vi w4 .`.-�� o��.. ur A ti n •; .;.,, ' e u 3'E ° > 41 E T .agS .z + �. a mSii umt ekC 13p . m mu . ■ '�-- u ao� 9 eoG u G.SU [LILA.� 2r. `w 0 3 �.5- 3-0-9 2't7 e a : 7 d3 o aZ 'a". > Q t v- i .go u ..5.s u d6 0 o mvc,cu,. 2: > _ �+ u S u o '5! a c .4v 4_4 t7 - a ton.0-0 c.7 Tv 4 - 2 yam' `u �t1 �8 t _- 0 $$ � riS u� �■ S a o .71m"su3�^v' �cr' c E•mit ea t$ �a u e .5� .i a �. C ° o "Q� yEut.t�3 m. c bS ■'a E- go u A ra >, p CO'E" °<9` re u `6..-= -5 1O �, n•°w.a. "9a a=v •O -0.5. Z 1. -,-..-1 8� • c a_a.g y e a rpt $ e ■ e m w e uu r '$i — ` p y= • �"C4 u u- �a 2 ° p-r E e: o c.5 ■ u is r¢ � 1 •....,1,:.3-12, 0 Ai ooaL °r u u „ms, . 2 �A 7.-. ., d 3 • 39 0 � E $ w 49 4” `� =432 > �s c 3u- Vco p . xcu,�`�''{ umca fi _ -v • ob v.tE=•9 c . ° C >.3.8:-: o.=11801150.��j• _ O �y-. 0- K c U` L.. .•B E GQ T 5. 3 Y °�f `�s. y' W r R N Y G C C LL C C -•■°F 2... m c G l] ° .O g O.`y 7,71,..6' 3.§. u y y yam., ■ 1 O L u p u mp 7 C a— u C y t5-5. .°' E - i .020... 00 I, h E 3 Ew-8 - g- ' ° t t•1 .25 to c.o2g _ .. a� a 23 o $ $ .Ki'2�' aS" S3z o' 9 UuuU 2•�r' CL7 wt c pl O . e `�, 42 °21'7=-22C `- O. u c u v� u O•O u ■ T. S cm Q ^ c-� u $4 ,a u c N8 $ L 3a^, c� ' S o �. �`� 3E-g� � oouCyE•- e $e1Owpov; us=c^ gE N r `44- 0 - 3 gu-3,e I to �ga, 7. '96 .T. 14E „¢ we - 5" " 2, u m.='e v� °�' r >.E $ 3....-a- 8. 6. -.0.- c � ! ! hij _v 1v .E,- Nc `8v 3s clop i3 c? 8 u ;p iuiImu u e,', � �,^ 3 0t cu 'vtg . 4V.Vo/ . _inu . ..2, •e' 9 ■�� cr1g3tu ` °o c �. Eiiii > V ` us de .•a■ a 3_ o c n > 2 .9 p �� >o= o•- y �v" .3 q, o ,v_ 8 y q� u m y m 2 C y ` C O.� y �. .7-J.E.56;-1.„6 . �p t K sy U C TC f E 359 ."3v $-0:?•-u`-0v��3:as au N gt , Qc e9a 2 3�v 9 u e H$u4 . . C3 u– e 2 ,-°d` 2Eamo- o _ t 'o• a°c °aA=wcco.N•= yuc �� 4 $g .� auEu i-'`cp3-S { e x53.53 v 3u >. 4¢ p- fit= p. ` � v e $ $ o y E °+¢ u� u p u g1'– u u.m c p u � . Q8 °-.y i A� Cut._ Ae�� Em. v ALLY � e�-��- e�a = u � CEa�.� ; c K y u. lig m u, >�am �:U u 3�, o ■$a >� � c•t.R.r c� : . i � ° 2 2 EO� vi 9 - EL814::17 — CITYOF C IIANIIASsEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP, Planning Director DATE: July 15, 1993 SUBJ: Public Information Meeting on the Environmental Assessment BACKGROUND The city embarked upon an intensive program of developing a Hwy. 5 corridor plan a little over a year ago. The effort was an outgrowth of a number of factors including the adopted 1991 Comprehensive Plan and its implications for the Highway 5 area, the ground breaking work that Bill Morrish undertook in cooperation with the city, and the community's growing sensitivities to ensure that development that occurs in the corridor is of uniformly high quality and appropriate scale. One of the interesting factors that had to be accommodated in this program is that it actually covers two separate;but virtually concurrent actions. The primary focus is to develop the corridor plan. This plan involves detailed analysis and policy determinations relative to land use, environmental protection, design of roads and highways, including the Hwy. 5 expansion itself, and development of a new overlay ordinance and plan to help ensure that we achieve our goals. The second element is an Environmental Assessment document for what is variously known as the North-Access Boulevard or Arboretum Boulevard. The Hwy. 5 Task Force was appointed by the Mayor and City,Council to undertake both projects. Work on the plan itself is nearing completion and we expect to have it available for presentation to the Planning Commission some time in September. MNDOT ROLE In some respects, the Environmental Assessment document has been a driving force in accelerating the Hwy. 5 program. MnDOT has agreed to cooperate with the city on the construction costs of the north access boulevard and undertake its construction in conjunction with the upgrading of Hwy. 5 to Hwy. 41. They have also tentatively agreed to share a portion of the right-of-way costs. Their support of this roadway is based upon the fact that it can be built before the Hwy. 5 mainline improvements and used to provide construction access while n i PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission July 15, 1993 Page 2 work is being undertaken on the mainline. This will shorten construction time for Hwy. 5 and decrease its cost. In the long term, the north access boulevard will intercept virtually all local trips from Chanhassen located north of Hwy. 5 and give them the ability to transit through the community between their neighborhoods to downtown and community facilities, without ever having to go onto mainline Hwy. 5. This will conserve Hwy. 5 traffic capacity for longer haul trips and improve safety by minimizing turning movements. However, MnDOT had already completed the environmental documentation required for the Hwy. 5 project. Their cooperation with the city on the north access boulevard was conditioned upon the city financing the cost of an Environmental Assessment document which is required for MnDOT participation and to allow the infusion of federal dollars, which is passed through MnDOT to the city. In order to keep the Hwy. 5 project on schedule, it was imperative that the city complete this EA document during the summer of 1993. We have committed to this goal and the presentation before you tonight is evidence of that commitment. The EA document itself only focuses on the north access boulevard since this is the only road where MnDOT has agreed to cooperate with the city. As most of you are aware, there is a south access boulevard which is essentially an extension of Lake Drive, west to Hwy. 41. However, the city has always believed that this road can be and will be built by developers as properties are developed and no outside assistance or EA was required. MEETING PURPOSE Tonight you are being asked to hold a public informational meeting on the Environmental Assessment document. The document was prepared by the Task Force and there was a considerable amount of involvement by affected property owners. However, comments were never attempted to be incorporated on in a coordinated basis at that stage. We were always aware that the official public informational meeting would be held at the Planning Commission meeting and the primary purpose of those meetings was to develop the alignment concepts. The purpose of this meeting is to solicit additional input from affected residents and also from the Planning Commission. The document will then be forwarded to the City Council for its stamp of approval before sending it on to MnDOT and the Federal Highway Administration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT RECOMMENDATION The EA document contains detailed information on environmental impacts and respective mitigative strategies for the road, alternative alignments that were considered, land use implications, and even some projected costs have been provided. The Task Force is bringing forward a recommendation for what has been referred to as the northern alignment. There are essentially two alignments that were studied, although with cross overs, there are permutations of each. In the general sense, the northern alignment appears to be more consistent with the goal of making this roadway an extension of Chanhassen's main street, which means that it would have development (but generally not commercial development) on either side of it. A southern alignment takes more of a frontage road type of location. In each case, the road utilizes Planning Commission July 15, 1993 Page 3 unusually high design standards incorporating sensitive design techniques, alignments that follow terrain and incorporates significant landscaping and more possible preservation of existing trees and wetlands, a relatively narrow design width incorporating a grade separated trail, and other measures to ensure that the road is sensitively constructed and offers a high quality experience for its future users. In both cases, pedestrian and bicycle access through the corridor is an important element and a series of underpasses are being proposed. In fact, we have recently submitted an ISTEA grant application for the first bridge which is likely to be constructed on the south access boulevard, adjacent to the new school site at the intersection of Galpin and Hwy. 5. LAND USE IMPLICATIONS When we first started working on this with the Task Force, it was clear that the alignment could not be determined until there was sufficient information to allow consideration of the need for environmental protection and the implications of the alignment on land uses. The environmental aspect was handled in great detail and we are confident that this selected road alignment is highly sensitive to protecting our community's resources. Relative to land use, one of the goals of the Hwy. 5 project was to refine the land use plan. We also attempted to develop what will be incorporated into the Hwy. 5 plan as acceptable site plans to give guidance as properties are developed. The land use analysis, which is contained in the document, will illustrate that land use recommendations are largely consistent with the 1991 Land Use Plan with some minor changes east of Galpin. As requested by the City Council with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the Hwy. 5 study also provides detailed land use recommendations for what is shown on that plan as the 1995 Study Area. Please look at this material in detail. As a general rule of thumb, medium to higher density residential is being shown at various locations along the Hwy. 5 corridor, with single family development in the area beyond. One area that received extensive analysis was the northeast corner of the intersection of Hwy. 5 and Hwy. 41. The city has known for years that Fleet Farm has purchased this property with the ultimate goal of building a commercial center in this area. Their plans, which were conceptually developed and were presented to the Task Force and their recommendation was that this not be allowed to proceed. Through the alignment of the road and the proposed land use plan, little, if any, commercial uses are proposed to be allowed to be constructed in this area. As one final note on this topic, the Planning Commission is not being asked to approve land use recommendations at this time. These will be brought forward along with the rest of the Hwy. 5 plan when you review that document. The sole purpose of the meeting tonight is to focus on the environmental assessment document and the preferred alignment. TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION Staff supports the north alignment route selected by the Task Force. Their support of this alignment is based on several factors as follows: Planning Commission July 15, 1993 Page 4 I. It appeared to be more consistent with the concept of this road being an extension of Chanhassen's main street rather than a frontage road which they believe to be consistent with the Morrish recommendations and the best interests of the city. 2. They noted that if the frontage road alternative south alignment was chosen, that in all likelihood, developers would have to build another road a short distance to the north as a local collector to serve their developments. The location of the north alignment allows for the elimination of that separate city collector street. 3. They believe the physical separation between Hwy. 5 and the access boulevard was necessary to achieve the level of environmental protection and visual quality of the corridor which was one of their goals. 4. The northern alignment provided the ideal break point between the medium and higher density residential land uses and single family neighborhoods which are proposed to the north. Care was taken to ensure that land left between the north alignment and Hwy. 5 was sufficiently sized to accommodate legitimate and high quality, medium to high density residential neighborhoods. ROADWAY COST IMPLICATION'S Development costs for the roadway do have a bearing on this analysis from several points of view. Information has been provided that illustrates that construction costs of either the north or south alignment is relatively similar and MnDOT has agreed to participate in the cost regardless of which alignment is selected. Where the variance occurs is in acquisition of right-of- way and potential severance damages. Each of these last two variables tend to offset one another. MnDOT had agreed in the past to cooperate with the city on right-of-way acquisition. However, they have stated a fairly clear preference towards funding those sections of right-of- way which are in closer proximity to Hwy. 5 mainline. Their position is not based on utilization of the access boulevard which is the same for either alignment. Rather it is one of policy where MnDOT is reluctant to open the door to funding facilities some distance removed from their mainline in the event that other communities may make similar requests. Staff fully understands that this could well have implications for total costs of the project, but at this time, we are unsure as to the magnitude. MnDOT's participation and construction costs is not subject to the same limitation. Off-setting the potential loss of MnDOT's participation in right-of-way acquisition is the fact that the south alignment appears to cause greater severance damage. This results from the fact that land located between the south alignment and Hwy. 5 is essentially unusable space. Thus, the city and state would wind up having to by it in its entirety and manage it in the public interest. This problem is much less significant in the northern boulevard alignment since it was designed to ensure that land between the road and Hwy. 5 was sufficiently sized to accommodate Planning Commission July 15, 1993 Page 5 legitimate development. Thus, these areas would be privately held and privately developed reducing long range cost implications. Another factor to be considered is that at the time of writing, staff is of the opinion that portions of either alignment may be obtained from land owners as land dedication for developments which occur prior to the construction of the road. Since both roads are designed to provide access to local streets, we believe that portions of it will need to be constructed if development is allowed to proceed in the intervening period. Additionally, at the time of writing, we appear to have the entire right-of-way between Powers Boulevard and the west side of Lake Ann Park. The city has been negotiating with the Temple of Eck for some time and appears to have reached a tentative agreement relative to the 78th Street project. The final agreement appears to include acquisition of sufficient right-of-way to build the access boulevard across the Eck property and the city already owns Lake Ann Park and can provide access across this facility. Thus, while cost is certainly a factor, we unfortunately will not be able to give you an exact dollar amount until the project is further developed and land acquisition costs are known with certainty. Still we believe that since the right-of-way acquisition costs of either alignments seem to have a tendency to off set one another and since construction costs are the same, we believe our recommendation and your action should be based more upon the implications of the road for the urban environmental fabric of our community rather than cost factors. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold the public information meeting on the Arboretum Boulevard Environmental Assessment document and forward it to the City Council supporting the Highway 5 Task Force recommendations for alternative alignment #1, with cross over "C" in the vicinity of Galpin Boulevard. PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING: DISCUSS THE NORTH ACCESS BOULEVARD PROJECT. THE PROJECT ENTAILS THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 2 LANE BOULEVARD BETWEEN POWERS BOULEVARD AND HWY 41 ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HWY 5. THE BOULEVARD WILL BE AN EXTENSION OF WEST 78TH STREET AND IS DESIGNED TO SERVE LOCAL TRIPS AND POTENTIAL NEW DEVELOPMENT . IT IS ANTICIPATED TO BE A JOINT PROJECT BETWEEN THE CITY AND MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. Public Present: Name Address Lee Kerber 1620 Arboretum Blvd . Jay Dolejsi 6961 Chaparrel Lane Teresa Bentz 7280 Galpin Blvd . Marlene Bentz 7300 Galpin Blvd . Jeff & Tami Braiedy 850 Western Drive Deborah Porter BA Associates Jim Andrews 7014 Sandy Hook Circle Tim Keene Representing Mills Fleet Farm Stuart C . Mills Jr . 512 Laurel Street , Brainerd , MN Chris Dietzen Representing Mills Fleet Farm Tom Green Mills Properties , 512 Laurel , Brainderd , MN Mike Gorra 1680 Arboretum Blvd. Brad Johnson 7425 Frontier Trail Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli - called the public hearing to order . Diane Harberts left the meeting at this point and did not vote on the remaining items . Deb Porter : What I ' ll do , to try and make this a little more brief is rather than go through the entire document , which some of you are more familiar with than others who are on the task force . I hope you 've had a little bit of time to look it over but I think a better way to go over the impacts is to look at the summary table which is page 14 . Table 6-1 in your document . I also have some single sheet copies of that table here . Kate , if you want to just pass them along either to the Commission members - or other people who are interested . What this table is is a summary of th impacts that we felt were more quantifiable in terms of physical impacts and some cost issues with the Alternative 1 and 2 corridors and our crossovers . The task force has been looking at this now for a couple of different meetings and what we 've added here to this table then in the las column that you can see is the preferred alternative . We 've also quantified that for what the task force has recommended as Alternative 1 plus the use of the crossovers A and C . It also will involve just a short segment then of Alternative 2 and I think Kate will also pass out the graphics that we have where we have the preferred alternative shaded in a dot pattern on those graphics . I think in terms of the degree and type of impact that we 're looking at here for either alternative , and the preferre- alternative is identified by the task force is really minimal in terms of the length of the project of 2 1/2 miles . In my experience I haven 't come (v) across a project where we have this little wetland impact or flood plain encroachment considering that we have two creek corridors and a number of wetland basins through the project area and I think that 's mostly due to the fact that during the preliminary engineering phase , and also just the Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 44 `i' design concept of this roadway being curvalinear , that we were able to avoid a lot of the more significant natural features . Even the wooded areas , primarily as you see here on your table . We identified 4 major sites of vegetation . The more mature wood lots . We tried also to avoid as much encroachment on those as we could so I think this will be something the regulatory agencies , the Department of Natural Resources , PCA , Pollution Control Agency , and the federal agencies , Corps of Engineers , Fish and Wildlife Service , I think they 'll be very pleased to see this little impact considering that you 're building a completely new roadway through a community . So I think that 's a credit to the project . Also , in terms of the overall impacts , Alternatives 1 and 2 have nearly a mile of common alignment anyway from Powers Blvd . to approximately Audubon Road is the same . We also have some other short segments that are a common alignment between the two so that 's the reason why you don 't see a great deal of difference in the amount of impact between the two alternatives . In terms of flood plain encroachment , we have anywhere from as little as just over half an acre of encroachment of our Alternative 2 , to a maximum of 1 .3 acres for Alternative 1 . The same for vegetation and wetlands . We have really just a minimum amount of acreage that we 're impacting . We also quantified the noise level increase . If you read through the document you saw that a decibel increase of 3 decibels or less is really inperceptible to most human hearing capabilities so again , we 're looking at very minimal impact there . In terms of relocation . The four homesteads that would be affected are the same for/ both Alternative 1 and 2 and the preferred —dpalternative . It 's primarily the 3 homes that are located within the Lake Ann Park area and one more residence just east of TH 41 there . So those properties will be impacted no matter which alternative was chosen . In terms of right-of-way acquisition , the actual number of acres needed for the roadway . Again , is very similar for each alternative corridor . Even looking at additional acreage in terms of purchasing buffer area and where that comes into play is primarily on the south side of Alternative 2 . Between Trunk Highway 5 and the alternative . We took a look at that and for Alternative 1 , including buffer areas it would be about 42 .7 acres we estimate . For Alternative 2 , 46 .5 approximately for additional acres . For our preferred alternative , it 's a little over 40 acres of total right-of- way acquisition including buffer areas . We took a look at what we call a generalized dollar value for the type of land parcels that would be affected for right-of-way acquisition . Again the total dollar cost that we come up with here is actually very similar between the two alternative corridors . We also added here for the preferred alternative . The price seems to drop down just a bit and that 's because we have just a few less remnant parcels that crossovers A and C allow us to have less effect on those two homesteads . So that brings the right-of-way acquisition cost down a bit . The estimated construction cost again stays right within that range that we 've identified since the beginning of the project . Between 2 to 2 1/2 million for this roadway . So I guess I 'll open it up to any questions you might have during your review of the document or the task force discussions during the last couple of meetings . I think Kate identified primarily the reasons , the supporting reasons why the task force identified the preferred alternative as Alternative 1 with crossovers A and C . Also , within the document under Section 6 , let 's see it 's page 12 I think we 've listed 7 or 8 different reasons as to why the task force made the recommendation that they did . And again it involves things like avoidance to some of the farmsteads , or homesteads in the area and I think Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 45 because the environmental impacts are so similar between the alternative corridors , that didn 't seem to be a deciding factor in this project , and I don 't think that it should be . It's primarily I think what the task force had envisioned as the roadway character and the type of development that they want to see on either and both sides of the roadway . It really didn 't come down to , as it does on many projects that I work on , we 're looking at in other projects a significant difference in the number of wetland acres or other issues that you 've discussed tonight . Vegetation impacts and so on but that doesn 't seem to be the case with this particular project . It really rests on more of the future land use development scenarios that you 're looking at in this part of your community . Are there any questions on any of the impact analysis? Batzli : I think what we 're going to do is open it up for public comment and then maybe start asking questions from the Commission . If we can do it that way . Deb Porter : Okay . Batzli : This is a public hearing . Is there anyone else that would like t address the Commission? Jay Dolejsi : My name is Jay Dolejsi . I live at 6961 Chaparral Lane . I own the property west of the minature golf course and east of Mills Fleet Farm , that goes around the group home . I would like the Commission to consider the southern route through my property . One of the things that I think that 's not being addressed here are the future residents . They 're kind of an unrepresented constituency . By putting this road through the northern part of my property and dividing it , you 're going to in essence divide the neighborhood . You were talking earlier about trying to unite neighborhoods and the city as a whole has been working to mitigate the dividing factor of Highway 5 with the new pedestrian crossing and such going through the community . This is really going to divide those communities there . The southern route also would allow extra buffering of noise and pollution from the impact of Highway 5 and provide more safety for the local residents . I think what the Commission needs to weigh is the value of perhaps a more attractive boulevard against the safety and welfar of the future residents in that area . Also putting the road closer to TH is going to give you more control in the buffering design and the visual impacts along Highway 5 which is what my understanding was the Highway 5 task force was tasked with . To develop the Highway 5 corridor and not thi: northern boulevard . Also on my property , because the property slopes deeply towards the road, it would give an opportunity to minimize the impact on the landforms as far as the buffering that the task force is recommending along Highway 5 . Putting in the southern route also would result in no impact through the mature tree stands that the northern route currently will be going through . The southern route also would cost considerably less . From the understanding of what was said in the task force , the State is willing to participate 80% if the southern route is chosen and only 50% to 60% of the land cost for the northern route . Also 0 the southern route would result in much less severance damages to the property as far as leaving a larger , more developable parcel . Through my property there was not going to be any need for any more collector . . . because just north of it is a large wetland so it 's really a relatively Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 46 small area that this boulevard would service . And as far as the break of the density in that area , this is kind of difficult for me because that 's in the '95 study area and we don't- know what it 's zoned for . What 's going to be happening out there . I know they 've made recommendations but that 's not very clear either . And one other point in , one final point is I thought it was rather interesting that when this road was being proposed , no mention of a northern route was suggested for the city owned property through the park . It seems to me that all the benefits to having the road bordering the Highway 5 to the park would be the same to these other parcels and all the reasons for the northern route through the private tracts of land would equally apply to the city park . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Tim Keene: Chairman Batzli , members of the Planning Commission. My name is Tim Keene with Larkin , Hoffman , Daly & Lindgren, 7900 Xerxes , Bloomington and I 'm here this evening on behalf of friendly Mills Fleet Farm . I just want to make a couple points and keep it brief . We have been participants since 1988 throughout an extensive planning process , including initial discussions regarding the Mills Fleet Farm on the northeast corner of Highway 5 and 41 . An approximately year and a half comprehensive plan update and subsequent to that now we 're going onto our second year of the TH 5 corridor planning task force . And being participants and cooperative and actually preparing some site plans and engrossments of how that site would work . We were at least a little troubled when the initial engrossments of the road alternates came out because they run right through the middle of the site . They ignored your consultant , Mr . Morrish 's study that showed a facility compatibly located on the site and if I could walk over to the exhibit and just make a point . Batzli : Sure . Tim Keene: The subject property is about thusly and we have identified on the city 's resource map a wetland resource in the southwest corner . Through the center here there is a tree stand that the task force and staff has madam it very clear that they 'd like to see that stand preserved . . The alignment as conceived and currently the subject of the environmental assessment really slices right through the middle , either alternative of what is left of the developable portion of the property . We asked our civil engineer to generate a road alignment that wouldn 't quite so drastically affect the development . . .property and we submitted on June 9th an alignment plan with actually two alternates . Both of them working off this point . One swinging the frontage road up to the northern boundary and the other swinging the frontage road , nicking the northern , north edge of this tree stand but still preserving the integrity of the stand itself and avoiding any contact with the wetland resources . Those road alternates that we offered were also submitted to the project engineer for the Department of Transportation to give that engineer an opportunity to review those for geometrics and although we haven 't had a formal response , it 's our understanding that the geometrics conform to the design requirements of �: the parameters set forth throughout the rest of the corridor . We don 't want to suggest we feel picked on but the location of the road alternates that are the subject of this environmental assessment really do profoundly limit the development potential of the property . We will be offering for Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 47 the record the exhibits that we did prepare and submit to the June 9th meeting . And with that I 'd like to introduce Stuart Mills , the President of Mills Fleet Farm. ' Thank you . Stuart C . Mills Jr . : Planning Commission . My name is Stuart C . Mills Jr . I live in Brainerd, Minnesota at 512 Laurel Street . Our family has been i Brainerd since the 18th century . We 've been local business people there since the turn of the century . We stand on our integrity and our reputation . We are a family company . The company is owned by my brother _ and myself . My brother 's name is Henry C . Mills II . After Hank and I got out of the Korean War we came back and in 1955 , the spring of '55 we started Fleet Farm stores . There were only two employees and that was Hank and myself and we started . Our first store was 4 ,000 square feet and toda our largest store is 250 ,000 square feet and we have 4 ,500 employees . Thi was done by hard work , and by having a lot of loyal employees and in the communities we 've been in, we stand on our reputation and we are in good standing which we can have recommendations from all our communities to present to you and in just about all of the communities they have invited us to come in because they felt that we were asset to their community . We are different than any other store . There is no competitor we have and we bring people to the community . We feel that we are an asset . We acquired this property out here because we felt it was an ideal location for a Fleet Farm store . It 's a very good commercial location for us with 41 running south across the Minnesota River and number 5 running west into the Ofarmland . We get both city and farm business and since 1988 we have been attending several meetings with the Chanhassen people and we have been cooperating fully and made ourselves at any time to work with the city . This summer the task force proposed a frontage road adjustment , an alignment , an environmental assessment document . The two alignments that are under consideration disect the heart of our 50 acres that we have planned of having a Fleet Farm store . Obviously it ruins our property and we do not feel that this is in the best interest of the community of Chanhassen or ourselves and in due respect we really would like to cooperative with you and see if we can get our development going . I thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Chris Dietzen: Mr . Chairman , members of the commission , my name is Chris Dietzen . I 'm also an attorney with Larkin-Hoffman appearing for Mills Fleet Farm . My task is to make our formal record. I will be brief . When Mills Fleet Farm purchased the property , prior to purchasing it they met with representatives of the city , including the City Administrator and the Mayor and talked to the city about the proposal and received encouragement from the city and a statement that the city would cooperate . In reliance on those statements , Mills went ahead and purchased the property and has engaged in a lot of time , a lot of energy and a lot of money to work with the city with respect to this property . As you 've heard from Mr . Keene , and from the owner of Mills Fleet Farm , the proposal would go through the heart of the property and would destroy it 's commercial development which - 0 the owner at the time of the purchase had a reasonable investment backed expectation as to how that property would be used and how the city would cooperate in facilitating that use . In order to accommodate the city 's wishes , the owner of the property proposed an alternate that would allow Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 48 (I) the alignment to go through the property in two different ways and still allow the development potential of that property . We have submitted that plan that shows those two alternatives , Mills Fleet Farm Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 , which I will shortly be making part of the record . It 's our belief that those plans meet all engineering requirements and that they meet the reasonable requirements with respect to the use of the frontage road as it goes through that property . As we see the evidence that we have heard from , we are not aware of any rational basis for the city to oppose either of those two Mills Fleet Farm alternatives . We are concerned, and we have the impression that the only basis for the city 's refusal to consider those two alternatives and to formally study them in the EAW is to respond to business owners in the Chanhassen are that are trying to protect their business . We do not believe the concerns of business owners or neighbors are a valid basis to destroy the property interest of Mills Fleet Farm. We don 't think that there is a reasonable basis for the City Council to refuse to consider those alternatives . In conclusion , it 's our belief that the evidence is , supports the conclusion that the environmental assessment is inadequate because it does not consider and does not study Mills Fleet Farm alternatives 1 and 2 and that if the city intends to proceed with those two proposals as set forth in the EA , that it would result in a total taking of the Mills Fleet Farm property for which the city would be required to pay it 's fair market value as commercial property . We , Mills Fleet Farm , believes that they are compelled to make a formal record of their position . They would like to cooperate with the city , which they have been trying to do for many years but they feel that they are forced to do that . To make their record at this time and with that we do have a copy of the plans and a letter that we want to make part of the record Mr . Chairperson , if I may . Batzli : You may . Thank you . Is this the original , Tim? Tim Keene : That is the original . . . Batzli : Give this to Kate so I don 't lose it . Chris Dietzen: We request that that be made a part of the record . Thank you very much . Batzli : Well we may as well hear a few more comments before we . Does anyone else wish to address the Commission? I guess it was just wishful thinking that that was it huh? Mike Gorra : Gentlemen , my name is Mike Gorra . I live at 1680 Arboretum . Southwest corner of Lake Ann . I have approximately 150 acres . I 've lived there for about 17 years . I guess I would have to agree with the other landowner that spoke a little earlier that I don't really agree with the pick of the northern route there and would prefer the southern route . Not just because I 'm a landowner but for other reasons which I 'd like to explain briefly here . I think the property , you don 't have to be a genius to take a look at that map and see what that northerly route would do to any piece of property . It disects it in two . That road 's going to be heavily traveled . What 's it going to do to the potential development . It 's going to make it tough to plan any intelligent development with the road like that running right through the center of the property . Especially Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 49 (I) when you 've got an alternative route that can be run to the south along Highway 5 . What 's going to happen with , if you do decide on the northerly - route , it 's going torelegatethat- property to just kind of a boiler plate type development . High density to the south . Medium density and then residential to the north . Now you can find that anyplace . Richfield , Brooklyn Park . Is that what Chanhassen wants or does Chanhassen want an opportunity . That 's probably one of the nicest pieces of undeveloped property left in Chanhassen . You 've got Lake Ann . You 've got that little Riley Creek . You 've got a lot of access on Highway 5. Everybody going ir- and out of Chanhassen is going to see that . I would think they would want the best possible potential development to be addressed in that area and not just a boiler plate type . I also think that the taxpayers would be better served with the southerly route . At the last coalition meeting somebody stated that MnDot would participate with 80% if the alignment was run to the south. And would only participate 50% if the northerly route was chosen . I think that 's kind of significant . Any private development would take that pretty serious . Also the city I think would be better served , and I think it was explained before by other people that we thought it was the original intention of this Highway 5 coalition to consider the Highway 5 route . Not go 500 yards to the north . I always thought it was the whole idea to kind of beautify Highway 5 and they can do that . If the, pick the southern route , they ' ll have more land to berm . More land to landscape . People coming in and out of the city are going to see that . They 're not going to see that road to the north . And if that road is buil to north, what 's going to be backed up to Highway 5? The backs of commercial buildings? That 's not going to be that attractive . Also , with whoever develops that property all along that strip there , the more land they have the bigger lots they can put in . The more attractive development that they can perceive there . If it 's a residential type , they can have clubhouses , tennis courts , even small golf courses . There 's enough room for that too . But if you cut the property in half , you 're not going to be able to have any of that . You 're going to pre-determine everything . Now a little bit 's been said about that road dividing the high density and the low density . Well , who 's to say what 's going to be wanted 4-5 years from now . I 've been a developer for 30 years and - the last 15 years , every piece of property I 've developed has been rezoned . Not by me but by the city . - They thought that it was best to rezone it because times have changed. You put that road through on the north , and even if the city determines that iV made a mistake or if the times have changed and the property and the city would be better served by changing the zoning , it 's not going to do much good because that road's already there . Thank you . Jim Andrews : Members of the Commission . Again , I 'm Jim Andrews . I 'm the - Chairman of the Highway 5 Task Force and I will concur that it 's been a very lengthy process . One that if had I known how long it was going to be , I 'm not so sure I would have volunteered for it but nevertheless it 's a project we 've all worked very , very hard on and one thing I can certainly say is that we have considered all alternatives in great detail . Sometime- to the frustration of many of the members of the task force spending months and months discussing north and south and possible land implications and difficulties of development so I think we have done a thorough job of looking at what the alternatives might , what they are and what the impacts could be . A couple things I just wanted to point out is that both north - and south alternatives , we did look at providing trail crossings and Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 50 pedestrian accesses and so forth so neither alternative really I think creates a poor access for pedestrians or trail traffic at all . We also looked at land uses . - At our last meeting we looked at land uses and also looked at some of the results of a subcommittee called the zoning overlay subcommittee I guess is what we called it . They were looking at building designs , setbacks , sign ordinances , and so forth and just as a side note , I 'm sure those are some things that Fleet Farm would be very interested in knowing about . I don 't know if they 're being provided with that or not but they should be . One other issue I want to make is that the MnDot funding as to what MnDot would contribute to the northern portion . At least to my recollection , that information has never really been accurately determined . The one thing we are sure of is that MnDot 's contribution to the northerly alternative would be less than the south . But as to say that it would be 80 or 50 or 70 or 30 , to my knowledge that finite number was not determined but we are aware that there is an impact . So again I would say that we have done , I believe a thorough job and have made a recommendation I think that would be suitable for the city . Thank you . Batzli : Let me ask you a question Jim before you sit down . Is it your opinion then if after hearing the various landowners here tonight , it looks like we 're ticking off about a third of them along Alternative 1 and 2 here by your selection . Is Alternative 2 that bad? Jim Andrews: Personally , I struggled back and forth with my decision for 0 quite a while . To be real honest from , I 've got to remember the names of the streets here but . Farmakes: Galpin to TH 41? Jim Andrews : From the Galpin crossing , I always favored the northerly alternative on that side . From the Galpin towards the east , I had actually initially perferred the southern alternative and then was convinced that the northern alternative would offer I think in the long haul a superior alternative . I will , I don 't know if it was passed along to the Commission here but the vote on this , on the recommendation was very , very close . So it certainly was not unanimous that we should have the northern route . In fact if I recall the vote was barely majority . So we wrestled with it . Within our own group quite a bit too. And I also would say that the overlay committee is proposing ordinances that I think regardless of what alternative we would ultimately end up with , that we 're going to end up with something far superior to the development that 's occurred along Highway 5 in Eden Prairie so that I think we can be assured of . But as a committee we did favor the northern alternative and I guess speaking as a spokesman for the committee I feel that I need to communicate that first of all . Oh one other comment too about the Fleet Farm road alignment . The one reason why we did choose the northern there was that it did match up with the road directly across the street from TH 41 . It provided an intersection so that was one of the main reasons we again stayed with that alignment . Batzli : But it sounds like they proposed something that swung further - north and still came out at about the same point . Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 51 Jim Andrews: Again at , it was almost 2 months ago and working , from what I recall , I believe their recommendation also impacted a private property owner to the north of their site too . I 'd have to look at it again to refresh myself again . Also , as a group discussing land uses last meeting , we as a group were recommending that the Fleet Farm site would not be commercial use as proposed by Fleet Farm and we were looking at , I think it was high quality development being medium or high density again or possibly , I don 't want to be wrong on this . I believe we also , and maybe you can help me on this . A different type of commercial . We had a special term for it . I can 't remember the word we used for it . Scott: What are you talking about , like a headquarters? Jim Andrews: Headquarters or something . Scott: High profile . Jim Andrews: Yes . Something like that . Scott: Because it 's the gateway . Jim Andrews: Yeah . The overlay ordinances that we 've discussed would impose restrictions on Fleet Farm that if they were to proceed with building in that area , under the ordinances that we are proposing , they would have to build something substantially different in appearance than C.) what they traditionally build . And I don 't know if that 'd be workable but that may be something we would have to explore if we were looking at a compromise , so . Batzli : Thank you . Farmakes: Can I ask a question of the Barton-Aschman representative? Batzli : Sure , go ahead . Farmakes: There was a graph that showed land acquisition . Similar to this and it was shaded in with the property that MnDot would be willing to acquire in relationship to the north and southern route . Was that accurst( or was that a guesstimate? Deb Porter : Well that was based on our discussions with MnDot in the past year or so and it 's not , as we said earlier . We don 't have anything in terms of a formal agreement from MnDot as to what exactly their participation would be but we have had discussions with them . So I think — we have a good understanding of what their participation would be and maybe I ' ll just walk over to the map and show you , if it will be helpful you know what we understand to be their . Farmakes : I think maybe the comments I 'm going to make it would be helpful if you did . _ Deb Porter : Okay . Let me try and explain this the best I can . MnDot 's considerations are being primarily on controlled access of Highway 5 and also minor shifts that they are now proposing towards the north of this Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 52 Omuch of Highway 5 and that 's to avoid impacting the mini-storage , daycare , and recording studio on this side of TH 5 . Their original design was to widen to the south primarily but of course now that would cause significant right-of-way impacts . I think they estimate that being $2 million plus in right-of-way acquisition costs . So they 've redesigned this in about a 60 foot northward shift and about this portion of Highway 5 . That would take a little bit of the park property . It would encroach a bit on Eckankar property . Moves Kerber and the Gorra property in here . In addition , there are also 4 or 5, 3 or 4 residences here that would not have direct access to TH 5 any longer . MnDot then in their original design would have had to build short access driveways to about 4 different properties. So in consideration of all those impacts , what they have talked about doing in participating in what would be considered a buffer area between the access boulevard and Highway 5 . So you 're looking at primarily this extension here . The area that 's between the Alternative 2 and then of course the . . . MnDot would look at purchasing most of this acreage here . Between the highway and the alternative . Once you get to this point of course , and once Alternative 1 shifts northward , if this isn 't built , MnDot would probably not design any . . .access between the buffer area in here because you 're then getting away from what they might consider to be more of a frontage road and they don 't want to set a precedent in communities in buying huge amounts of right-of-way between . . .roads and a highway . Then once again , once the alternative comes back closer to TH 5 , they 've also said that they would be willing to participate in some portion of buffer © area within this area here . . .Alternative 1 is quite a bit north of Highway 5 , they probably would not be buying any buffer area . Again , they see this as a separate city thoroughfare whereas here , as they 've done in other communities , they see that as more of a frontage road where they could participate in buffer areas . Farmakes : For the purpose , we can 't see the legend here but for the purpose , from a minimum and maximum from the area from say Galpin to Lake Ann . Right-of-way frontage would be how many feet? Like 50 to 400 , or how would that? Deb Porter : This scale is 200 feet to an inch so , that 's nearly 3/4 of a mile from here to here . Farmakes: But depth then off of the highway up to the road, let 's say proposal 2 . Between Highway 5 and proposal 2 would be how many feet in depth? Deb Porter : You 're looking at about 200 feet by the inch here , and some of these are wider portions . Again , once you get shifting quite a ways from TH 5 , I think and it happens to be a property line here , you can see it reasonable that MnDot would look at all of this being buffer area up to the property line and again you 're shifting away . . .so it 's clear that for Alternative 2 MnDot would participate in more of the right-of-way acquisition costs than Alternative 1 . Exactly what those costs would be is somewhat . . .some guesstimates on the dollars amounts on that . Batzli : Thank you . Yes sir . Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 53 0 Lee Kerber : I 'm Lee Kerber and I 'm right between the city tree farm and between what Natural Green vacated . According to the map here it almost looks like they , as soon as it got- across or past the park driveway , they veer to the north to save the city tree farm and to get my house . And as soon as they get by my house and past the Natural Green vacated property , they 're going back down to the road . I don 't understand why they can 't stay next to the highway the whole time . Another thing I 'm a little disturbed about , the communication gap . I heard it through the grapevine you 're going to lose your house . I said, what are you talking about . I never had any notification until probably 3 or 4 months ago there was goin- to be a meeting down here . It seems to me a person should get it direct from City Hall that they 're thinking about taking your property instead of getting it through the grapevine . All night long I 've been hearing people talk about trees . They 're going to save those trees that are 2 or 3 inche in diameter and the city tree farm and they 're going to take down 25-30 trees on my property that are a foot and a half , 2 feet deep , probably 30 feet high. I don 't agree with a lot of those things . You 're not just taking my house . The place that I live . You 're taking my life . I spent 65 years on that property and just like that you come along and tell me , so long sucker . That 's about what it amounts to . You don 't come and say , we want to give you some money so you can start looking around. You just bully your way through . There 's a lot of things I don 't appreciate . My wife says let 's just get the heck out of town and it looks like I 'm going to whether I want to or not . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Brad Johnson: Mr . Chairman , members of the Planning Commission . My name is Brad Johnson . I live at 7425 Frontier Trail and I represent Lars Conway who owns 50 acres on the northeast corner of Galpin and Highway 5 . Just for the record , we prefer Alternate 2 which is the southern route , as I believe most of the landowners thus far have . The primary reasons are cost . We feel that as the representatives of the city have indicated , it will cost a lot more money to do it to the north . There 's a lot of severance cost that 's involved . As you know I 've been a developer in this community for a long time and we hear a lot about , well we ' ll do high density , multiple housing . We have very little high density , multiple housing development happening in Chanhassen . Many of the subdivisions hav gone undeveloped and have been rezoned over the years . You guys have been around . You 've got Lundgren had a subdivision like that . It 's not easy to say it and I would say over a 10 year period , that much land zoned high density , multiple will not be developed and will tend to go to commercial , industrial uses because 10 years from now you 're all gone and everybody 's wondering why that hasn 't been developed . So I think it 's just not necessary to do it . You 're creating a problem that I don 't think you need to have to do . It 's a problem I think that people in good faith suggested because they can see green space there but in talking to the high density , multiple developers that exist today , they would not want to be between tw, freeways either . I mean two basic freeways . The second one is that I 've been around town for a long time and as you know , Chanhassen Estates has been separated from the city for quite some time . This particular road will carry by Highway . This particular road will carry a lot more traffic than we all imagine and I think that if in fact that is going to be residential all along the south of Alternate 1 , that it will be basically , Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 54 Ounless you guys want to spend a lot of money on overpasses again and trail systems that go underground and stuff , be separated from the other properties . And developers we 've talked to about purchasing the property and actually building something say no . They would not build in that area because of that reason. They want to be nestled up against the single family area and I think Mr . Gorra 's got a good point . And we probably . should have done like a $20 ,000 .00-$25,000 .00 proposal that says this is how we would do this neighborhood so you could actually see how that neighborhood would look . But you can , I would guess what you would see , if you go along the highway and you would see , according to Mr . Gorra 's plan , kind of a very planned major entrance into a major subdivision as you go north into the Lake Ann area off of that road . You 're just not going to get that kind of a look to put multiple there because you 're going to , we 're going to have to try to figure out how to back the multiple because that 's the back of the entrance into a multiple . In other words , we 'll be entering off the main road and the back of it will come into Highway 5 . I think the main thing here is I think going north through there is a premature development of the property . The road system is being put in prematurely and from what I can tell , for no very good reason other than it probably looks better as you look at it now but I don 't think in the long run it would look better at all . And at a higher cost than you would have ultimately the way it 's planned on Alternate 2 . But the main deal is , I think all of us could probably come with some terrific visuals of how this could look if it wadeveloped with roads going into the north and we 0 could show it to you and it would look wonderful . I don 't know how to give you a good visual of what this is going to look like with multiple or some type of commercial inbetween the two roads . Then just think about Highway 5 and how long those two communities , how that 's divided our community and I 'm not being overly dramatic but that 's going to be a busy road. It 's not going to be a road that is not used . Right now it doesn 't appear that way but it will be very different so I 'm , from Dr . Conway 's point of view , we 'd prefer to get together with Mr . Gorra and put together about a 200 acre really substantial development in that area and you 're making it just about impossible . You ' ll probably create about , not you are but the plan does , you probably create 2 or 3 small multi-family developments sometime . And then basically cut into the dynamics of what could happen to the north . Thank you . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the Commission? What I 'm going to do is I 'm going to ask for a motion to close the public hearing but once we do that , I would still like there to be interaction but as a formal matter , I 'm going to try and close the public hearing at this time . Is there a motion? Conrad moved , Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Batzli : Matt . Matt , I 'm sorry . I do that all the time . Why do I do that Jeff? _12; Farmakes: That 's okay Bill . Batzli : Okay , thank you . You have some comments that I think you 'd , it 'd be good to have you go first here . Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 55 (I) Farmakes: First of all I want to thank the task force . I think there 's been an awful lot of work done here , both from city subcontractors to city staff . It 's really fascinating to see how this effects a community and commercial aspects , homeowners , farmers . People who are interested in building Chanhassen in the future and it 's been an interesting experience . With that being said I 'd like to criticize our task force . I can do that I guess because I was on it . I do believe , as I said , that perhaps we got a little off track when we got into the discussion of main street . It 's easy to fall into . There was a lot of discussion about the philosophy of main street and so on and I had a feeling that perhaps we were losing the intent of our mission , which was to create a buffer in our community against the highway expansion to insure that the highway would not become a wall in our community . I think if you refer to the building corridor that we got here , there 's two drawings on there that I 'm sure some of you have seen before . The issue of frontage roads that parallel a highway and create sort of a concrete wall in a community . And the lower drawing has the meandering road that occasionally gets close to the highway but also comes up and there 's adequate area for natural buffering on the highway . And if you turn 2 pages in and you look at the area that we 're discussing here , you can see the Lake Ann district that comes across over to the Arboretum district and this was the original drawing that the University did . And the areas that we 're discussing here would be right in the middle if you look over to your left . And essentially the road alternatives that we look are there that you see up here which we actually wound up coming L with and for a moment here I 'd like to go over and point to the map . I would like to point out also that as a , I don 't know if our Chairman is still here of the task force but we did , although the report from the city did not probably explain it as well as I thought they should have . It waE not unanimous . The task force , like any task force , has disagreements within it and the vote was not unanimous . I 'd like to make a case for my dissent on this issue and . . .The issue that we discussed to the south and the issue that are here tonight , there was very little discussion , or dissent here on this issue . But to the east of Galpin I think that there - was more dissent in regard to buffer . . .how the crossovers would affect Bluff Creek . Those of you who have driven back and forth know that this i5 a low area . There 's a lot of trees in here and the question was how , with the least amount of impact can we do that and there were viable cases , plu and minus . . .different four alternatives . But the issue that I . . .fell back on was Bill Morrish 's original . . .that it seemed to me that inquiring of this space is just as important as main street or the philosophy of main street , which to me got very subjective . The issue here is the pragmatic requiring of right-of-way that the city can buffer . . . The city can buffer Highway 5 and that was our , that was one of our main tasks . If MnDot is willing and the map that you provided showed MnDot acquiring this property here from CR 17 over essentially to a part of . . . it got a little loose in here but it essentially all this property in here . And those of you that know this particular piece of property know that , where the barn and the - old depot is , it 's several hundred feet off of the highway . So this is a substantial amount of property . The setback issues and the future development would seem to me that we would be able to control substantial amounts of property here of right-of-way at little cost to our taxpayers . The problem that we had up here seemed to me is that again we were dictating how this property develops . We were , the city was required to purchase the right-of-way property up in here to a larger degree . As it Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 56 Ocame farther to the creek , it seemed to me that crossover D made far less impact to the bluff area , to this low lying area than did alternative for crossover C , which basically cuts right through it . If in the future we are going to improve the crossover and gateway that goes up this way towards Minnewashta for a trail , it seems to me that the sensible connection would have been here and running a trail off of this crossover and following up behind the higher area behind the creek . The issue of I think one of cost is that the city doesn 't want or requires less taxpayers funds here to acquire this property . That means over here it frees up funds to target more and go with the northern route , which I support on this side to again buffer Highway 5 . And it seemed to me that again the reasoning for this got very asserteric . And I think the development , when it comes down to development , what we 're going to wind up with here , as was stated , is medium-high density along the entire strip like you see on occasion on Highway 7 or up on 494 . I think the preference would be , that if there was medium density , that it be broken up with single family . Which I believe if that was out of here , would probably be the case . . .and I think that this really uselessly , I believe , categorizes this area or dictates what it 's going to be . Physically I think there are reasons for going north . There are some wetland areas poking up and there are some low lying areas . I think that this property makes sense but I can 't see the justification . Batzli : Dave , what 's the nearest east/west collector above there? Is there one? Jay Dolejsi : Just the other side of the wetland Lundgren Bros is putting in a development that has an east/west road . Batzli : But I don 't think that 's a collector level street is it? Jay Dolejsi : Well , there 's limited movement out there . . . limit the amount of development that goes in there . Hempel : Mr . Chairman , you 're referring to between Galpin Blvd . and Trunk Highway 41 . The Lundgren development is proposing a , what I 'll call a minor collector type street between Galpin and Trunk Highway 41 and will have a wider street pavement than a normal street , or the right-of-way width of 80 feet . That is about midpoint . Approximately a mile north of Trunk Highway 5 . Farmakes: I 'd also like to say that based on the synopsis of the report that it 's sort of inferring that there was a specific reason to go with that route and that some of the land use issues were negative . Because the meeting that I was at , when they went over land use issues , it was a wash . It could go either way and in talking to the professionals that we had , two of them off the record came up to me and said that they agreed with me . So I think that there is some professional support for what I 'm saying . I think also that there 's pragmatic , from the taxpayers standpoint , a good case to be made for that or at least to consider it as it goes up to City L Council . The last issue I 'm going to touch on is the issue of the Mills property . I know of no support , and I 've been involved since prior to you purchasing your property . I know of no support , that I know of , for a commercial district in that area , and I haven 't been contacted by any Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 57 Obusiness owners . I haven 't been contacted by anyone telling me what that ' . going to be but it seems to me that the location of that property , because an individual purchases it on the Speculation that it will be commercial when in fact it 's currently now zoned agricultural , that the fact that the purchased it dictates what it 's going to be rezoned at . It seems to me pretty erroneous . There are , I believe , positive arguments that would dictate that that would not be commercial . Even qualified , and there were alternatives discussed I think in the meeting , and those Minutes are available . I 'm not going to go into those here but I did not support commercial use in that area , primarily because it 's adjacent to a very sensitive area of the community and it wouldn 't fit . And as far as I know , there was no support in history for dictating commercial use in that area . Those are my comments . Batzli : Let me pick up with Brad some of the things that you just said that reminds me that Brad I think brought up and that is , I ' ll address this to you Kate . Maybe you can help me and our representative from Barton . Does it make sense what we 're doing right now that we 're looking at the road layout without also in the back of our mind know , or at least thinking what the zoning layout will be? I mean how can we really do this , I mean find it very difficult to separate my decision on what the road is going t look like up against Highway 41 if it 's going to be rezoned for something that would be beneficial to Fleet Farm and I know according to my instructions from Paul here , I 'm not supposed to be considering that but how can we put a road through there if we don 't know what 's likely to be developed . North , south , whatever . Aanenson: The task force had the same problem and we did look at the land use recommendations and those were included in here and we howed the two alternatives and what the potential land use . I think agreed . There need- to be some marriage of the two to make it come to a decision . I forgot my second point . What did you ask specifically about the land use? Batzli : I 'm sorry , what? Aanenson: You asked about the land use recommendation . That Paul said not to look at that . Scott: Not to have the Mills property . Deb Porter : Oh . If you look on the attachments on the exhibits , I think they 're 7-3 there 's . . .under the land use section . Aanenson: Oh the other thing I was going to was the multi-family . That property is zoned , or the comprehensive plan designates the area that Jeff was talking about , as far as we 're forcing that to multi-family . The comprehensive plan already guides that area for multi-family . And that 's - what we looked at leaving that as multi-family . To say that we 're forcing the land use recommendation to multi-family , it 's there right now and if we want to reconsider that , that we 're forcing it , then I think we should look at that . But that 's what it 's guided for currently . Multi-family . That decision was made when you went through the comprehensive planning process in 1991 . That 's the other point I was going to make . Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 58 OBatzli : Let me ask one other question and then I want Ladd to talk . It seems to me that we 've had conflicting testimony here tonight from our Barton-Aschman consultant and everybody else that 's gotten to speak that is a developer . And that is the report says that it 's preferable to have the northern route because you 'll have more flexibility in development and all the people that are probably going to end up developing their property have gotten up and said , we don't like it because it restricts how we can develop it . What do you want to tell us about that? Deb Porter : I think the reasons that were listed there under the preferred alternative are those that were forwarded to us through the city staff and were mentioned at the task force meeting . They are not recommendations from the consultant . That 's kind of beyond the scope of an environmental assessment which is to be an objective document on impact analysis . It 's not really a persuasive type of document for developing an alternative . I guess it would depend on what type of future land use development scenarios you 're looking at and the task force and Barry Warner have been working on those issues now for I think a year and a half . I 'm not sure that there 's complete consensus even on these figures that we have on the land use section . They 're still conceptual . There 's still the 1995 study area from Galpin to TH 41 . Those haven 't been officially documented and platted as the rest of the comprehensive plan shows . So I think at this point if there 's disagreement as to what type of future land use will happen , that 's a decision that hasn't been made absolutely yet . I 'm not sure that you can . decide does the roadway go first , then land use . Or does land use come before roadway development . It 's community 's choose either method sometimes . I think what you 're looking at , those figures in the land use section are still conceptual . Between Galpin and TH 41 . As Kate was saying , between Galpin and Powers Blvd , that part of is platted in your 1991 comprehensive plan . Batzli : Based on , I keep on getting back to this issue of if we choose a southern route , which is more like a frontage road than a collector , as this stuff develops , are we going to have to put another collector in there? Are we just pushing it further north? Aanenson: That 's what I wanted to talk about . I think we need to go back and when we looked at what should this street look like . If you flip to your proposed typical cross section , which is at the very beginning of the document . Figure 2-2 . One of the first things the task force did is , what should the street look like and how should it feel and what they looked at , if they wanted a narrower street , limited access onto that street , no parking on the street , it 's supposed to have a nice feel to it . Not that you 're on a busy wide freeway . I keep hearing the word 2 freeways . It 's only 32 feet of pavement . Okay , it 's supposed to be a narrow , not a speedway . Scott: Like a parkway . Aanenson: Yeah , a parkway . Have a nice feel to it . No parking on it and ) again limited access . And a trail that 's segregated from it . So going back to Jeff 's point , is what do you want to buffer on Highway 5 . Do you want to look at aesthetic buildings . High quality buildings or do you want to buffer Highway 5 with another road and that 's where part of the Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 59 separating the two came back into too . Farmakes: That wasn't quite my comment . Aanenson: I didn 't hear your whole comment . . . Farmakes: I 'll just , if you look at the picture here you can see that Morrish's original drawing shows plantings as buffers next to the frontage roads that do meander towards the highway and come off again allowing an adequate amount of right-of-way to landscape a buffer between them . The question is again , how much property is the city going to require if we do go with the northern route? How much in negotiations with the town multiplex , high density development are we going to get off of that highway? I would submit that you 're not going to get much . So I think it 's a trade off . Batzli : Ladd . Conrad: It 's 11 :30 Brian . We close down at 11 : 00 . It 's real interestinc when you see the process . Some people put a lot of time into it and I usually get frustrated with City Council when we put a lot of time into stuff and then , when it 's complicated stuff , you 've got a choice . You can_ either sink your teeth into it or just sort of take the recommendations that people put a lot of time into . This , I trust them . They went through the right mechanisms . Let 's go with it . That 's the background of saying I 'm not real comfortable right now because I think this road alignment , philosophically I like the one to the north . But I guess I heard enough things tonight that says I 'm not sure and I need to justify it from a stand of land use and in the future and I haven 't put that work into it . I personally have to put more time into understanding this to make a recommendation . Environmental worksheet , looks great . I think this is really nice . What ever alternative we choose , I 'm real comfortable that we 've got 2 alternatives that impact is minor . We don 't have a problem bu as to which one , I don 't know right now because I really do have to play back land uses and what I see and until I do that , until somebody helps me work my through that , I can 't react tonight . I just can 't . I want to go - home . Batzli : I agree and that 's I guess why I 've been asking where the land usa comes in and some of these other questions that would help me feel more comfortable . I think the thing that disturbed me most was the fact that I don 't think that there was a real strong consensus on the task force at all . Conrad: I think there 's maybe a role for the Planning Commission to get their feet wet a little bit on this one and maybe spend some more time looking at it . And to be honest , I have not done that . Farmakes : Yeah , I would like to qualify that . There was a pretty strong _ consensus on the majority of the work that the task force did . There were some issues that there was dissention on . Batzli : what would you want to see? Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 60 Conrad: I guess I just need to go, I think we need another hour to compare road alignments and land uses . I don 't know if that 's in a work session here , a part of one of our meetings . I just have to see that . I have to see that get played out . I 'm hearing the developer say it doesn 't work and I have to validate that in my mind first that it doesn 't work . And I heard Jeff saying that he 's got some . . .on certain parts of it . Well , I guess our job now as Planning Commission is to sink the two algernatives at work into what we see land use is in the coming year . And honestly , what makes me a little bit nervous , and again playing the role of Planning Commissioner , the 1995 study area . I haven 't made any decisions myself on what 's at that intersection of TH 41 and TH 5 . Yet we 're kind of precluding some stuff here and I 'm not going to do that . I 'm not saying Fleet Farm should be here . But on the other hand , I 'm not ready to say I 'm going to put something in there that makes it impossible for them to be here . I need to know what we are going to do out there . So it 's real hard, again . There 's another part of the section , I can 't tell . So until I firm that up , it 's going to be tough for me to make a recommendation and some of their alternatives may just be . Batzli : Okay . Kate . What is it that 's driving this forward? Is there a deadline that we need to approve this? Aanenson: That 's what I was just asking Deb about . 0 Deb Porter : The original schedule was to try and get the environmental assessment document with the preferred alternative approved by the end of this year . The end of '93 in order for the design of this roadway to coincide with Trunk Highway 5 reconstruction . The 4 lane . That project has been shifted back on the MnDot schedule now at least a year I think so there 's not quite as much intensity on trying to have this project actually catch up to Trunk Highway 5 design package as there was a few months ago . We were notified of that probably within the last month . We 've had discussions with MnDot and several projects in this district have been delayed for a year due to inadequate funding . So there 's not quite as much critical time schedule pressures as there used to be . I guess in delaying things for another couple of weeks until your next Planning Commission meeting , I don 't even see that as being a major hurdle you know as far as things progressing through the end of the year . You know you have 't had , some of you haven 't had the document for a long time to look over so I can understand that you 'd need to spend some more time with it . Aanenson : As far as the rest of the Highway 5 task force goes , which we 're looking at comprehensive , the '95 study area and the south side . The whole corridor plan . We hope to have that going through the process first part of September . With all the ordinances and land use recommendations . Batzli : So what would happen if we delayed that until it coincided with the overlay? Zoning overlays . Deb Porter : If the beginning of September , you 're thinking you might have that one finalized? It would shift this schedule back probably 2 months . . . and probably early '94 before you 'd probably get final approval of that document . Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 61 Batzli : Right . I guess I don 't know that it matters though if MnDot has pushed their construction schedule back to '95 . I mean if this impacts that , then we need to know and we need to move it quicker . Deb Porter : That 's not the case any longer . You know earlier this year . . . kept this project moving along with Trunk Highway 5 design . . . Aanenson: So it sounds like you 'd like to wait until we put the two together . Batzli : Well I would but I do want to give Joe and Matt a minute if they have additional comments . Scott: I recall that when we recommended to approve this particular study , one of the things that I asked about specifically was economic impact relative to land holdings and so forth and in the boiler plate here I see page and a half , 2 pages so my major area of concern is what do we have ou there now? Who owns it? How big are the pieces? And it looks like there 's some lines drawn on the mapping that perhaps may represent that . That 's one of my big concerns and of course when we have people who are developers coming in and saying hey , here 's what , this is what we would like to build . This is our concept . It 's not going to work with the northern route so I agree with Ladd in that I think this is good input . I would think , I would guess that if you 're going to make a decision on it © right now , Ladd wouldn 't want to vote . I wouldn 't either . And perhaps I know personally I need more time to look at this because it 'd be very difficult for me to get one of these babies on a Friday afternoon and have it totally digested by Wednesday night so I 'd like more time to take a look at it and I 'm not in the position to say one way or the other . Batzli : Okay . Matt . Ledvina : Well talking about the alignment a little bit . I guess I would - concur with Jeff in that the southern alternative seems to make more sense east of Galpin . One point I do want to make though and emphasize Jeff 's point is that I feel that the crossover D should be utilized . The impact to Bluff Creek at that point I think is really critical and if that road alignment is taken to the north there , the opportunity to cross Bluff Creen inobtrusive manner , if I can use that word, is , that will be a much better place so . And then possibly the northern route you know to TH 41 . As it relates to Fleet Farm . I think that the road alignment , we should be able to work with some different alternatives there to accommodate some potential future plans . Not saying that the zoning changes are completely to follow . Or not allowing or committing to that future commercial use at that location but I think if we can compromise and look at their specific interest there , I think that would be a good thing as well . - Batzli : Okay , thank you . Richard Wing : Brian , can I just clarify? Is this a public hearing or not Batzli : Yes it was . Aanenson: No . It 's a public information meeting . • Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 62 Richard Wing: This is not a public hearing . Aanenson: Correct . Batzli : Oh , okay . Well , we conducted one and we closed it . Richard Wing: I just wanted that clarified . There were some questions here that in a public hearing status in a much different approach and this is very informational . This is so conceptual . As a matter of fact , can I make a statement? Batzli : Sure . Richard Wing: My name is Richard Wing . Chanhassen City Council . I also served as a member of this commission , or task force , excuse me . And Matt , I just want to pick on you . And this is informationally . It 's not criticism . It 's not even critique but you made some statements about alignment and some ideas and thoughts and I just want to ask you as a point here , because I want to get onto something else . How many of these task force meetings did you attend? Ledvina : Zero . Richard Wing: Okay . That 's my point . I think we 're getting concerned —Q about issues tonight and problems and alignments that you have no information on because every question that came up tonight , this task force , which is just a task force , addressed . The alignments . Whether they went north or south . You know we were somewhat split on the alignment and I happen to agree with Jeff . I think he 's right and that 's what I intend to pursue with the information I have . But whether it went north or south , and the cost . The alignments . What it did to land uses . How we intended to use the land and zoning and all . It was all pretty much discussed , but you don 't have privy to that information and . Ledvina : Oh I did speak with some of the members of the task force . Richard Wing : Oh no , no . I know and again , I said this isn 't criticism . I 'm just pointing out that from this point on now we get serious . We 've now taken this task force that 's a lay group . They 've come in with a very conceptual plan and now it gets thrown into your lap and you 're going to. have to reinvent the wheel and it 's going to be a long lengthy process . All the questions that we asked , we discussed , are going to have to be rediscussed and asked again and then get into the public sector because all our guest here really didn 't have an opportunity to speak . They were listeners and they weren 't allowed to participate . From now on it takes a whole new format and now it gets formal . It gets official so don 't feel frustrated or concerned about the process . I think it has to start over now and then all these questions you brought up , plus everything that task force did has to be kind of start from scratch and then we 're going to get a formal recommendation from you people after you 've had all the facts so plan on a pretty major issue here . I think you 've got your hands full . Batzli : Yeah . Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 63 (11) Scott : So will you . Richard Wing: Well absolutely but- you know you kind of have , in some ways going to fall back on this task force . We 're obviously going to be falling back on you and that 's , I 'm very pro commissions . I mean I tend to take these recommendations that you spend hours on and then suddenly we get thrown with this and we have 10 minutes and I 'm not willing to make decisions like that . I tend to fall back on what 's here so I think we had some real talent on that task force and I think they 're going to be active and participate and speak to these issues as they come up but they 're not here tonight because this isn 't a public hearing . It 's just informational . I think it was important to get some of the public input started . Mr . Kerber 's concerns . You know I 'm kind of wondering why the line 's going right through his house . I think we have to start addressing these and we will so . Be patient . I think the task force did an excellent job. I think you have a real challenge ahead of you but it 's going to be probably one of the greatest gift the city of Chanhassen that 's ever occurred . And if I just may rather than , because it 's late . Batzli : Let me just say one thing here . What Paul asked us to do was recommend approval and the item was listed under public hearing . And I think what Ladd and I want to do is slow it down and do exactly what you 're_ saying but our direction from our Director was like , we were supposed to rubber stamp it and pass ; it along tonight . Richard Wing : That 's not true at all and Kate , clarify the public hearing Aanenson: No , it 's not . If you 're looking at the title , it says public information meeting . We were under the impression that we needed to keep - this on docket . To keep the funding with the MnDot . The intent tonight was to allow , as Mr . Wing stated , the intent tonight was to allow public to come and comment . During the task force , we did allow some comment at the _ task force meetings but we felt this would be a better arena . Feel more comfortable and. . . We had 25 people sitting up here . It made for a large group to take comments so this was an information meeting to allow people to come and voice their concerns . For you to hear it . I think Dick articulated exactly where we 're at and obviously you need more information to go further and we ' ll be bringing that forward . As long as we have the time . Batzli : I don 't want to belabor this point but , so are you suggesting tha•L we start conducting hearings similar to what we did on the comprehensive plan where we have working sessions and we invite anybody and everybody into the room? Aanenson: What 's going to happen is this take on a comprehensive plan . There 's two separate components here . One is the EA document , which we need to keep on track . The other component is what we 're doing is a master plan . As part of that master plan we 're looking at land use issues . We 're looking at some overlay zones including architectural design and landscaping issues and that sort of thing . We ' ll be bringing those forwar .. to you . Like I said in September we hope to have the task force wound up . Batzli : Okay . Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 64 Deb Porter : There is a public hearing as part of the EA process . After the document is signed on the signature page and released for public review . It needs to be reviewed by the City Council . There is an official public hearing at that point . Richard Wing: And also be aware that there 's some considerable information coming your way on development standards . Architectural standards . Building material minimums . Sign ordinance . Landscape ordinance . Parking lot standards . This PUD overlay and there 's some tremendous stuff coming and it 's going to change the face of the city . I mean to say that Mills Fleet Farm is going to go there or isn 't . It may or may not but I think that based on these new ordinances coming in , it 's going to be a Mills Fleet Farm like you 've never seen before and they may or may not choose to look that way. Brian , just as long as I have the floor . I want to get one comment on the record . That you people , as a commission tonight have dealt with some very sensitive , difficult issues in kind of no win set-ups if you will . I think your attitudes , your demeanor , your comments , your appearances as individuals and as a commission were exemplary . I think you 're to be very much commended tonight . I think you ran a very excellent meeting Brian under some very harsh conditions and I want to thank' you . Somebody said outside , he said , he was a professional person from the Arboretum and he said, why would anybody want to serve on that commission after listening . The answer is because you 've chosen to lead , to direct and have an impact on your community and as a resident I just want to say • thank you . t` Batzli : Thank you for your comments from , on behalf of the entire commission . Thank you all for coming tonight . It sounds like we 're going to table this from the standpoint that it 's tableable and hold some informal meetings . Get some more of your input and dig into it a little bit more . We ' ll probably delay it a little bit until we know what some of the land use issues are coming down the road and I 'm sure , if you haven 't left your name with Kate , you should do that now just to make sure you get notified of the upcoming meetings . Especially some of these people that sounded like they maybe were a little bit surprised by the whole item . Is there a motion , something to that effect? Conrad: To table? Batzli : To table . Conrad moved, Scott seconded to table action on the Environmental Assessment for the North Access Boulevard project . All voted in favor and the motion carried . Batzli : Thank you all for coming in. You will be notified of the next time this is discussed . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning } Commission meeting dated July 7 , 1993 as presented . CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: I ' ll just go over these real quick . Planning Commission Meeting July 21 , 1993 - Page 65 Batzli : Boy , this had better be quick Kate . Hold on one second Ladd . Aanenson: I need to talk to Ladd . Really seriously . The extension of Ne Perce at the City Council . Obviously you realize what happened on that based on the subdivision that was tonight . Non-conforming permit for Minnewashta Manor . That was approved based on the same conditions that th Planning Commission had . The City Council reconsidered the Boley subdivision . If you recall , the rear of those lots fell into the city of Victoria and in meeting with the Met Council they felt as long as the services were from the city of Chanhassen , they felt they didn 't have any jurisdiction in that matter . The City of Victoria wanted to do a property swap because they felt like that property was valuable . We 're not sure that that makes a lot of sense . They want to get 4 , 5 , 6 lots out of it s we 're meeting with them but the City Council did approve , having yard easements . So the lots do meet the square footage . It 's just that the rear of the lots are in Victoria and they can just be used for yards only . So we 're hoping that we can still meet and resolve that issue and we 've asked that that be platted last giving the staff time to work out those issues . Trotters Ridge was approved by the City Council . Basically the same way as you had presented it , and as you 're aware , Paul will be out of the country for the next couple weeks . That 's it . Batzli : Okay . Thank you . Conrad moved , Batzli seconded to adjourn the meeting . All voted in favor .*_J and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 11:53 p .m. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 1993 Vice Chair Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Ladd Conrad, Nancy Mancino, and Jeff Farmakes MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner; and Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner PUBLIC HEARING: JOHN PRYZMUS FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF THE GOLF DRIVING RANGE MAXI-MINI PUTT COMPLEX TO INCLUDE EXPANSION OF THE BUILDING AND A BATTING CAGE LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, SWINGS GOLF. Jo Ann Olsen presented her last staff report on this item. Vice Chair Conrad noted that the applicant, John Pryzmus, was not present at the meeting and then called the public hearing to order. Mancino moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Farmakes: When you were out at the site, did you discuss the batting cages? He was present at that discussion? He wasn't? Olsen: No. Farmakes: I guess I'll kind of take this opportunity just for a quick discussion about that development and I know that the City's always been reluctant to have that development there. It seems to me, was it 2 or 3 times he came in and had started work or...and oddly enough it's not that unsightly. I mean he's done a pretty credible job kind of like, I guess what I would describe in kind of an old Chanhassen way. A tree put in here. Some brick put in here on occasion and maybe 3 weeks later a fe\ •-itore bricks. What is the long term plan for that? Do yc -hink it's like the previous golf course...putting range that was in here. Until development moves out there and then it gets sold off. Is that what you see there? Krauss: His long term plan or what the city's envisioned? 1 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Farmakes: Either or. I mean I'm familiar with what it is in the master plan. I'm just wondering is this time line wise, how do you see that fitting in with what else is going there. Krauss: Well if you're asking for kind of a shooting from the hip reaction, I think it's pretty clear to all of us that have been involved in what's going on in the city that things are moving — very quickly and it seems like they're always moving quicker. Ladd remembers when we did the Comprehensive Plan in 1990 and we established that as a 1995 study area. I think a lot of us thought that by '95, well we'd take a look at it and see, this is a ways off down the road — and let's change it in the year 2000. Well it now looks like to me and I told Nancy this before the meeting, that I've got every reason to believe that we're going to have to look at bringing that into the MUSA line in the next year to 18 months. As soon as that happens, the value of that land completely changes. You've got land that's probably, well we, for the school site across the street was $23,000.00 an acre. Just put that as a comparable value on this thing and you can see what is likely to happen. Is a golf project like that viable in that — kind of environment? Probably not. I don't know what the County Tax Assessor would treat it as. Farmakes: Are the tax people, does the County treat that as it would a golf course? Krauss: I think so. — Farmakes: Really? So there are some tax advantages to, when it hits MUSA and there is . development there, where does that assessment go then? Krauss: I don't know and golf courses went through some State law changes a few years ago because prior to that is when golf courses were being valued based on...had they been — developed and they were getting taxed to death. So they came up with some different way of assessing them. I assume it applies to that one. Right now he may well have it green acres for all I know. You know most of the land out that way is under some sort of tax abatement program. Mancino: But also I would like to add to what Paul said that the Highway 5 Task Force, we went and looked at that land and have made some recommendations that will come to the Planning Commission and City Council as to how that will be zoned. — Farmakes: Well it is zoned now. I mean when it's rezoned, what it's envisioned as. My point being is that if it's a golf course currently now, or that's the status of it, is that like agricultural property or are they credited against an assessment usually which is the push to for an agricultural operation to sell out property for development. Do you envision in 5 years then that he's going to be putting that up for medium density, high density development? — 2 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Krauss: It all depends on the...in 5 years. Now, whether or not John decides to pursue that of course is totally up to, his decision. If you really want to know the implications of tax laws on that, we could ask Orlin Schafer, the County Assessor. I know that it's not only when property's are rezoned. It's also when utilities are brought to the door and that's not the case yet...but lines would have to be extended across there. I also think that, you know I haven't spoken with him particularly on that but Jay Dolejsi has been very active in following Highway 5 program and he's in the past given me every indication that he would like to be doing something with his property and his is the one that's adjacent and surrounds the golf course. Farmakes: What I don't understand here, if that is his intention, and I'm not going to argue with that, why, has he made any, have you had any discussions with him in regards to that? Why is he improving the property if the time line for a sellout is so short? Olsen: Well if you talk to him, his intent and his love is what's there and he wants to keep- - that. He has never, we've talked to him many times about that and he's never given me an indication that he's just waiting for sewer and water to come there and then to sell it. I think he's going to try to stay. Farmakes: You do? Olsen: ...we were talking about the interim use permit and putting a deadline for it. I mean he was slightly irate that we would try to close down his business. Farmakes: Well that's kind of where I'm going with my question. Isn't that really what we've been asking to see along Highway 5 is open space type occasionally as we work our way out _ to the west? It's almost on one hand that's what we'd like to see there. On the other hand, it seems like we've been rather discouraging to that particular development over the history. Olsen: I don't think we've been discouraging. Farmakes: Just how he's done it? Olsen: Right. ...it's been frustrating because he's always done everything illegally and prior to getting permission and so that's where it becomes frustrating. Krauss: And I know John's always come in here and presented this a- staff is looking at him under a magnifying glass. They're always cracking down on him. The fact of the matter is, we caught him filling a DNR creek, among other problems that have surfaced from time to time. It's been a very problematic thing. It needn't have been but it was. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Olsen: We've always recommended approval of his proposals... Mancino: But the problem is he always starts everything and then comes. Farmakes: Well I thought I'd go over that a little bit for those people who are relatively new. This is sort of a reoccurring playing record. I don't know, 3 or 4 times in the last 3 years. Krauss: More than that. Olsen: More than that. Farmakes: This particular individual seems to be one of those original people who moved out west and don't like people interfering with how they do things. I looked over your recommendation. They make sense to me. I don't have any arguments with what you're saying there. I guess in discussing and looking over a long term period with him, there's a lot of stuff here that just doesn't make any sense, even for long term use of the property. And I guess I'm somewhat befuddled but I realize that that's not a part really, specifically what we're discussing here. But it is a curiosity to me that if the time line is so short, that he would be making these types of improvements. This type of improvement would be a significant _ improvement to that property. Sort of a structural, there really isn't much there structurally than what's being offered. It seems to me he wouldn't be getting his money back out of it. Krauss: Well, I'm not so sure about that Jeff. I mean John is a guy that's lived through a public acquisition of his property before. He owned property downtown that we bought out in the downtown renovation. Farmakes: So you think he's improving it to. Krauss: I don't think he's doing it. I mean I've worked with people that are looking to feed at the public trough here and they come to me with proposed office buildings that will never be built and that kind of. I really don't think John's doing that but I think John's probably — pretty comfortable with the fact that public condemnation or acquisition, you don't do too badly. You're compensated for the value of your property, whatever it happens to be at the time. — Farmakes- Obviously no one's here tonight. The surrounding property owners have been contacted in regards to the lighting and so on. You've received no calls? I have no further questions. 4 — Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Mancino: I have just one question and then I have a few comments on the conditions, which I do agree with. On the main building, on the west end it's like somebody has started construction, new construction but it's not complete. Olsen: That's because we put a stop work order on it. That's one of the expansions. That's the expansion to the building. Mancino: Okay. And is that under here? One of the conditions. I see the accessory building. Olsen: ...well no it's under 14. What he did is he started like a lean to against it... for more storage area. That's what really started this whole process again. We stopped work on that. He has to come in for a building permit but then he also has to come in for expansion to his use. ...we're just stating there that he has to get all the permits approved... Mancino: Okay. That's fine with me. I do agree with the approval of the interim use permit for the expansion also. On some of these conditions, I would like to set up a come due date as it were for them. For instance, on condition 2, which has to do with the lighting. The last sentence reads, the existing lighting structures which are being used for nighttime hours must be removed from the site by May 1, 1994. I would like to add that so before next season starts, that that lighting has been removed. And on condition number 9. All parking areas shall have curb and gutter by May 1, 1994. Again, before the next season opening. On condition number 12. The applicant must submit a copy of the current pumping contract and receipts from previous pumping, and I put my May 1, 1994 also. And the last one is number _ 13. The applicant must submit and receive an application for a fence permit by May 1, 1994 so that prior again to next year's opening season all these conditions are met. And then I would also like to add a condition number 15, that if the items 2, 9, 12 and 13 are not _ complied with by their due date, the City will initiate a revocation of the interim use permit. That we actually do ask for compliance. And that's all I've got. Scott: I'd have to agree with what Nancy said because I was looking at...because I mean I haven't lived through this process but I'm familiar with the property and from reading, it just seems like there isn't anything that we have done either legally or through whatever process to incent this fellow to conform. And I think that's basically what we need to do is to set a timeframe and say here are the things and if it's not done by this date, you're out of business. So I just to ;d that come nt. I have nothing more to add other than that. Ledvina. Those dates :To Ann, what do you think? UMW Olsen: That's fine. We were just saying that that sounded reasonable. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Ledvina: So that's reasonable, okay. Conrad: How about for the pumping though? You know if the pumping is a problem right now, that would be the one that I'd like to do sooner. Ledvina: Going November 1st maybe? Harberts: Of'93? — Ledvina: Yeah. And when we talk about pumping, we're talking about the holding tank, is that correct? — Olsen: Yes. Ledvina: Let's see. For one of your recommendations, number 2. Do we have an ordinance, or I do believe we have an ordinance as it relates to so many foot candles at the property line. Is it appropriate to state that for this? Condition number 2. Well I mean as a quantitative — measurement of that. Olsen: It'd be limited to the, on the building then...what we allow. He would probably read — into it that he can have... Ledvina: Okay, so we're being specific to. — Olsen: This one building. Ledvina: Alright. Condition number 6. Vegetation, topography should be retained. Should be retained in a natural state in the shore impact zone. Minimum shore zone is 25' strip along _ both sides of Bluff Creek. What's the situation now? What's happening there now? Olsen: He hasn't really been, he hasn't touched it lately. Harberts: Is the word should or should it be shall? Olsen: Shall. Ledvina: Okay. Then the next one, the structure shall be screened from view from Bluff — Creek using topography, existing conditions, etc. Does that relate to what's happening with the trail easement there? Is that why we want that? 6 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Olsen: Actually those two conditions were recommended by the DNR...district, shoreland district. That's what they typically do now. Ledvina: So from Bluff Creek but that's not like you've got boats or whatever in there. So the DNR is recommending that just as a standard course? Olsen: Standard... — Ledvina: Okay, but does that make any sense? Olsen: ...I don't know. I think I'd rather have...To be honest, they're all about 25' distance... Farmakes: Aren't they actually screened? Isn't there a rise that comes up and then goes down... Ledvina: Bluff Creek is what, 30 feet below the elevation there? Olsen: I wouldn't say 30 feet but...it's not real visible. Ledvina: And I was reading on number 9. All parking areas shall have curb and gutter. I was reading somewhere in the old City Council Minutes where curb and gutter is not specifically required by ordinance there. Olsen: ...commercial use, it is. Ledvina: Okay, so it is required by ordinance, okay. Olsen: Technically yes. Ledvina: And then number 10. I guess I understand what you're saying here but I'm just wondering if we shouldn't make this language a little more explicit now and I was going to ask Brian if he was going to be here but I guess we have the condition here that it shall be valid until these 3 things but I'd like to add that if any of these conditions occurs, the interim use permit becomes invalid so there's no ambiguity there. I think you can read into the...but okay, that's what we were discussing with Nancy. But this relates to the MUSA line. Even if he does comply with those other, fuses if you will for the submittal of that other information, these other 3 conditions I think I'd like to see a lith more specific. Conrad: But Man that doesn't mc.an you don't want that use there. You just really want to review it at that point in time. Or are you saying you don't want that use there when one of 7 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 these things happens? Ledvina: Well if you say the interim use permit shall be valid until, if one of those things happens then it becomes invalid, right? Conrad: Then my interpretation would be. Ledvina: That's how I would explicitedly like to say it, if that's what we're saying. Conrad: But aren't we saying it's up for review then? Olsen: No, I think what this condition says is that it would be done...but he always has the right to apply for an extension. Scott: In condition number 10 where it says, shall be valid until the MUSA line is expanded, to the property or what? I mean the MUSA line gets expanded all the time. Olsen: Right. Scott: What's the proper. Krauss: To incorporate the site. Scott: Okay, to incorporate the site. Harberts: Well since we're getting detailed oriented here. Does that mean that the day that — it's expanded? You know when the line is on the map or whoever makes the line official or you know, what's the time line? Is it 30 days from the time someone says the line's expanded? I mean what constitutes the expansion? Is there like a public hearing and then by City Council action or by Met Council action? Krauss: Well, yes to both. It takes a full action of the Planning Commission public hearing to approve a comp plan amendment which is then sent to the Metro Council to review and approve. Only after the Metro Council approves it can the City Council give final approval. Harberts: Okay, so it's based on the final approval given by the City Council. And does that make the permit invalid right then and there or will he have a period of time in which to ask for an extension or what's the process? If this happened July 1st and it's in the middle of the season, you know are we all good guys and say okay, you've got to the end of the season? 8 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Krauss: ...he's got that right. Harberts: So that's the call that's taken then? Olsen: If you want to be technical, yes. As soon as...is approved by the Council. Harberts: So then he needs to get right in here and. Ledvina: He's got to follow the issue. Krauss: Given the way the process goes and the fact that he's a property owner anyway...he'll know about it at least a year in advance. Harberts: Oh okay. Yeah, because of the process that's involved. Okay. Ledvina: Well we are saying then that if any of the conditions, item 10 occurs, the interim. use permit becomes invalid. Okay. Conrad: And that's what you want? Ledvina: Yeah, I think that's reasonable. Conrad: Taking you beyond that. Because, if I were him that would make me feel nervous. What are we looking for though? Ledvina: We're talking about the triggers for the life of this interim use permit. We didn't want to put a date in there. It's just saying that when these things occur, the permit is no longer valid. I think that we've got some, we have ideas that when these things occur, that use is no longer going to be appropriate and that's why we, that's why staff has laid it out this way. Olsen: You have to have a date. You have to have some sort of timeframe. _ Ledvina: If we have a situation where we're going to re-evaluate it, what teeth does that give us? I mean. Ha- ”rtc• ha': - put the haCt- in our court and that's what happens with the permit. When it terrzir.::.. Ledvina: Right. Because then he still has the permit. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 — Mancino: What's very interesting, has John attended any of the Highway 5 Task Force meetings? Krauss: Yeah. I think he was at the one where we put all the separate access boulevards should go through his property...lanes from Highway 5. Mancino: And he knows that it's going on? Okay, good. Conrad: Matt, anything else? Diane, Harberts: Well I think some comments by Jeff earlier about the open space certainly has some merit. I guess that's my comments. I would certainly prefer to see some open space along Highway 5 myself. I guess what really concerns me is there's a process set out here that the city uses to in a sense help manage the growth and development and character of the _ community. It's not being followed, and we're not doing anything about it except okay maybe he might give us the money for the Surface Water Management. I mean are these all conditions then that he has to pay the funds before he's going to get this permit and continue — his business? I mean I think he's well aware that he in a sense can't go out on his own and my concern is that, are we able to keep him in check now? We're doing it in the best interest of the community. That's why the ordinance is there. Do you feel that this is going to keep — him in check? I don't have any problem with that use out there but what I have a problem with, is he going to be right back and doing his development himself without the city. I mean where's the teeth here? When do we start getting a little nasty? — Olsen: ...conditional use permit and...his track record isn't. Harberts: It's horrendous. Olsen: ...I don't know if this is any stronger than the other ones... — Harberts: So what happens if he basically doesn't meet these approvals? He doesn't get the permit and he still opens his door. — Olsen: Well if you approve the permit with these conditions, you have essentially what you then do is...revoke it and we have done that before. We have...revoke a conditional use permit and... Harberts: It gives us the better teeth in the sense if we have to close it down? 10 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Olsen: ...you just have to go through the whole revoking process...The Council will have to revoke it and then... Harberts: I don't have any problems with the recommendations...my greatest frustration is, maybe we have to start showing some teeth and maybe this is beginning of the process. I would hate to see every single developer get away with murder here. That's my comments. Conrad: Thanks. On condition number 1 it said golf videos. Are we all comfortable? Is that what is there right now or are they miscellaneous videos? Olsen: Well right now there are like 5 videos... Conrad: But they're not all golf? Olsen: No... Conrad: Do we care? Are we trying to be consistent or overly consistent or is that a big deal? Harberts: I don't think it's a big deal. Olsen: They are showing videos of your swing... Conrad: You didn't see me play but you're right on Jo Ann. It seems like we're being overly picky on that one and I think the building limits what he can do there. It's either do we allow videos. I don't want somebody going out and checking if they're golf videos or not I guess. Harberts: Well where's our ordinance or what are we going to do? ...to everybody else too. Conrad: There's some big issues in here and I'll skip that one for a second. Curb and, going down to 9. Curb and gutter. What he's seeing on this is, Paul you said 2 years. This is 2 years so we're going to force him to put in new curb and gutter for 2 years. Let him stay open for 2 or 3, or whatever he's been open. Now we're coming back saying curb and gutter. So you know, Paul's saying 2 years. This permit is expired. I wouldn't, there's some contradictions here that make me feel uncomfortable. I don't want to close him down and I don't want to build up some costs unless I felt that there was a return. If he had curb and gutter, he's going to do it for years. Yeah, may ,e. So that one has me. I'm really. Harberts: Let me share with you my thought process on that. You know basically again, maybe I'm a little too process oriented at times but we have a city ordinance and it's there. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 — It's been established for a particular purpose. If the owner has a problem with it, then he should be in here. He should be talking to the city. I mean we're doing our role, which is in a sense guiding development according to the guidelines that are there. If he has a concern with it, that is why a public hearing is there. It would have been very easy for him to write a letter and say hey, it's only going to be for 2 years as I see it. I mean get real here folks. You know it may be 2 years but we have...and that's basically what my thought process is. The guidelines that we use. Do we start making business decisions for him? If this is a concern to him, then I would think it would be in his best interest to communicate this to the staff or participate in the public hearing. He also has an opportunity to participate at the — Council level. So that's where my thought process is. Conrad: So if he were here and he said he didn't want to do it? Harberts: I'd listen. 2 years, curb and gutter, it isn't cheap. You're right, we may be paying for it but like I said, Highway 5 may go through in 2 years. The expansion may happen in 2 — years. Who knows. It may not happen for another 5 years so it may be warranted then. But like I said, from a business owner, I think we have to be careful that we don't start managing businesses... Conrad: Curb and gutter necessary for erosion or pollution or for. Olsen: ...how it will be in 5 years...storm sewer and where it will be directed to but it is a condition...and there are some wetlands and the creek right there... — Mancino: Well right now the parking lot has standing water on it in one area when you drive in. Conrad: That's why there's a boat there. Mancino: But he's done wonderful landscaping around the perimeter of the parking lot at this point. Harberts: That way you can't see in. To see if you've got curb and gutter. Conrad: Is everybody comfortable with curb and gutter? It is a pain in the neck for a 2 year — proposition. We can close him down. Ledvina: I'd like to see it out of there. — Mancino: You'd like to see curb and gutter out of there? 12 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Ledvina: Yes. Taking the requirement out of the recommendation. Harberts: I'd debate it with you. Ledvina: I see your point 100%. I think I'm looking at just what Paul had said about these improvements and paying for improvements and if there's a practical consideration of where we are, diverting that surface water flow to a treating system, then I would say yes but all we're doing there with curb and gutter is concentrating the flow into uncontrolled areas so I don't see the value to it. Other than aesthetic or for the sake of the process. I don't know. I take your point very seriously but I think this might be a place, yeah. I see that being very expensive. Conrad: I would see it fitting into, what's the purpose? If there's a real solid purpose. Because it's. Mancino: It's our ordinance. Conrad: It is our ordinance. Mancino: It is our ordinance. Conrad: And I know it's his job to really come in and talk to us about it and it's our engineer's job to tell us why it should stand. Mancino: So I feel it would be unfair to say no and then have somebody else come in and say yes. Conrad: Have we not made exceptions in the past? We have. Olsen: Frank Beddor. Conrad: Yeah. Krauss: ...post a bond...in fact just recently he asked for his money back without installing... Conrad: Didn't we have one out, we had another out in the industrial park. On the other s'' ' that n_ : went in. Olsen: Stockdale. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Conrad: Stockdale, that's it. See they were real incensed that we were going to. Krauss: It is a standard but I guess Jo Ann and I are a little uncomfortable being knee jerk — about it. I mean if we can't explain why engineering feels so strongly about it. I mean if they ask for engineering to reassess their condition in light of the limited duration...legitimate water quality, water volume reasons to do this and if not... — Conrad: That's a good comment. I think we should get out of this thing. We could drag anything out for at least an hour here. There's just no doubt. We can have no one in — attendance and we will still make it an hour long. Ledvina: I'd like to make a motion. — Conrad: Before you do that, just one more question. Contributions for the surface water _ management fund. Are we talking about $10.00? Are we talking about $100,000.00? What are we talking about there? What do we think? Olsen: ...it's more than $10.00 and. Conrad: And less than 100. Thanks Jo Ann. Is this going to be another one of those things — that puts him out of business? Krauss: Well, there is the...city that's not paying. That includes your house and everyone ' — else. Conrad: Okay, good. Any other discussion? Anything else? Is there a motion? — Ledvina: Yes. I would like to move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Interim Use Permit #91-1 to allow the expansion of Swings site in the form of an accessory — building, expansion to an existing building and expansion to the parking area with the following conditions that are identified in the staff report with the following modifications. Condition number 2 shall be modified. The last sentence to read, the existing lighting — structures which are being used for nighttime hours must be removed from the site by May 1, 1994. Modifying condition number 6. Vegetation and topography shall be retained in a natural state in the shore impact zone. Minimum shore zone is a 25' strip along both sides of — Bluff Creek. Modifying number 9. All parking areas shall have curb and gutter by May 1, 1994_ If upon further review the engineering department deems that curb and gutter necessary from a surface water management basis. Number 10 to read. The interim use permit shall remain valid until, (1) the MUSA line is expanded to incorporate the site, (2) construction of a frontage road across the property occurs, and (3) the property is rezoned. If any of these 14 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 conditions occurs, the interim use permit becomes invalid. Number 12 to read, modification to the first sentence in that condition. The applicant must submit a copy of the current holding tank pumping contract and receipts from the previous pumping by November 1, 1993. Number 13 to modify the last sentence of that condition to read. Alternatively, the fence must be removed by May 1, 1994. And to add an additional condition number 15 to read. If conditions number 2, 9, 12 and 13 are not complied with, the City will begin the revocation process for the interim use permit. Mancino: Second. Conrad: Any discussion? _ Mancino: I just have a friendly amendment. On number 13. That first sentence I'd like it to read, the applicant must submit and receive an application for a fence permit. Ledvina: I'm sorry. Mancino: The applicant must submit and receive an application for a fence permit. Ledvina: And receive a permit for the fence. Mancino: Yeah, and receive a permit, that's what I mean. Ledvina: Okay. That's fine. I can live with that. Mancino: And on 15. I would like it to read that if any one of the items. Not all of them but if any one of them are not complied with. Ledvina: Agreed. Conrad: And Matt, you kept golf videos in number 1? Ledvina: Yes. I think that's what he's proposed so it's reasonable to identify that as a condition. Specifically to what he's proposed. That's not arbitrary. Conrad: Any other discussions? 15 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of — Interim Use Permit #91-1 to allow the expansion of Swings site in the form of an accessory building, expansion to an existing building and expansion to the pricing area with the following conditions: — 1. The accessory building cannot exceed 800 square feet, must be painted earth tones and can only be used for golf videos in conjunction with golf lessons. No batting cages are permitted on the site. 2. Lighting may be located only on the buildings for security. In no case shall any lights be directed on adjacent properties or glare onto abutting road right-of-ways. No lighting shall be permitted to extend the hours of operation beyond sunset. Existing lighting structures which are being used for nighttime hours must be removed from the — site by May 1, 1994. 3. The hours of operation shall be from sunrise to sunset. 4. The applicant shall comply and receive any permits required by the Watershed _ District, DNR, and any other legal jurisdictions as it relates to utilization of the site. 5. No storm water may be routed directly into Bluff Creek. A storm water sedimentation — treatment basin must be included in the storm water management plan. 6. Vegetation and topography shall be retained in a natural state in the shore impact — zone. Minimum shore zone is a 25' strip along both sides of Bluff Creek. 7. The structures shall be screened from view from Bluff Creek using topography, — existing vegetation, color, and other means approved by the city. 8. Appropriate erosion control measures shall be taken during construction of the site. — 9. All parking areas shall have curb and gutter by May 1, 1994. If upon further review the engineering department deems that curb and gutter necessary from a surface water — management basis. 10. The interim use permit shall remain valid until, (1) the MUSA line is expanded to — incorporate the site, (2) construction of a frontage road across the property occurs, aria (3+ the property is rezoned. If any of these conditions occurs, the interim use permit becomes invalid. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 11. The applicant shall pay a cash contribution into the City's Surface Water Management Fund for downstream water quality improvements if the on-site storm water treatment facilities fail to meet the city's water quality standards (NURP). The city's storm water consultant, Bonestroo, will calculate the contribution based on the site plan. 12. The applicant must submit a copy of the current holding tank pumping contract and receipts from the previous pumping by November 1, 1993. A pumping contract must be submitted annually to the Inspections Division. Pumping receipts must be submitted when tanks are pumped and when the annual pumping contract is submitted. 13. The applicant must submit an application and receive a permit for a fence. The fence must be shown on a registered survey and all property corners located by a surveyor at final inspection. Alternatively, the fence must be removed by May 1, 1994. 14. Permit applications are required for additions and/or buildings approved for construction. The applicant should contact the Inspections Division for building permit application details before beginning or continuing any construction. 15. If conditions number 2, 9, 12 and 13 are not complied with, the City will begin the revocation process for the interim use permit. All voted in favor and the motion canied unanimously. Conrad: This items going to go to the City Council when? Olsen: It will probably go the 13th. Conrad: And then what will we do? Is it your standard procedure Jo Ann to send him a copy of our motion? Yeah, okay. And would you strongly encourage him to attend the City Council meeting. Good, thank you. Harberts: And would you do this before your last day? Olsen: Yeah. Harberts: You're pulling your last official act. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 PUBLIC HEARING: _ PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 2, BLOCK I, OUTLOT C AND OUTLOT D. BLOOMBERG ADDITION INTO 3 LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD AND LOCATED SOUTH OF WEST 78TH STREET, EAST OF MARKET BOULEVARD AND WEST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REOUESTING SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A HOTEL EXPANSION AND RESTAURANT BETWEEN THE COUNTRY SUITES HOTEL AND FRONTIER BUILDING, LOTUS REALTY SERVICES AND BLOOMBERG — COMPANIES, INC. Public Present: Name Address Brad Johnson Lotus Realty Truman "Tim" Howell Architect for Applicant John Rice Attorney for Applicant — Kevin Norby Landscape Architect for Applicant Herb Bloomberg Bloomberg Companies Vemelle Clayton Lotus Realty — Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chair Conrad called the public hearing to order. — Brad Johnson: Mr. Chairman, Planning Commission members. Brad Johnson...Our plan this evening is to make a review of where we're at. We're going to go through it part by part. It's -' kind of fun with the architect here to discuss the site plan, landscaping and then any questions ...plat itself which John Rice will address. Kevin Norby, who is our landscape architect will address the landscaping issues that exist and try to tie that into your current ordinance that you're considering after we're done here. As much as we can, as we said we would do... And then Tim Howell will address the basic...site plan. He's the architect for the project. We tried to bring quite a few visuals so you can kind of get kind of a picture of how this all will look when it's all done. ...tougher to deal with issues that are already there... As far as the staff report, our position so far is, and that's why we're going along with the parking study, that there is currently plenty of parking front of the buildings...Frontier and the hotel but you can't see it until you do a complete integrated study. We've done two other studies like this for this project and other projects that we've had and we've always had...so we'll see. As far as the plat, and some of the questions the building inspector has raised, we just have to assume that whatever we're going to do, we'll meet those standards. We're not prepared to agree however with everything today because we did buy this from the city and so they are part of, not the Planning Commission but the City. So we have to determine who has the 18 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 expense of making some of the major changes that may have to be made to the building they sold us. And finally on the signage, we will be asking later on for basically the standard signage plan that is available in the CBD district and we'll... So Tim, do you want to start off? Truman Howell: I'm Truman Howell...architect. Several years ago we prepared the and did the construction development design of a resident motel as you see it today. At that time there was some discussion of expansion. Future expansion and obviously...tying the restaurant and Frontier building. So as Kate indicated, one of the attempts was to try to tie these things together for that... However, as you can see there's obviously there's a large room in here. We've used the same elements in the construction of the actual new portion. I don't know if this is. Mancino: Can you bring that up? Truman Howell: When these ink drawings are blown up, by the way, the colors get a little garrished so believe me it's not going to be this garrish color. Farmakes: Excuse me. It would be helpful if you'd bring it in front of the podium so... _ Truman Howell: This is the new construction of the 36 room motel expansion attached to the existing motel with a colonnade...and would allow actually interior walking directly into what is now the Animal Fair building, which you'd have a new front put on it so the two would be connected. There would be an outside dining area adjacent to the restaurant. Under the, I think this is a large tree that we've all seen in the front yard of the Animal Fair building. The reason behind this clone in here was actually suggested by the city. That we break that off so the thing...and we have no problem with leaving that open, either partially or totally. But that was...trying to tie this thing together we do have, we didn't want to, not want to enclose the back of it because then all of a sudden you've got more retail space and what have you. It's merely protection coverage for the dock area. Then the Frontier building, as it exists now, extending down the mansard roof. Providing a walkway to the back. And using the...of the arches here, pulling the glass wall back so that it no longer is at the front of the building but it moves back so there is a colonnade under that as well. I haven't seen these photos which, so these are all new to me. However I have seen this one and what this is. Anyway, this is an attempt to, in this profession we call the hole inbetween. We're trying, we're filling the hole so to speak and this was then an attempt at having to see vs.-hat woula be filled in there. What it would look like. There's a considerable difference. I wink gives a better feel for the connection than perhaps the other drawing. This would be the new entryway for the restaurant, i.e. Animal Fair building. This would be the connection here. These obviously would be the same type of windows, dormers, etc, etc. Another building...was that taken 19 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 from the air? Krauss: It's taken from a hot air balloon. Truman Howell: Hot air balloon? That is very beautiful photo. Anyway, from the rear, there was a question of what is it going to look like from down the street by Market, or Highway 5. And this is basically the way it looks now and hopefully how that would be — affected. Mancino: So you'll still see the old Frontier building from Highway 5 to the east of where — we're looking? Truman Howell: In here? — Mancino: Yeah. Truman Howell: Well the back of it would not be covered. Yeah, we're not building anything on top of that part. Actually I took some photos, additional ones that. Aanenson: That's why... Truman Howell: Oh, okay. Fine. Well from the ground view, this is what you actually see. — You see the bowling alley and the big, these are from Highway 5. Ledvina: Could you pass the bird's eye view? — Truman Howell: Sure. Then I think the question has arisen as to the, I'm sure it's in your packet. Whether or not a truck can get back into that area and turn out of there. This lane that we see in here is actually 27 feet. This one is 26 feet and I think the ordinance... Krauss: ...it's 26. Aanenson: We're talking about a delivery truck. Truman Howell: I understand. We're not talking about a semi because we're talking about a step up vehicle that in fact does most of the delivery of goods and foods, that kind of thing to _ restaurants. I've been...restaurants for 15 years and they don't bring semi's in. They do their turning of the buildings so they do bring step trucks and you would have to. Aanenson: They wouldn't all be semi's but they wouldn't all be steps. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Scott: Well it's like Sysco. I don't think I've seen Sysco make a step truck delivery and they seem to deliver to most restaurants in town. Truman Howell: Sysco? Yeah, they have large trucks for over the road deliveries. From here to Milwaukee but when they're delivering to locally, they're broken down into smaller units. This is the way it's done, I don't know maybe Perkins doesn't deal with them. I don't know. They bring in a smaller truck but if you're talking about bringing a semi into here and turning, I would grant you that that's probably going to be a problem. But standard driveways in most communities is 24 feet so I think we've got adequate space for bringing in a truck and turning it. As a matter of fact, we've got more length here than most areas do. We've got actually two lanes of parking that will allow us to bring in the truck, turn it back and then bring it out. And it's not right at this space either. It's several feet back. This width is 20 feet. We can certainly widen that. We can certainly reduce the size of these. Aanenson: That was the other question about the dumpster location and... Truman Howell: Oh the dumpster, it's behind the dock. We can actually go around behind the building and pick out a dumpster and the most logical place for it to be back in the back side of the dock. Back of the building which serves as a screen. That would not be a major problem. Harberts: You feel that with the, you can get a big truck in there with parking all around it? Truman Howell: I'm just saying that it's done every day like this. I would guess that it would make do here. You've seen, certainly you've seen the restaurants around this part of the country. In your own town here. How big is the space for the Riveria is taken care of. How big is the space where...McDonald's. They have to have...and this for example, this width is 20 feet wide. This is approximately, that's about 40 feet. This is only 6 feet and it's about 250 some feet deep. If you would like I could do some overlays of a truck. Aanenson: That's what the condition was to put a template on there... Truman Howell: I'll be happy to do that. The other issues...Basically the expansion. The connection into the restaurant. The wall we're talking about, I'm proposing a stairway on the Frontier, ; iock ng c view of the dot.i.. The existing Fror.i!er build:-_. understanding _ the present sign ordinance is that we're allowed on each building 15° area of the front of the building and that each tenant can have one sign no greater than 64 square feet. I also understand that a pylon sign is allowed for each piece of property and this is what we assume that we'll be dealing with. We don't plan to violate any of those. We did 21 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 indicate in our submission that the type of sign we're looking at is the sign that you see on — Team Sports, Sporting Goods front. And that would be, and I can identify for you a band of that across all the buildings if you would like. Farmakes: Are we to consider these three separate businesses then? Truman Howell: Well they're certainly three separate plots. — Farmakes: Are these 3 separate businesses? Truman Howell: Yeah. Farmakes: So this isn't an addition to an existing operation? Truman Howell: I'm talking about here, here and here. — Farmakes: That wasn't my question. My question is, is of the development that we're reviewing in these plans, this is an addition to the Country Suites? — Truman Howell: Yes. Farmakes: Is the restaurant to be considered a separate business? Truman Howell: Yeah. It's on a separate piece of property. Okay, in terms of where are you — going I guess. Maybe I'm not understanding. Farmakes: I'm asking the question. If I'm looking at a Holiday Inn, they may have several — buildings attached with a runway. One of them may have a restaurant in it. Truman Howell: This is a separate operation. — Farmakes: Do we consider them a separate operation under separate ownership? Truman Howell: Yes. Farmakes: So they're renting tenants? — Mancino: But it's only two because the expansion is expansion of the existing motel. Truman Howell: Exactly. And then this is separate. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Farmakes: So you're proposing that this is in fact three separate businesses? Or two separate businesses. Truman Howell: Three separate owners. Farmakes: Three separate owners? Brad Johnson: Each building is a multi-purpose building. Farmakes: So the signs that you're putting up then will be three separate signs? Three different signs? Truman Howell: I didn't say that. I said I think that's what the Code allows us to do. _ Farmakes: I'll let staff sort that out and that's ambiguous I think ansae to a pretty specific question but. _ Truman Howell: Are there, my understanding. There are three separate businesses here. There is a motel, there's a restaurant and there's a retail operation. I'm not trying to be evasive. That's what my understanding is. Farmakes: No, I'm even leaving the retail section out of that. In the expansion, we're talking about signage. We're talking currently about the three buildings that we're looking at. One is the existing. Two are being proposed to be added onto that. Correct? Truman Howell: Okay, you're reading these as one building. Farmakes: No, I'm not saying they're one building. That's my question. Are they three separate businesses or are they two separate businesses, disregarding the retail across the way. Truman Howell: Yes. Yes, the restaurant is separate from the motel. And the motel expansion is a part of this operation. Farmakes: Is a part of that operation. Okay. So we're looking at sign, the sign packages you talked about also include the retail section? Truman Howell: Yes. Tnat`s one I th.:,k is very important for me to address that that be taken care of. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Farmakes: The confusion of what I was asking was when you're talking about the proposed buildings that we're looking at here with whether or not the addition, in terms of signage is considered a separate building. — Truman Howell: No, but it would be part of this business. Brad Johnson: Jeff, if I could... under your guidelines, or the ordinances that we operate under in the downtown CBD district, we're allowed one sign per business. Is that correct? Wall sign. We're allowed one pylon per lot. — Farmakes: I believe that it's dependent on frontage, isn't it? Brad Johnson: No. And the wall signs are 15%. The standard wall signs. The wall signs that we're allowed on a wall, all the buildings we've built so far in the city have the same standard. 15% of the front of the building can be used for signage. But each tenant, and this — is important to remember, can only have one sign and the maximum size of that sign is 64 square feet. So that limits the total number of signs you're having. I guess if you were to look at the hotel as a tenant in two of these locations, you could say the hotel can only have — one sign. But it turns out that in the hotel addition, there's also retail. On the first floor. And then therefore, the businesses that are in there have a right to a sign based on your ordinances. This is not a PUD. It's the downtown CBD where we would prefer to go strictly by your ordinances like we did at Town Square. Mancino: Kate, would this be in compliance with the new ordinance that's coming through? Aanenson: What they're proposing or what... — Mancino: What they're proposing. What they're using as a guideline. Aanenson: The new sign ordinance does not allow pylon... Mancino: Just monument. No pylon sign. Okay. — Farmakes: Did I overlook the retail on the 36 unit expansion? Is that in our packet? Truman Howell: On the first floor there's two shops... Mancino: It shows it on my drawings. — Truman Howell: There's a beauty shop and gift shop. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Conrad: Okay, anything else? Does the restaurant have a name? Truman Howell: No, I don't think it does yet. Conrad: Brand name or? Brad Johnson: No. Conrad: Anything else? Brad Johnson: I'd prefer...then I'd like to add some comments about the staff report. Farmakes: So on our plans on page 2 I think it is. Two areas that are marked as shop should be retail, right? Aanenson: I was unclear on that. Going on what they told me before, that there would be two shops, I was unclear... Farmakes: Yeah I looked at it and I thought it might have been maintenance or something. Aanenson: I thought it was something where they were going to have...I had no idea it would be like a beauty shop. Conrad: Okay. It is a public hearing. Any other comments on the proposal? Okay. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Brad Johnson: John Rice would just like to add a little comment now on the plat itself. Because you're ultimately doing a plat as part of this proposal. Conrad: Okay. Brad Johnson: And he'll give you some background information. And then Kevin will address the site plan, some modifications that we will be doing to that plan you received. John Rice: Hi. My name's John Rice. I'm the attorney for Bloomberg. I don't want to turn this into more !I-An you ever wanted to kno\ 3l)out Chanhassen hall. I'll part y w^='"er or nL ;a h:. "My sJ:_ fc questi He-: did a color. in drawir_ which I think he did, of the Chanhassen Mall and the Animal Fair buildings and this is before the major part of the Kin building was, before that's right here. And the hotel then that was built right in here. And at the time that we did the Bloomberg Addition plat, we did the parking lot and 25 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 — we put separate driveways and here's that open space that's now in there which is...about right here. This orange building which has been removed. And that was included in the Animal Fair portion of Lot 2. The part that was not required for the hotel. Now we're taking that — part for the hotel and drawing a line with just a slight jog up to the street. Then in the Animal Fair building here, over here on the corner, that will, the new restaurant will require space down into the pink building here which at least Herb and I call the city building. Just — by the fact that Bloomberg owns it but that's the large building and we were there the other day with the surveyor and Herb was looking at it and the extension down, partly in response _ to taking care of the problem with the wall. That we can't have a wall that meets the building code where you are right on the lot line. There is a set of columns across, running from east to west which would fit very well and would be a good place to put the wall that would be _ the dividing line between the new restaurant addition, this way and the old city buildings down to the south. And obviously that wall to be built would have to comply with the code requirements and would provide a good clean break as far as a new lot line for the south line of the restaurant. And that's really about it unless somebody had some questions I might be able to answer. Brad Johnson: Kevin. Kevin has addressed the site plan that you see that Tim gave us. Remember one of our jobs a couple of weeks ago was see what we could do about applying the new ordinance. Kevin. — Kevin Norby: My name is Kevin Norby. I'm with Norby and Associates, landscape architects. I think what we want to do is just make it clear that we're working with staff and — talked with Paul and attended the Tree Board meeting the other night pertaining to the new ordinance. I think Nancy's probably the only one of you that have seen the new landscape plan. We're just making some changes on the site plan that we're hopefully trying to meet the new ordinance, new landscape ordinance. Currently I just saw the report tonight and some of the recommendations and concerns there but we are falling short of the landscape requirements. I think in talking to Paul and Kate, I'm not sure that the new ordinance is — what's going to be, we're going to be held to. I think the old ordinance, maybe because of the property, retrofit. So I don't know, maybe Paul has something to say about that but we have added some more landscape islands and some more trees and we're still working based on the number of parking stalls to try to make this all meet your requirements. I don't know if anybody's... Mancino: Well is what we have here. Kevin Norby: Well the plan that I had at the Tree Board meeting, it's different than that...and — moving around a little bit and I'm not sure that even that is correct just based on information we got as far as the parking counts and that sort of thing. So I guess what I'm saying, we're 26 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 going to continue to work through and try to meet the ordinance and I think it's up in the air right now as to what you're going to require of us. Krauss: Kevin and I have talked about it. I think we're developing a pretty good parking lot landscaping ordinance. It's sort of difficult to throw that at a site that was developed 25 years ago and make it fit. When these things have occurred in the past, we've always taken the position of our intent is not to totally put a stop on any development from happening but to as realistically as possible approach the current standard and work out the issues. And I think Kevin's site plan is an attempt in that direction. I mean theoretically if were to throw the current ordinance, which... Mancino: 8%. Krauss: Yeah, they'd probably have to knock off 20 rooms of the hotel to make it a yard area because there's no way else for it to comply. Mancino: How close are we going to get? Kevin Norby: The plan that you saw the other night, ...require 5%. We're currently at about 3%. So I think there's some room there to work but we're not sure we've resolved all the parking issues either. Mancino: What's across the street in Town Square? Is that 5%? Aanenson: Market Square? Mancino: No, the one directly across the street. Krauss: I've got to believe... I mean that 5% has been a standard for a long time. Kevin Norby: I have a copy that I can lay in front of you if you want to look. I'm not sure that that's even the most current, I mean when you get into what we've got but I'm not sure this parking is accurate. Brad Johnson: Thanks Kevin. I'll just try to address some of these and then...somewhat =icu't tc change a lot of things quickly... fa. a:, the landscaping is concerned, -10 parking lot was designed by the city and was paid fc. `'y the cix`. At the time...at that particular time. Maybe when we do the parking lot presentation Fred, we can talk a little bit about...periodically run into this kind of problem. Because you basically have a lot of buildings that are already in town and they are where they are and simultaneously we're trying 27 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 and many of them were developed as a lumber yard or as a...and they were not developed as a retail, specifically retail facing toward 78th Street. And when we came in as a redeveloper . years ago, it's been a long range goal to try to get the whole city facing 78th Street...and as we go through the process of doing that...we're not planning something new, we're planning something old. We'll work with the site plan as much as we can and also remember that the only thing that we're really changing doing is the newest addition is strictly just the hotel — addition. We're remodeling...in addition to that... As far as the parking is concerned, we agree with the staff that Fred should study this and figure out what the uses are and some technicalities do exist in that the hotel rooms themselves, or the meeting rooms and the — restaurant are under a lease to the hotel. And they will be run by the hotel and for the use of the hotel, not the restaurant. So the restaurant will cater to the hotel guests and I think we _ commented...Those are meeting rooms for the hotel... We already do have meeting rooms in the hotel which we'll no longer use and they will be redone back to meeting, or back to hotel rooms, I think. That's part of the plan. Right now two hotel rooms have been turned into _ meeting rooms...corner and they're basically suites that were redesignated as a meeting room. So it's very important as far as the parking plan, from out point of view, for you to realize that these are two meeting rooms in the hotel itself, are not being used by the restaurant. And the parking therefore, at least a share of it, 50% or more, will be hotel guests that are already accounted for in our parking plan. Now we're doing a lot of this at the request of the city. The city, not the City Council or this, but the people in the community have wanted meeting — rooms. And we've had a number of requests from the industrial section who would like to use our hotel but we can't use the hotel because you have no meeting rooms like we'd like to have. Secondly, we'd like to use the hotel but you can't cater lunch and these are things that — we've been going through. And so what you see before you is again, not a perfect configuration because we're retrofitting an area and trying to fill with that. As far as signage is concerned, I always concern myself about signage. I do not believe we've had a public — hearing on any new ordinance. I do not believe that ordinance has been presented to the Chamber of Commerce. I do not believe, I just got a copy of it recently and it has had no public comment other than the meetings that the community has so I don't think it's fair at this time to use that particular ordinance in advance of this approval, specifically because it has not been even presented to the business community as a whole. Correct? Scott: No. Brad Johnson: And in addition to that, so what we're saying is we'd like to apply what we've used in the downtown historically and modify that probably a little bit like we've done in the past We've simply said, each tenant gets one sign for each business. That sign can be as big as 64 square feet if it's okay, and it has to do with how the building's laid out and that there — is a pylon sign for each lot. So technically this particular project qualifies for a minimum of 2 pylon signs and a potential of 3. Because if you look at the hotel as an addition to, you 28 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 know the hotel use is just an addition and they've already got a pylon sign and they probably wouldn't want. They probably would want another pylon sign but that maybe something pushing a little too far. We do have businesses that are going to go into the lower level of the hotel addition. Two small ones. One is the hair salon. It's already in town and it's asked to move over there. And then we have a coffee shop potentially that would also be in there. Just a quick in and out like a donut shop or something that would ancillary to that site. The hotel, as we say doesn't have a name. We have not shown you on the plan where the sign would be and as Tim had said, we'd probably come back with a sign plan designating what you would call... That building may be a restaurant for a while. Maybe it's not a restaurant... but once we commit to a sign plan, that goes with the...in the downtown area so we have to be, it's very critical to the business people in this community that people can find them. Two main vehicles for advertising in this community, and...is their sign and the Villager. That's their primary sources of getting people from our community to some place. So one, we have to advertise for it and people have to be able to find it. And if you don't have a sign, it doesn't work. So that would be our sign proposal...and have sort of a schematic of what we can see that to be and then we'll deal with the staff...and decide not to apply your own ordinances, that's your own business. We have to ask for variances, I think you do too. As far as the site plan itself is concerned, there were a couple of questions. I think in general we = have tried to, in absence of Fred's study, anticipate getting as much parking out here in front as possible. And I think let's just hold off the parking discussion until we see the various mixes of how parking looks. I suggest you drive by the Frontier Building tonight on the way home and see how many cars are parked out in front, which is sort of a peak restaurant time. And I suggest you come by the hotel around 2:00 and see how many cars are parking in the hotel parking lot during that time. There's just a certain swing. I mean it has sort of a... restaurants with hotels. There's a noon time...that time. But other issues that have come up is that, and these are things that as the...I wasn't sure I agreed to but we have closed this entrance here because it does get confusing and it also takes up a lot of parking. And with the new light going in over here, it was our feeling that we should direct the people there. Now I'm a resident of Chanhassen but I also work here and I know that certain things work and certain things don't work. For example, I was opposed to the curb in,you know where the curb is out here and the clock tower is, because I live here. I said that will never work. You need a straight road. It didn't go that way. Okay. And the engineers told me it couldn't but now some people have come back and said, well why is it the way it is. It should be a straight road where all the traffic comes down 78th. Well what's happening is that now that less and less traffic is using 78th and more are using Galpin, they said well that's going to be _ years away. Well we're trying to get to the point that that road is being used but they iitera. 'ugh: . e 78th to make l' work and with the new =top lights over, it may be that 76.i, is that vriay. But the point being is, currently if you look at Town Square. We _ through all these types of plans, there is no stacking requirement in a situation like that. Town Square has 3 restaurants and no stacking requirement for traffic to back up here. The 29 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 bowling alley and all that over here doesn't have it. All of the Dinner Theater, which has hoards of people coming out of there at a certain time of the day, and look. There are no stacking lanes towards the front. The point being is that when I leave this place today, I don't like, I park my car right here. I don't like to have to jog and go this way. Okay. It just doesn't work. Secondly, if this whole lane requires every car that comes in here to jog back _ up against the building, we're going to have a tremendous amount of traffic here and very little on that road. Thirdly, and Fred can substantiate this, the total amount of traffic into a restaurant. The restaurant, has anybody in the restaurant business? Okay, if you had one turn of every chair every hour, would you consider to be pretty good? In a sitdown restaurant situation. Scott: Well you'd like to do better than that. That's how long it takes somebody to eat generally speaking so. Brad Johnson: About an hour, okay. So and your code said they anticipate that each car that comes will have 2 people. That seems to be common. You know some come with 1 and some come with 4. So a restaurant that's very successful will generate on the average, 1 car -- per minute. And I'd welcome you to go look at the Riveria during it's peak time and watch how many cars come and go. It's not a lot of cars. A Hardee's generates 1 car every 30 seconds to a minute. There's not a lot of cars. Very successful McDonald's, about the same. Okay. So that's not a lot of traffic. Look at your clock and the next car that will come in and out of there. In the hotel side, which is over here, it has, or will have 120 rooms. Those rooms will fill between the hours of 4:00 in the afternoon to 8:00. So if everybody was coming and going a couple of times, the hotel will generate about 1 car every 2 minutes. So you really don't have what you call a lot of traffic generators there. You have a lot of them parked but my only...I think that can remain open. I don't think Paul we've had any problem whatsoever at the Town Square one and that's how that's lined up and I don't think we've had. Aanenson: But you also have more curb cut openings into West 78th Street. You have a lot of traffic funneling into one curb cut. Brad Johnson: But you're saying a lot of traffic. Lots of traffic. Aanenson: I talking about access points onto West 78th Street. Brad Johnson: Town Square? Aanenson: Are you talking about Market Square or Town Square? 30 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Brad Johnson: Town Square. Town Square is identical to what I'm suggesting and it's got 3 restaurants. Krauss: Town Square? Brad Johnson: Yeah, it's got the Riveria, parking lot. It's got Chin's. It's got the video store and it's got Little Ceasars. If you look at all that. '- Aanenson: They also have more access... Brad Johnson: Two. Krauss: And the... Brad Johnson: I don't know how you expect me to handle it. I don't think there's any traffic...but I really think you're going to create a tremendous problem here. I don't have the _ money to hire the engineers to prove you wrong or right, okay. But I don't think we've got a problem. I think we get carried away with stacking and I think it just screws up parking lots personally. And if we do have, maybe that's the thing but I think that's an issue. I don't want to have to hire an expert but maybe Fred you could address the question as far as traffic in and out of your study, I don't know. But there's a way of saying yes, if we really need stacking. I think it's a problem because I'm there. All you're really going to do is drive everybody over to here and it's just not going to work. It hasn't shown up yet because we haven't closed this off. Krauss: I think it's real hard to deal with this out of context and maybe it is something that Fred can touch on. You know you're being asked to base your hypothetical decision on the fact that the problem doesn't exist today and there's nobody there in the first place. We're putting a stop light at that intersection. It's going to back people up and that's what stop lights are intended to do. They're going to back into the property. You're not going to be able to just spin out whenever there's a break in the traffic, which is the case now. There will be considerably greater levels of traffic than there are right now. Certainly, if nothing else it's going to be a 180 degree... Brad Johnson: My point is, I think we're creating a problem in the loss of this user friendly, that's all. I don't think the stacking...Market Square because they have over stack lanes and people are driving through them but that's my opinion... But I think that's an issue and I don't want to __ it a because I think it's a poorly designed parking lot at that point...and 1 do not want to have to hue BRW or somebody but maybe Fred can just say, do a whole study at this time. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Conrad: For the same price Fred. Brad Johnson: Fred knows this parking lot probably better than anyone. In fact you may have... Conrad: I tell you, if anybody knows it Fred, you're going to help us. You don't even have to do a study. You could tell us right now but we'll hold off. Brad Johnson: As far as Highway 5. Somebody asked a question about Highway 5. If you take a look at, and I've used this with the HRA. If you drive down Highway 5 now and look at downtown Chanhassen, the Dinner Theater appears to have a peaked roof in the evening — because you look right through the top and you're looking at the top of our two other buildings over there. I mean just drive down there, the whole line of it's changed over the years as we developed buildings in that area. So I don't know, has anybody done that? Drive over there tonight and you'll see. It appears that downtown Chanhassen now, it's sort of a flat roof...appears to have peaked roofs but you're really looking at the professional building and Heritage. It just looks a lot nicer and what we're suggesting here, as we fill in another void — over there with that, it will take us a while to get around to the front or back, or whatever you want to call the Frontier Building, but I think we'll again help the visibility from that. We're not trying to do anything with the back of the Frontier Building...but the question — comes up, I think you'll see a lot nicer effect. As far as, there's a number of things we're going to have to go back to staff this week with. You know Nancy came and visited yesterday. She said, why are you going to be here? We're just looking for other objections or concerns and then we'll go back and work it out over the next few weeks but I just wanted to go over that right now... Agree with items 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9. Mancino: You said you agreed? Conrad: With those, yeah. Mancino: Okay, 1. — Brad Johnson: 1, 3, 6, 7, 9. We have some questions about dedicating additional right-of- way at this time to the city because we don't know what it means to us. It's a new wrinkle. — ...again we're going to need it in the year 2000, well. Take it in the year 2000. We're not really, we don't really feel one way or the other about the 5 parking stalls in the service entry area. We said we know we need parking and until we know where we stand on parking, — somebody says you can't build a building, you've got to tear down another building to get 5 parking spots, there's a lot cheaper place for us to get 5 parking spots. We're not...Nancy suggested maybe part of it should be landscaped. We don't care. We just need, we know we — 32 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 need a certain amount of parking. As far as the sign, I gave you my opinion on the sign which we don't agree...and we don't think that's the current ordinance and probably isn't in good faith because the city put it there. They required us to move it there when they did up the parking lot. Now these are things that have gone on in the past. We made to relocate it to that location. So that's the way it works. We said we'll even improve the...we never used it. That kind of thing. Parking study we've agreed to. The right-of-way, we had a question and that's kind of where we're at. I think the one that we anticipate that we're going to have to talk with the staff with is parking, which we've got to wait for Fred. I don't know if we can talk to staff about the sign plan. You guys will have to read the ordinance because they have their opinion and we have our's. Conrad: And the next time you're going to bring in a schematic for us? I think that's real important. Brad Johnson: We've done enough sign plans for buildings here. We know it takes a while to get through this because we all understand signs but we use Town Square and Market • Square as an example of how the sign will go. In all those cases we have set up sign bands and we've agreed on various height stipulations... I guess our only real argument here may be how many pylon signs we have. I think we probably want it to be 40 feet high so we can see it from the highway. They want to have it at the road but that's what we're going to have to discuss. We'd like more traffic off Highway 5...for the retailers, okay. That's where we are and I don't know if, we'd like to have some input from you on architecture and other things that... Conrad: We'll give you some comments. Still public hearing. Any other comments? Anything else? Is there a motion to close the hearing? Farmakes moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carded. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: More than likely we're tabling this and so it's coming back. So as Brad just concluded, I don't know if it's the time to drill. It's a time to give them our opinions so then they know when they're coming back what they're fighting or what they're not fighting. Or issues that you want clarified so I really don't think now is the time that you want to make some detailed comments other than talking to the developers about where, certain of the conditions in here or anything else. But kind of in a little bit more general terms. Maybe. — Diane. Harberts: Oh thank you. Kate, in your report you talked about the reluctancy to provide the cross parking agreement. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Aanenson: Without doing a parking study...and we need to make sure that that...enough parking for those uses without... Krauss: The Frontier Building's under different ownership, and John Rice and I have discussed this for years and it's one of the most complex, convoluted pieces of ownership you'll ever see. But there are different ownership situations and somebody who's going to the restaurant or owns the restaurant for the hotel has no right to send people over to the Frontier building. At some point in time it's very clear that it's going to be owned by somebody else _ who's going to say it's my private property. Get off. The only way to protect that is to have a permanent cross access easement. If in fact we conclude that there's sufficient parking over there, but that that cross parking isn't going to firmly guarantees the right...and Frontier — building customers to cross over. Park on each other's property. That's standard. Aanenson: And that would apply to the bowling alley... Harberts: So are you saying that if it's deemed that sufficient parking, that there is not existing. If existing parking is not sufficient without these crossovers, are you saying then that you'll be knocking on the door for instance of Southwest Metro and saying can we use • your. Aanenson: No, he's got additional parking to the rear of the building. Additional property to the rear of the building but we're saying there needs to be a way to get people to that location that's attractive and accessible. — Krauss: Southwest Metro really doesn't enter into it for a couple of reasons. First of all, take for example room on Bloomberg owned land to resolve it. Secondly, as much as we respect — Southwest Metro, you're not the property owner. I mean it's the city that owns it and you have a long term lease and we're obligated to maintain it. Harberts: And I'm sure that if it came to a discussion point that the City would consider the $96,000.00 investment that was using public tax dollars in that transit facility. Krauss: Right, but we're not in the habit of leasing the same thing twice. You can go to jail for that sort of thing but there's ample room to fix it. Diane, we've looked at this 8 or 10 times... Aanenson: Plus the parking will be in closer proximity than Southwest Metro. Krauss: It's too far away. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Harberts: I think it's good to table it simply because there's a lot of parking issues. I think the project is good. This area, I've been commenting to some people, is certainly kind of a focal point for Chanhassen and you know with the signage and everything, I'd like the plans. It's getting some of this other stuff worked out because it is retrofitting and we certainly recognize that. So I know some of the commissioners may want to understand why, some logic behind a variance, things like that but I do understand that it's a retrofit. Maybe it's a give and take thing and again, because it's a focal point of Chanhassen, I guess I'm concurring or I feel strongly with what staff is saying for the signage. So the comments in terms of the signage. Yeah, I wish it was a little bit cleaner but do you feel then that that parking study is going to help address some of this? Do we take the curb cut out here or whatever. Aanenson: We're going to ask engineering for more detail too based on the signal and stacking and that sort of issue. Harberts: Okay. Otherwise I guess I really lend support to the concept here. I understand this is in the TIF district. I don't know if that makes any impact. Brad made a comment earlier though, confused me a little bit about somebody, with city ownership, who's responsible for some costs here. I don't know if that's an issue so I think it's good that it's being tabled so when the plans come back, that all these questions have been addressed or whatever from city staff perspective. Krauss: Well yeah, that was a new wrinkle for me but, and if there's anything to it, it's between Brad, or Mr. Bloomberg and the HRA. Brad Johnson: He's right. It's the HRA that sold it to us. Harberts: Oh okay. I guess my primary concern is just centered around the, if there is _ impact to the Park and Ride locations, that there will be some discussions occurring before it comes back for final site plan review. But I like it. I know Country Suites is very successful in terms of people utilizing the space so I'd like to see more of it. I think it will be a good addition to Chanhassen. Ledvina: Well I saw the first draft of the architectural proposal and one that we have in front of us tonight I must say is a great improvement so I'd like to commend the proposer as far as those changes are concerned. I think it works much better. I guess while I share Diane's concern about the parking and even the signage, I think there has to be some discussion. I Lnderstand the applicant's concern regardir.� future ordinances and that's a difficult situation as well but I ti^ nk those things can he worked out. And I did note some things on m',, architect or my landscaping plan but I'm just going to pass on that and wait until we see a new plan on that and look at that next time. But other than that, I do support the proposal. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 — Conrad: Okay. Joe. Scott: Yeah, I like the proposal and I'll save my comments I guess for the more detailed — package that we'll get when the parking gets taken care of. That's something that concerns me and it's going to be an interesting trick to see how you can utilize the land south of the property to get people who are going to be parking down there safely into the building but — that's, I'm sure somebody can figure that out. So I have no more comments. Mancino: I don't really have any new ones. I would supper tabling this and figuring out — parking. Landscaping, with the new ordinance, I would like to see reaching 8%. I mean I think 3% is too far away from 8% to me, which is what our new ordinance is suggesting. It hasn't passed yet but I would like to see something closer. Maybe a 5% in there with the landscaping. And what have we done in the past Kate about when we are in the process of creating a new signage ordinance or whatever the new ordinance is and someone comes in _ and gives us a plat to review. What have we done historically? Krauss: Well strictly speaking Brad, you're right. I mean an ordinance isn't an ordinance — until it's had two readings and been brought before the City Council and the public. On the other hand, this is a project in the Chanhassen Central Business District. Everyone of which is done on a cooperative basis with the city. Just as a general rule, it seems inappropriate to — be asking the city to be a partner to some extent in a project and then throw the book at us and say, well this is exactly what the Code says. I mean I think that there's a lot of, there's ample room in the process to reach an accommodation and that's what's been done in the past. — Mancino: Okay. So that's what we would expect from this project also. To see the cooperation done between the applicant and the city. How much TIF funding are they — receiving? Krauss: I honestly don't know. Maybe Brad can answer that. I think the last I heard, they were going with the standard. The 3. Brad Johnson: For any type of remodeling project in the downtown. — Mancino: What is that? Brad Johnson: Three years of taxes. Mancino: Three years of taxes. Okay. — Harberts: So what does that amount to? 36 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Brad Johnson: How much? Harberts: Yeah. Ballpark figure. Brad Johnson: $120,000.00. Harberts: Total, or per year? Brad Johnson: Total. Harberts: For 3 years. For the entire project? Brad Johnson: That's Frontier. Most of the TIF, by the way, is just generated by the motel. That's the only thing...It's more to make the whole thing feasible. You've got realize that any remodeling of an exterior increases rents and the only way to increase value and it's hard to deal with that over time but remodeling does not increase rents. Improving the property does not increase rents necessarily. Mancino: That's all I have. Conrad: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: I also support tabling this until we have a more concrete presentation. I will take the opportunity though to throw out a couple of reactions. I think the architecture is fine. Continuation of the Country Suites item. I think it's integrated fairly well with the walkway —' with the existing structures that are there now. It worries me I guess somewhat that we have such a long length of a wooden structure, I mean the entire length of 78th but there is, that's being modified I guess by the stone work on the walkway. I'd like to get, when this comes back, a legal opinion on the issues of our ordinance. Are we, for the current hotel. The proposed hotel and the restaurant and meeting rooms, if there are agreements for use between them or among them, are we dealing with separate businesses there. If there are long term use agreements between one business and another, should we be looking at that as a business or separate business? The two retail areas, in the current hotel and I've seen other uses _ similar to that. The Holiday Inn over by... They're talking about a coffee shop and haircut place. That seems inconsistent, although many types of operation do not have signage packages. They're considered part of the use within the hotel and the primarily customers are hotel customers and that br: m to the restaurant. Agar. : seems- p•.marily ' as 2 revision mar •;g wise as a use for r- hot& cuss ers. And I urderstarr.' that ±fere a, other ideas or for local usage. I'm not sure, does the city have for local use, has the city had any feedback as to what, I mean is there a commitment to that or is that pay as you go? I'm 37 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 — talking about the meeting rooms in the restaurant and you were talking about for local use. That it's really a city need. You also stated that the meeting rooms, the agreement for using the meeting rooms with the hotel. Is there an hour use or my question is. — Brad Johnson: When you book a room, you get to use them. You have to stay there. Farmakes: I think as part of the presentation I would like to know more about what that agreement should be. Aanenson: What the relationship is. Farmakes: Correct. There will be a liquor license for the restaurant and the application? The restaurant is dining type. Brad Johnson: ...Bennigan's. — Farmakes: So there is a bar out front? Brad Johnson: Chili's. Yeah, it's a standard. About 20% of it is...I'd love to have you tell me that 80% of the use is from the hotel because then we wouldn't need any parking but in real life about 80% of the business will be outside of the hotel. In total dollar amounts. — Farmakes: I guess I'll wait and see what the presentation is on the signage issue. Some of . that I think relates to, are we dealing with separate businesses here? Or are we dealing with — 2, 3, 4. The retail section, I haven't heard as much about it. It just seems to be, so I'm not going to discuss that at this point. But my interpretation of what we're getting into talking _ about signage commitments and 40 foot tall pylon signs, I question if they work or whether or not the signage would work as identified for TH 5. They're too far away. Obviously the 40 feet would be certainly out of character. I'm a supporter of moderate signage but I also _ agree that it is important to identify businesses depending again on the size of the business related to the size of the sign. So that we avoid the type of clutter and redundancy that accompanies poor signage use. I think under our current ordinance, on one hand in this — presentation we're being asked to ignore some ordinances that we have on the books and on the other hand we're being asked to follow specifically other ordinances. I guess if I was convinced that these are certainly separate businesses and the city is willing to stand behind — that, I'm certainly open to apply whatever that presentation is more...but as the point was made, I think the city is a partner in this and there certainly are areas for negotiation in the issue of parking and 1 don't see why there's not areas for negotiation on anything else. I — certainly think that it would be a nice development addition for the downtown area. I certainly would support, if we can work out these other issues. I think certainly for the 38 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 signage proposal, I would ask that certainly the intent of what we're looking for be served. And I think also on the parking, I would like to kind of listen to reason on that because that particular area had been developed certainly years before... Brad Johnson: Can I add one comment? Appreciate what you said and I think we'll come back...but I just got to make sure we don't...in real life the restaurant is a totally separate operation...and there are two current tenants in town that would disappear I think if nobody... They're in the building now... Farmakes: I did want to list some concern about the signage subcommittee. There was a committee put together. Half of the committee was made up of Chan Chamber of Commerce members. President of the Chan Bank and Mr. Borg from McDonalds. Brad Johnson: There were no downtown retailers... Farmakes: Well I guess, it's hard to list the bank as being considered retail although...it's • certainly located downtown. But they are a Chanhassen business owners and they do deal with the same problems that I think any business in town so I just wanted to let you know that there were members on that committee. In fact, they made up half the committee. Conrad: A lot of business people still have concerns with visibility. We struggle with that all the time and there's a compromise here but if you went and surveyed them, Joe you might know better but, I don't know. Even recent developments. They're always going to want more. For sure, so it's hard to really assess accurately whether we're giving them fair exposure. But the one thing for sure is, we have to give them reasonable exposure, and that's easy to say but hard to define. But there's no reason to hide people. There just isn't. Just a couple, I like what I see. I think the challenge is to figure out how to get people from the back to the front. You shake your head Brad, I don't see it friendly. I see the front row friendly, and I'm not real concerned about the 3% because the front visually looks good and usually greenery breaks up big parking lots. It makes things look, for people. This looks, the front looks for people to me, and I know Nancy, and I'd like to have the 5 but on this case, and I'm not trying to say developer don't try. But on the other hand, the front seems real good. I'm concerned with the back. I'm concerned with the passageway to the front. I'd like to eliminate more parking in the front and dump it to the other side but Fred, I hope you can find some great solutions for us because I'd really like to take some parking spots from the front and put them some other place. But that's what your study's going to tell us. But again, I doh have a plouiem with, 1 _w we're goir., co work out the s; na, i dont nave a problem ..nth that. I just really 4o have a problem v.ith the passa :wa) . So I don't want it to be a dark, dreary place coming through. It's got to be friendly both sides and that makes it a workable project for the owners. That's my biggest concern. Nothing really, the other things 39 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 — we're going to solve. There's no doubt in my mind. Anything else? Anything. Okay, is there a motion? We probably want to table this. Mancino: I move that we recommend that we table this request until a parking study has been done for the entire Chanhassen Mall, Bloomberg Addition and it comes back to us. Conrad: Is there a second? Scott: Second. — Conrad: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? Mancino moved, Scott seconded to table the preliminary plat to replat Lot 2, Block, Oudot C and Oudot D, Bloomberg Addition into 3 lots and a site plan review for a hotel expansion and restaurant between Country Suites Hotel and Fnuntier Building until a paridng study has been done for the entire Chanhassen Mall, Bloomberg Addition. All voted in favor of tabling and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEWS. Public Present: Name Address Harold Schobelstad Southwest Metro Transit Tom Dunlap Chanhassen Tree Board Kevin Norby Norby and Associates Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chair Conrad called the public — hearing to order. Harold Schobelstad: Good evening. My name is Harold Schobelstad. I'm a landscape — architect with...I'm here to add a layer of complexity if you will to this particular ordinance. What I would like to do is make a couple of introductory comments and then address the ordinance in particular. Our office is a planning consultant to Southwest Metro Transit — Commission. We are also planning consultants to Minnesota Valley Transit Authority, southern suburbs south of the Minnesota River, as well as Metropolitan Transit Commission 40 Planning Commission Meeting - September I, 1993 so we in our history have done a great deal of transit planning and design and consulting services. In our capacity with Southwest Metro, and again the reason...ordinance tonight here is the fact that Southwest Metro is thinking about park and ride lots in the city of Chanhassen. What effect will this planting ordinance, this landscape ordinance have on future park and ride lots in the city of Chanhassen. Some observations that we have made, and again this is...realm of public comments now. In our capacity as planning designers consultants for these various groups we have been asked to look at numerous park and ride lots in the metropolitan area, and specifically the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority asked us to investigate criminal activities that are taking place in park and ride lots. Again, one of those things that as landscape architects we're not trained to do in school but it's something that we end up doing professionally. Consultation with the Eagan Police Department, where these particular park and ride lots that had increase seen criminal activity taking place in them, resulted in contacting not only Eagan but perhaps another dozen police departments throughout the metropolitan area. It resulted in reviewing park and ride lots throughout the metropolitan area and coming up with several conclusions as a result of that investigation. Fortunately, or unfortunately, landscape ordinances play a part in enabling criminals to conduct their crafts with relative safety. Safety problems in apprehension. Planting ordinances apply, letter of the law if you will, based upon ordinances...do enable criminals to, as I mentioned, do everything from steal cars to vandalize cars. They address not only the professional criminal but the vandal. This is again, all a result of our investigation into what is happening in other metropolitan areas. As I said, this adds another layer of complexity to a planting ordinance to an ordinance that other communities in this particular ordinance is not unlike many other, many landscape ordinances. The one that I mentioned in Eagan in particular. The ordinance is very similar. What has happened in Eagan, and other communities as a result, is that wonderful jobs have been done by other landscape architects. By developers. By building owners to create this perimeter around parking lots which make the parking lot rather benign to the passers by but also as a result, berms, plantings, especially around the perimeter, have created a visual screen that in the case of park and ride lots, and I'll address that particular item, creates problems. Why is that occurring? It's really a function of short term versus long term and perhaps as a solution or an amendment for again this added layer of complexity to your landscape ordinance, we would just ask you to look at perhaps further defining in this particular case, what parking lots are all about. I mentioned short term and long term. Park and ride lots are traditionally historically developed independently a long term parking scenario. What that means is people show up early in the morning. Jump on a bus. Go to work somewhere else and come back later on in the aftern^on. As compared to short tern' parkin,: Tareet parking lot wo!r.1 he a good example of ciort term p: ring. We're not looking nece'.sarilby 1.15: WTnc'7-. terms of duration. Again, an example in other cases in the metropolitan area have indicated that these long term lots, perhaps single purpose lots, are the greatest targets. Again, our concern here tonight that Southwest Metro is in the process of planning, looking at separate use park and 41 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 ride lots within the city of Chanhassen. And Southwest Metro has to abide by planting ordinances that require a rather dense perimeter treatment of berming, fencing, and planting. Is that Southwest Metro is opening itself up to a public safety issue, and that is a concern on the part of Southwest Metro, or really any other transit provider in the metropolitan area, because it's a public relations issue. If a park and ride lot is not safe, the...put down that they receive less ridership as a result of some of these ancillary facilities. It's something that was not really considered when park and ride lots were first thought of as being a good solution to providing ridership, or increasing ridership. Case in point is I-394 and all the new park and ride lots that have been installed along 394 and have abided by Minnetonka, St. Louis Park, Golden Valley. All the various landscape ordinances along that particular corridor. They have been treated very, very similarly to the two lots in question in Eagan where 3 or 4 or 5 years down the road there is going to be a very dense screen all the way around a single use parking facility along 394. They're single use. They're just for park and ride lots. There's no adjacent retail. There's no mix use in that particular parking lot. There's...What we are asking tonight is just perhaps again a further refinement. Perhaps a further definition of the - planting requirements as it relates to parking lots. I think part of the ordinance already addresses that. Interior landscaping, there's a height restriction in terms of a 2 foot max on shrubs with an interior parking lot island. What that allows people to do when they're traveling around a parking lot is to be able to see. Something that we would ask you to look at would be screening for visual access as well as screening for visual impact and this is again dealing more with long term specific use, perhaps park and ride but other particular uses that are more in line with long term parking, and again this is a direct reaction to comments that we've received from law enforcement. That says long term parking lots will be, and will continue to be, targets for crime. With that I guess that's the only comments that I would have. If you have any questions. Conrad: Specifically, have you looked at the, gone through our ordinance? Harold Schobelstad: ...yes. Conrad: And as you talk about outside screening, what, you've said make a difference between long term and short term but specifically where would you recommend we look at in terms of the wording right now? I'm not sure that we're. Harold Schobelstad: I don't think we're that far apart. In terms of uses or duration or what plant material goes around or what constitutes a screen. I think what needs to happen here is just a recognition on the part of the Planning Commission, and in the letter of the law of the ordinance, that there are different kinds of parking lots. And based upon duration I think would be a good way to define differentiation or classification. Keeping in mind that if you 42 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 have a single use, long duration kind of parking facility, it is going to be a target in the future. Conrad: What comes first? Obviously when you have long term parking you have criminals who are going to go there. Something causes that. Screening doesn't cause criminal behavior. Long term parking causes criminal behavior. Harold Schobelstad: Screening enables criminal activity. That has been the net result of any uses... Farmakes: But if parking is 20 cars deep, aren't the first 10 cars blocking your view from the other 10 cars? Harold Schobelstad: Not necessarily. Farmakes: ...I can only see so far through the cars. Harold Schobelstad: But specifically, and again this is based upon experience, those kinds of parking lots also have relatively quick turn overs. A Southdale. A Target. A mixed use development parking lot tend to be larger. Those particular lots have more turn around. They have more activity. Criminals don't like them. Farmakes: If the perpetrator was to do something, what you're saying is that if a squad car can drive by on a city street and they look into the parking lot unobstructed from a 360 degree angle, that a criminal is less likely to go in there? Harold Schobelstad: More importantly if the criminal was inside the lot and can see out and notice the squad car coming by. Or notice any car coming by, that criminal is less likely to conduct business there. And again, this is based upon interviews. Harberts: It's a major crime problem over on the 1-394. My understanding is that they have been very hesitant to having that much screening again because it's a very significant problem with crime. M^ncino: So is there security" Is the Transit Authority going to issue some securit' that happens then? Harberts: No. They're at their own risk...What we try to do though is we encourage the local policy departments to maybe drive through, things like that but there's a lot to be said that, when any passerby can go through and just look. We've had some of our park and ride lots 43 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 where there was criminal activity that was in the process but because someone was driving by, they were able to alert the city and it was stopped. — Harold Schobelstad: Two cases in point. The...Eagan that we were originally brought in to investigate, were down on MnDot right-of-way. By MnDot, according to city plans and ordinances and they were done about 7 or 8 years ago. They were down with comprehensive berming and planting that was great in terms of the plant materials used, the quantity, the quality. Like I mentioned, they're like 7-8 years old now so the plant material has grown up and matured, especially the dense, 3 to 4 row deep of shrub hedge that was planted around the perimeter as a result of the ordinance...Those are the lots that are experiencing activities. — As I had mentioned, the I-394 lot also done by MnDot, also done according to local planting ordinances, has the same plant materials...3 or 4 or 5 years from now, that same plant material will grow up and the same problems will occur with the same potential will occur that is already happening in Eagan. Conrad: Interesting. While most park and rides will be on major roadways and if we were putting on Highway 5, we'd probably screen it. We would probably not think that that is something that we want to show off. We would berm it and plant it. Harberts: Well, when it will be a single use. Krauss: ...that's the key and I'm familiar with the two park and ride lots Harold's talking — about because I live down the road from one. One's across the street from...and you literally cannot see from those homes into the park and ride lot because the berm...and the landscaping is so thick. But you're talking about very large park and ride lots and people are in at 7:00 in the morning and the criminal is pretty well guaranteed nobody's going to show up for the next 8 hours, and you cannot be...I don't know if we have a unique situation...but the one park and ride lot we do have is down behind...it's across the street from the shopping center and next to — a hotel and bowling alley. The key thing goes back to...came up with this thing 40 years ago. If you can keep activity, if you can keep an area vital, criminals don't like it. Now, as you're aware, we're working with the Southwest Metro and the possibility of different park and ride options but one of them is along Highway 5. It's a mixed use project. I think those are ideally, from a crime standpoint...people coming in all the time and that's the real secret. The ones that are the most difficult, the ones that...the original one we were looking at out on Dell Road was...parking lot. I had conversations with Jim Lasher about it a couple of years ago and when we started looking at it, he wanted to have it looking exactly like the ones in Eagan do, so you don't see it. Now maybe there's some kind of...I don't know of any other use that has a similar problem. I mean when...lone term, short term, arguable somebody's...than a park and ride lot is. 44 — Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Harold Schobelstad: Maybe it's the difference between public and private... Krauss: But we're talking about one particular type of parking lot that's different from any parking lots that we have in the city. I think we have to come up with some kind of a combination for it... Harold Schobelstad: I think that perhaps the way to go is it long term, is it short term, is it public, is it private, is it mixed use versus non-mixed use. I think the added layer of complexity here is perhaps an onus on city staff that you have to take a look at this but if there's some flexibility in the ordinance to be able to say this is single use, long term and we want to protect the people that are using this particular facility. Mancino: ...public safety. • Farmakes: How large are you talking about? Harberts: 300 to 500 cars. Farmakes: If I was driving into Chanhassen and seeing 500 parked cars there, I'd have a problem with that. I don't see how that's not...different than a car dealership. Small number "- of cars. What does the metropolitan airport do for long term parking? Do they provide drive by security?... Krauss: I hope that we find some uses for Southwest Metro parking would be a mixed use project and then there... Conrad: Paul, do you see any verbiage in here that needs to be done to talk about short term, long term parking? Krauss: Short term, long term for me doesn't do it. By definition a lot of things are long term. Office parking lots. Anything that you'd go into, the only thing that's short term is like Market Square where everything turns over...every hour. Harold Schobelstad: And you have to think...law enforcement community too. Non-corporate headquarte- pe long term o"fice ^arkinc def - :•rs. Corporate icy --ters are tv' ally !ha: prv.- • grope-'- kind of ne na=F ng...but ion?er term, -.+lice p:-1-in^, that c-'e,. appear part of that corporate campus are also prime targets because it is iong term type of parking. They know there's not going to be a lot of turn around. Again, if you have office, retail, restaurant, yeah. There's going to be. Again, that's mixed use. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Farmakes: Are you talking property on here? Do they give you a percentage breakdown of _ what they're talking about? Harold Schobelstad: It's vandalism by amateurs and car theft by the professionals, and — everything inbetween. Krauss: You would probably tend not to have the bodily harm type of thing because when — people are coming in, they're coming in droves. When people are actually leaving... Mancino: And they did a comparison between those that have had perimeter landscaping — versus those that don't? Harold Schobelstad: The police reports, they're... -- Farmakes: Is it because of the economy that we're building one single...such a large central parking lot? — Harberts: You have to remember too that transit is a public service that's being provided so we are trying to do it to economies of scale. And given the configuration of the way service — deliveries will be happening in this corridor, you'll see the fewer, larger park and ride lots and there's a lot of different I think landscaping alternatives I guess and what we're looking for is that flexibility because public safety is a big question and has been demonstrated that it is a — big problem. I think we kind of got over that, well I guess Chaska's not too, very good example but I think it's a nice example of some alternative landscaping. Over at the Chaska brick... Harold Schobelstad: ...interior islands that are planted. Farmakes: How many acres is that? Harberts: It's small... Mancino: It's really well landscaped. I think we're going to get down to security issues and also having security in park and rides. Scott: I think too also that, I mean although it's not addressed in this particular ordinance, now that, I mean we're aware of it. I think public safety will become aware of it. I don't think that we should take the time to try to do anything with this ordinance right now. What I think we should do however is that the park and ride lot's going to come swinging by us, when that thing hits and say oh okay. Well we'll be focusing on it. You'll be helping us with 46 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 it and it's very easy for us to say oh, well this is the reason why. Let's exempt this from Section such and such and then the City Council. Oh, that makes sense to us and then it will scoot through. So I don't want to take the time doing that. Harold Schobelstad: ...there is that potential... Scott: You can change any ordinance at any time. Farmakes: ...parking lot of that size...that many cars parked in that, 6 acres of cars, you're going to have by itself natural obstruction to view...you're going to have a hard time stopping that. Harold Schobelstad: Please don't look at it as a sea of 600 cars all by itself. It's not intended to be that. It's that size because it's not just going to function as a parking lot. It's also going to be somewhat of a transfer point. There will be buildings. There will be plantings. There will be plazas. There will be other amenities on site that just don't make it a sea of parking. Scott: Diane, are you comfortable having this thing go through the way it is but then just, now I think that we're a lot more educated as to the risk and then I think it will be easy too for us to say, well in this particular instance ordinance A, B, C is fine. 0, single use, long term, out in the middle of nowhere per se, we're going to want to work on it. Krauss: We can always try. I mean I'm not adverse to trying to come up with some language...back it up and say, well I'm long term. Scott: Yeah, I'm a car dealership. Krauss: I don't know of any parking...that hasn't made exactly the same argument. Scott: Yeah, that's why I'd rather leave it like this. Conrad: I don't see the verbiage in here that doesn't give the flexibility. I think the flexibility is there to treat this. There's not a hard rule that says you have to berm 6 feet or whatever. I'm looking under vehicular areas. Harold Schobelstad. ...that says something about the goals of the ordinance. The intent of the ordinance is really what all this technical staff in the ordinance is all a out. The goal of the ordinance is to create or minimize the visual impact. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Krauss: And when you look and it says, 20-1181A, parking lot...now we can change that. — That's been in the ordinance for 5 years... Harold Schobelstad: ...based upon concerns that are now coming to the...because some of these kind, rather unique facilities are maturing and with their maturity comes problems. It is a public safety issue. Harberts: We have the opportunity here to learn from experience. You know at Southwest Metro we're not here to ask, change your policies just for us but recognize that transit is here. To help us be successful, to reduce some of the safety issues that have been demonstrated in other areas. We're looking for, if this is an informational, is it comfortable with that. That's fine. Ideally language even something to the extent that transit may require or may be able to have some flexibility or something. I don't know. Farmakes: How would be this be different than a large scale company coming in, putting in _ 6 acres of parking around it's facility and work from 8:00 to 5:00 in the afternoon? It would be the same premise. Harberts: Well, but when you're looking at a company like that, you're also looking at, do they have vendors that come in delivering products? Scott: Or people leaving for lunch. Harberts: Do they have other customers. Farmakes: Usually there's not...such a large scale employer. Krauss: You also have a building with windows... Farmakes: Some are so large it makes no difference. Krauss: But they may also have internal security. I mean there seems to be three approaches to dealing with the problem. One is a physical one by design...transparent and impossible. — One may be to address the security issues on it somehow. And the third one is to try and... mixed uses so there's not the problems in the first place. I tend to favor that last option for a lot of reasons but it's not always going to be possible to do it. Conrad: Okay, thanks. Other public input? Kevin, you've looked at our ordinance. Okay, we've got somebody else. 48 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Tom Dunlap: Hi. I'm Tom Dunlap and I'm on the Tree Board along with Nancy and I'd just like to say with respect to that, that's interesting that something we didn't bring up at the last meeting. It crossed my mind and I can't remember why it slipped and we didn't discuss it but the safety issue. I would like to state, at least my reading of the way that ordinance reads now is that it really sets some bounds. But any time you set bounds, it also creates a lot of freedom and I think we just heard from a landscape architect here who knows the issue and I don't believe it's the city who's going to be designing the landscaping for any project they would bring in. I believe it would be a landscape architect who also knows those issues. And I don't know that there's any great reason to change what you have in front of you. I would be concerned about the least common denominator type of thing as discussed before. There were some things when it was brought to the Tree Board that we actually...from what was on there. Based on some input that was made, and I think there was some very good input made on behalf of the developers but I would recommend going ahead with this...And I don't believe that there's...At least I didn't, it wasn't obvious to me. Conrad: Okay, good. Thanks Tom. Kevin Norby: Again my name is Kevin Norby. I'm a landscape architect. I wrote a letter after the last meeting. I'm not certain if you got a copy of that. I think Paul got a copy...but just some quick comments about the ordinance and I think most of the changes that have been made are good. The only thing that I didn't see in there that I sort of hoped to see was maybe a recommendation to improve shrubs and/or ground cover list. At least the attempt at. A lot of what we're seeing over in Market Square again and the use of variegated dogwood and purple leaf...middle of the parking lot I would hope we would avoid in the future and maybe more appropriate plant material for both safety...could be dealt with if we had some recommendations, or at least some guidelines. Mancino: And I think you even volunteered to maybe help with that. Kevin Norby: I did. Scott: Now it's public record. Kevin Norby: That's all I have to say. onrad. Good ' app:eciate all your help Kevin. Scott: And on video. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 — Conrad: Yeah, it's on video. You can watch it Saturday morning or sometime. Any other comments? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Scott moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Folks, we're at 11:30. Scott: 10:30. 11:30 Eastern time. — Conrad: 10:30. And we're screaming towards 11:00. I really want to get us out here at 11:00. We've got another issue but on the other hand, this is an interesting ordinance. Jeff, start at your end in terms of what you want to do. Comments. Farmakes: I have to admit that once I started looking at the pieces that make up the whole — sometimes it's difficult to envision what the whole is. Particularly when you deal with an ordinance that has to be applied to different applications...work with any and all things or what is the least you're willing to accept. After Brad's comments, I wasn't a part of the Market Square development. It predated me. It's really the only large scale parking lot that we've worked since then I think is Target. You may improve my memory on that but usually — other than that, we weren't talking several hundred parking spots. I have looked at other developments and how they've handled parking, in particular I guess the Opus parking lot, shopping center development...and they had the large berm with huge trees. Now they're... • and I like that. I mean I like the larger spaces that you were talking about earlier that's maybe more strategically placed than maybe winding up with all these burned out trees. They could wind up with row upon row upon row and once these trees mature...early 60's, it — doesn't give...Southdale a 360 degree sight line once the trees get large but it does aesthetically buffer the building to break up from the street anyway. Break up and to enhance the property and it gives the effect of screening the parking lot. It gives the effect of — enhancing the appearance of the building. I think really that's what these ordinances are trying to do. Trying to enhance and integrate bituminous material row upon row of cars entering into an attractive area. In particular, Chanhassen's really committed to an older — development where the cars go on the front between the people and the buildings that they access. The die is cast there and until most of the downtown is redeveloped in the future when we're all old and senior citizens, the area that we're planning, that isn't going to change. — so I hope that this ordinance works out for that. I've read through it and I have to say that I understand as much as I can about it. As it would work in any individual play, that is yet to be determined. I have no specific comments. I think that the corrections that you made are — viable. I don't have any... 50 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Conrad: Okay, thanks Jeff. Nancy. Mancino: Well I sit on the Tree Board committee and so I do support it...has given me a few new perspectives tonight for public safety and I will take that very seriously when I do look at landscaping plans. Plans that come in from developers and thank you for that because I appreciate it. I would like to add, as Kevin suggested, and I had my notes and I too would add, a list of the shrubs and the ground cover that would work in a parking lot island because I think that will help us to have more green space than gray pebble space, so I'd like to add _ that to it. And if we could do that timely, in a timely manner, that would be most helpful to get it to the City Council. _ Scott: Yeah, I appreciated the insight on the public safety. Thank you very much. I'll defer to Commissioner Mancino as to the appropriateness of this document so I'll support it for that reason. Our tree individual. No more comments. Conrad: Matt. Ledvina: No comments. Conrad: I don't know if I should call on you or not. Diane. Harberts: I'll be abstaining. I don't have any additional comments but I think our purpose in asking our landscape architect to be here that, you know transit is relatively new to development to Chanhassen and one of the things that we are working on and we'll be bringing it back before each of our three cities, Eden Prairie, Chaska and Chanhassen is to... that corridor plan to hopefully become part of the city's comprehensive guide plan. Hopefully we'll get away from some of the traditional views about the roadways, parking, the buildings in different corridors because hopefully transit will make sense. I think if you, maybe I'm being a little philosophical here but if you look at what's happening in just overall in the nation, transit is becoming more of an element in all communities and I think in the next few years, with the direction that Met Council is giving with the requirement to see as part of the comprehensive guide plan, with federal funding. Federal funding projects are tied to transit. So I think that, and think this is just part, the beginning of the education process so it will be fun to bring that information back to the 2 or 3 cities and you know, it's not going to be an attitude or r'ins or proce,.s that changes overnight but I think th is, like I said, an education ocess. It's ::ppeninu everyone us not just at the city level. It's at the State and it's at the National level. So it's really exctt...b to be part of it. That's it. Conrad: Well I think that was a good perspective on security. And I've looked at this and I don't know how I would change this right now. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 — Harberts: And I don't know if the answer is to change it right now. Like I said, it's new and Think the experience is starting from the... Conrad: I think there are two things that should, one thing for sure that should be done and I think the City Council should somehow hear the same things that we did and it may be, I think that's real appropriate. Because at least you're assured that for the duration of folks here and there, they're going to be more sensitive. But the ordinance lives on. And to tell you the truth, that's what you want to make sure you're comfortable with. As I read it, and I made the statement, I still feel I had the flexibility with the ordinance to take care of those — problems. I didn't feel positioned, like Tom said. I think the way he read the ordinance, we weren't positioned in the berming, everything so you couldn't, and I read it and I didn't feel that I was positioned into that. Now maybe I'm wrong but that's how I wanted to read it right now at 10:35 or 10:40. But from that standpoint, I would certainly and with the things that Paul's mentioned about multi-use or whatever, It certainty seems like we have to be kind of flexible in how we approach some of these. I still have a need to screen parking lots. — Bottom line, it's one of those things I really dislike and I don't like places where you stop cars and just sort of leave them and they tend to look real ugly. So that's a real. Harberts: I think that's a real traditional view. Conrad: I don't know if it's a traditional view. I think we're finally figuring out that, as we look at Target, that Target can make their parking lots attractive. They don't have to be an eyesore and I think that's what this is trying to do. It's turning a negative into a positive — which I think. Harberts: And tonight, and hopefully to create that comfort level is that for our product, our _ service to be effective, we put a lot of emphasize, time and money into landscaping and if you're down in the Chaska area, please go down and look. I mean that's our commitment. You'll see a very high quality commitment that we bring. Farmakes: How many parking spaces does Chaska? Harberts: It's only 16. They gave us right-of-way and we used it. Mancino: So it's not a sea of parking lot. — Farmakes: Why is our's so big? Harberts: Well, just the demand. Utilization and demand. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Farmakes: For Chanhassen? Harberts: We have 13 large buses that carry anywhere from 44 to 65 passengers on each bus. 13 of them that come through this way every morning and the way the configuration is with the population density of the three cities, where your markets are. Farmakes: For 3 cities? Harberts: Chaska, Chanhassen, Eden Prairie is our service corridor. The way the roadway system is set up, Chanhassen probably has the best level, one of the best levels of transit service. You know and I'll also just note with the reverse commute, things like that so there is a stake here but like I said, we certainly have a commitment to bring in that quality because we have a product or service to market as well. Conrad: Well I think that's neat and I think we want to help you market that too. I think we've always been sensitive trying to figure out how to get people pooling or using mass transit. I want to do that. Harberts: I would just like to add that Southwest Metro, if Harold if you're available when this moves onto the City Council, that we'd be more than happy to have the similar presentation made before the Council if you folks desire. Conrad: I think that's good. Okay. Otherwise I like all the changes. I actually understand this ordinance far better than the last time it came through here and as Jeff said, I don't know really what it did. You know you see the little parts but you don't know what the whole is. But it sure looked better this time through so this last 2 weeks Kate, you know it's one of those good decisions I think to table it and send it back. Mancino: ...Tree Board. Conrad: Hip hip for the Tree Board. I like that. Farmakes: ...availability of financing and the parking that we do have. I have never heard that we had 100 feet based on how much money a bank was going to be...that's awfully close. Conrad: Okay is there a motion? Scott. Sure, I move that the Planning Commission approve the amendments to the ordinance as shown in Attachment #1, and we're talking about the parking lot, landscape ordinance dated August 26th, 1993. 53 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 — Conrad: Is there a second? Farmakes: Second. Conrad: Discussion. Mancino: I would just like to add the addition of an approved list of shrubs and ground covers that is an addendum to the tree list. Conrad: Would you add that to your motion Joe? Scott: I would accept that. Conrad: Good. And the only other thing, and I didn't pick it up earlier. There was one line — that said, all new plantings must have irrigation systems available. The word available. What does that mean? Nancy. Why is that. Mancino: So that they can turn them off. Conrad: You're comfortable with the word available? — Mancino: Yes. Is there a reason why you put available for irrigation systems when we said that? -- Conrad: It says on page 3, all new plantings must have an irrigation system available. Krauss: I think that there was discussion about if you...you didn't necessarily have to turn it on and da da da. Mancino: During the wet season you can turn it off. Krauss: Right, but they're all pretty sophisticated systems. Conrad: OKay. Any more discussion? Scott moved, Fannakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to approve the amendments to the parking lot landscape ordinance as shown in Attachment #I with the _ addition of an approved list of shrubs and ground covers as an addendum to the tree list. All voted in favor, except Halberts who abstained, and the motion carried. 54 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 20-575 - 20-595 REGARDING LOT SIZES. Kate Aanenson and Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chair Conrad called the public hearing to order. Vice Chair Conrad noted that no one was present for the public hearing. Farmakes moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: I'll open it up in general. If there are comments to this particular amendment. I won't go around but if there are comments, please bring them up. Mancino: I support it. Harberts: I think Paul's comments though in terms of the subdivisions within the MUSA line has merit though in terms of requiring sewer and water I guess. I don't know all the angles here but I think that has a lot of merit. I would support that kind of language then to be added. Aanenson: That'd be a separate ordinance that would come back. Mancino: I don't want to have to hook up to sewer just because the people behind me are subdividing and they're within 150 feet of me... Krauss: Well a lot of times you know that is the standard issue in the assessment projects. Who gets nicked and the typical policy is that. Mancino: I'm not benefitting. Krauss: Well, the typical policy has been if you're within the service area, the Council gets you for one unit of assessment. And in the future when you subdivide property, you pay the other...so they would defray the cost but the dollars are being paid. All of it's...matter of it being paid now or pay it later. Con-11. Is there a motion? Mancino: I move that we approve the minimum lot size in the rural service area, ZOA 92-1 as given to us by staff. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Conrad: Is there a second'? Scott: Second. Mancino moved, Scott seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-575 - 20-595 regarding rural lot sizes as recommended by staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, I had one thing that I'd like to say. Tonight we talked about a variance to the ordinance as it relates to setback and I realize that this is for the hotel expansion. Aanenson: Not the setback. For a lot width requirement. Ledvina: Okay, the frontage. At any rate, in the past we've had variances that we've looked at and I guess in my opinion I would like to see a little more vigorous analysis of how we're looking at variances because there are various tests that are, these variance requests should go through to see if they're valid. — Farmakes: There is a set of criteria. I think 12. Ledvina: I'm not saying go through the whole list but I would like to see a little more rationale and a little more analysis as it relates to variances when we're given staff recommendations to go ahead and grant those variances. Just a comment. Conrad: I think that's valid. It helps us not set a precedent or it helps us set some standards or some rationale. Why do we have a width requirement and what's the purpose or if we're really not hurting the purpose. Ledvina: Yeah, why are we... Aanenson: Well there again, there's the fact that they wanted to have two separate owners. Two owners and originally they came in and there wasn't a variance requirement at all but the lot was split in such a way that, you knov, we could deny the subdivision and that would take out the sign p:oblcm. Farmakes: I think that that's pretty smokey and that's why I was. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Harberts: I thought it was creative. Ledvina: Well whatever, but just a general comment. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Vice Chair Conrad noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 18, 1993 as presented. REPORT FROM PLANNING DIRECTOR Krauss: We did hire a replacement planner. I stuck his resume in there. Seems like a really _ pretty interesting guy with a lot on the ball. We did something rather unique. We've never met him. Conrad: Well then that's perfect, yeah. Krauss: We had 75 people apply for that job and Todd Gerhardt and I got it down to, well _ actually...we got it down to 9 candidates we wanted to talk to. This was the only out of state person. He was born here, his wife is from here and was educated here. But he was down in Florida and we didn't have the budget to fly people up and anyway, Todd and I did a telephone interview with Bob and we liked him. And going on the telephone interview, we had him in our final 3. Well again, I mean he was willing to fly up here but on short notice it's an expensive flight so Todd gave him the idea of why don't you send us a video. And he did a very cute job. He had a friend of his in the planning office down there ask him questions that he prepared and then he gave answers. And people would walk by the office and say night Bob. It came across that he had a sense of humor and then we had a face that we could associate with. Then we got the staff together and we called him on a party line call, but you knew who you were talking to because you had just seen his video. So physically we've never the guy. Scott: Did you send a videotape of you to make sure he wanted to work with you? Conrad: Yeah if he was really sharp, he would have. UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 101 ALIGNMENT STUDY, FRED HOISINGTON. Fred Hoisington: This is a very difficult commission to make a report to. The whole idea of this meeting and we've been trying to get to you a number of times in the past, has been simp v to let you know where we are with resoe:t to Highway '01. It is an important consideration aid at some point in time you're going to be asked to approve someth:.;g so wc. wanted to be sure you were prepped and knew a little bit about what was happening. Paul, I 57 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 don't know if you've put any materials in their packets this time or not. How much do they know? Probably not these materials. Krauss: Oh no, not the new stuff. Fred Hoisington: I'll try to be as brief as I can and not go too far back and give some impressions of where we've been. Four years ago we looked at the alignment of Highway 101 in a broad sense. We looked at alternatives that ranged all the way over almost to the lake, in the wetlands and so forth to the east and back to the west of the existing alignment of Highway 101. The alignment in 1989 that we settled on and the city ultimately approved was Alternative 1 which was the one that seemed the most agreeable. It seemed to have at that — point the least impact and so forth. However, the world has changed in 4 years. What's changed is that up until a few months ago we thought the funding was more readily available than perhaps it is today. The ISTEA is available and may apply to Highway 101 at some time in the future. There are a couple of other things though that are more important today than they were 4 years ago. Really not more important but certainly given a lot more consideration, and that's wetlands, the degree to which you can damage wetlands. We know you've had an ordinance for a very long period of time but with the wetlands conservation act of 1990, everybody got more in the act and so even the things that you've done in the past are questioned...to meet all these requirements. Another thing is that there's a lot more attention - given today to archeological or cultural resources so we have been in the process of studying, counting trees. Doing a cultural resources study and a wetlands analysis that I'm sure that whatever we accomplish in the way of solution, the test fits the environment as we know it today. So with those changes we have looked at Alternatives 1 and 4 again and we've looked at alternatives between 1 and 4. In other words we have not looked again at _ alternatives 2 and 3. This is what we call them. The alternatives are the existing TH 101 alignment. The approved alignment in 1989, which was a little bit further to the east, a slight westerly shift of that back towards existing TH 101 and then the use of the existing temporary connection...The red line is existing TH 101. The blue is alternative you approved in 1989. This is the modified version of 2 which pulls the alignment back closer to TH 101 and takes the two houses, provided the houses are there. The yellow house and the one next to it. It - would actually eliminate those. Pull the alignment a lot tighter and create a lot less gap between existing TH 101 and new TH 101. And as a result of all that analysis, we also looked at one that we never expected would be given great consideration but actually stacks — up fairly well. Which uses the existing temporary connection for about this length and then departs existing TH 101. Still creating sort of the same area between the two alignments. Takes the two houses but what it does is, this would be an alignment as would one that — would require little filling at the creek, which means that there would be much less impact on the wetland with those two alternatives. Whereas the 2 and 3 alternatives would go right through the wetland and we'd have to do quite a few things...destroy it and mitigate the loss - 58 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 or you'd have to build it on a causeway, which would be a very expensive proposition. Which means we're talking a rather substantial cost, not only in construction but, of a causeway but also for a bridge construction in that case. Now, what we've been doing is establishing with the neighborhood. We met with the neighbors in this area. What some of the criteria ought to be in evaluating these alternatives. And what we said is that we have a range of scoring of these criteria of 5 having the least impact. 1 having the most impact and what we're saying is that this is the existing TH 101 alignment and as it regards to cultural resources impact, there would be none. There were some found out there in the course of the study and the reason that we felt necessary to study was because MnDot suggested that if there's to be many federal dollars spent on this roadway, that we best get that study out of the way as soon as possible. And there is sort of what I would term an indian junkyard there that is not very sizeable. As we know, we don't think terribly valuable resources in it. In fact some of them are quite modern resources. Some of them date to more like the 30's and 40's and perhaps 50's, so there's been a history of dumping things down over the hill right in the area, right in this part of the site where the slope is the greatest coming down to the creek. And that's where anyone who knows archeology would expect a find to occur. In that area and it's there. Now for most of you who know something about cultural resources and so forth and what you have to do with them, they are not impediments to roadway construction but you must do, if they're significant, is extract them and be sure that they're preserved. In this case it hasn't even been determined yet if significant amounts to warrant saving but we know there are some things that are like fish bones and some chips and so forth that we know to exist but whether or not there would be anything more significant than that, we don't know. Anyway in alternative 1, that would not be an impact. All the three other alternatives, there would have to be mitigation or extraction or whatever so we're throwing up kind of a red flag in that case and not exploring this highly. We've gone down through all of this and what we've determined, at least in our first go through, and Paul and I still have to talk about this a little bit more. Is that this alternative scores the highest. This is the one that began, pulls the alignment a little closer than the approved alignment toward existing Highway 101 and it has a rather substantial tree loss, a rather substantial wetland loss and it does pass through the area where the cultural resources have been found. Now, we're open to suggestions as to how this thing might ultimately be scored and decided...rationale. In alternatives 2, 3 and 4, all of them which traverse the area where cultural resources exist. And that's why we gave those a little lower score. In regards to wetlands, alternatives 2 and 3 would go through the middle... on the other hand pulls it a little bit closer and you lose some wonderful oaks. But at least the numbers are less than would otherwise with the other two alternatives here. As far as neighborhood compatibility, Alternatives 1 and 4 are the least compatible because they're closest to the neighborhood. As fa; as a'temative _ :s concerned, what it do,:, is it create, a rather gap within ..hick wt had originally ass.:med housing go but we needed to cut the gap down tighter because of the reconfiguration of the interchange which simply means that we're probably going to have a lot of wasted land here. Or we're going to end up 59 — Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 with some single family homes back into, on the one hand, fronting on existing TH 101, back into new TH 101. Which we think is probably not the most compatible or desirable of — relationship and...now you tell me. Is that something that should warrant this it to be scored a little lower. Harberts: Are you saying though that those homes, they have all direct access? Fred Hoisington: All direct access to existing TH101. — Krauss: But they'd be double fronted so their front yard is old TH 101 and their back yard is new TH 101. — Scott: So old TH 101 is still going to be there and it's still going to be like a local service road or something like that. Krauss: Anyway, as Fred's going through this, I think it's clear that these have not been weighted. — Scott: Yeah, that's my next question. Krauss: For example, when you have the alternative 1 and using the existing TH 101, as Fred points out that, that has significant impact to the homes. Sure it's significant because 30 feet from their front door is a 4 lane road. But it's given in this, so far it's been given the — same value as the cultural resources. And by the way, two of those things they found were a silver spoon and a historic piece of plastic, which we have yet to figure out exactly what that is. — Scott: So you had somebody from the Minnesota Historical. You had somebody do some excavations or something like that? — Fred Hoisington: Actually did a shovel tests. Krauss: But the weighting between a 4 lane highway 30 feet from your front stoop and a silver spoon...that's not done and it's very difficult, it's hard for us to do that. It's pretty _ subjective. Harberts: But what's considered significant with the cultural resources? Is it something like — 100 years old or 50 years old? Or is it the item itself? 60 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 Fred Hoisington: Well things of course that they found here are indian artifacts. The things Paul's talking about, there were two generations of things here. I don't think the more recent ones is anything anyone has any concern about. They simply had to report it because they found it but the ones they're much more concerned about date back a lot longer than that. And there have been other finds here in Chan. Harberts: Are they burial grounds? Krauss: The stuff we found in itself I don't think is significant but it may be a precursor to finding something. Scott: So this is just basically a, it's been a garbage dump of sorts for centuries but it's not as Nancy was saying, a burial area or anything like that? Krauss: It could be but they don't know that. Fred Hoisington: Probably not. You have some mounds fairly close by but that, there are no mounds, burial mounds here. Scott: And what happens when this thing's going through and then they find something that is archaeologically significant? Krauss: You just stop a project long enough to excavate it and then go on with the project. Fred Hoisington: Sometimes it can stop a project for a long time. It's a very uncomfortable kind of thing. Just briefly, as far as costs are concerned, which does seem to be an important factor to consider, alternatives 2 and 3, because we would fill through the wetland area, and to try to create also an underpass for trails. Try to separate trails, we have excessive cutting and filling. Filling down there perhaps a causeway construction down there so these two alternatives would be extraordinarily costly compared to the others which only kind of - infringe on the wetland but do some filling in any case. As far as traffic conflicts are concerned, if you use alternative l or the existing alignment. If you drive down there you know what the problem is already. There are lots of driveway conflicts and those are not going to go away as traffic volumes increase to 15,000 vehicles per day or there abouts, the problem's going to be worst. You don't want houses on both sides of TH 101. Traffic traveling 50 mph and so forth. As far as impacts on trails. one could suggest that this F` -u!dn't -wouldn't, : Paul indicated. be ont ;iie _tc th .would be weighted very heavily if you were to through a weighting But what we're saying is you can't _ really separate with alternatives 1 and 4 but you can easily with alternatives 2 and 3 so that's why they raised 1 and 4 lower in that respect. And then as far as the neighborhood 61 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 — acceptance, Paul and I met with the neighborhood and there's no question that the neighbors were comfortable with alternative 3, the formerly approved alignment but there were a surprising number of people that also spoke in favor of alternative 2. Now the concern I had with alternative 2, those who were not necessarily over powering in favor of it was that it would take two houses and there was a great deal of concern, or sympathy for those two folks. However, you should know one of them wants to be taken and they would like to be — taken as soon as they can be taken. It's Willy Klein and his wife and they have health problems and they're elderly so they'd like to be bought. The other one is the old Klingelhutz, tom Klingelhutz house which the folks who own it now bought for a song. And — they don't want to leave and they're very young and so forth so there are some differences of opinion there but for the most part we concluded that we could say that at least these two alternatives would be acceptable alternatives to the neighbors and then as far as.landowner preference, all preferred alternative 3. We have heard nothing else. So what we have is a list of 9 criteria. All given equal weight and when we give it equal weight, we end up doing this — scoring of alternatives and I guess the Planning Commission could give us some direction on whether we should be considering weighting the criteria to based on it's relative importance. Scott: Well I think we need to go through and think about what we spend our time protecting but that pales in comparison with extraordinary development costs. I mean we can spend tons of time on doing all sorts of weighting but if the dollars and cents aren't there, it's a waste of — time. So we could go through this exercise and it would be useless. Harberts: Unless the money somehow fell from the sky here. — Scott: Yeah, but isn't that kind of a crystal ball? At least we know that it's not as available as it once was. — Krauss: It isn't. In fact we're trying to work on, we had a meeting last week with MnDot on Hennepin County corridor committee... TH 101 is a problem...We think it's a situation that — needs to be addressed. It needs to be addressed by a multi government approach because it affects all of us. MnDot wants to get rid of it. The positions of the counties and the communities are probably that we're willing to accept it but somebody's got to fix it. There may be some sources of dollars, turn back funds...as a possibility. MnDot would love to get rid of it and again, another source of funds, if they do get rid of it to throw into the pot. Don Ashworth was in the meeting and of course whenever Don Ashworth is in a meeting, and — conversation comes to spending money, Don focuses on some adjustment to a TIF district to solve the problem which is one of th3 other ways cf getting it. A lot of things are on the table. I think what we agreed to do is work together and put basically a cooperative project — together to figure out the approach to resolving this. It's not in the near term type of thing. I've got to believe it's going to be...12 to 18 months before we even have a recommendation 62 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 of which way to go. The critical thing here, well it's two fold. The die is being cast now with the change design. Scott: Mission Hills? Krauss: Mission Hills, right. Which has some, Mission Hills can be designed to have flexibility...a few of these things so it's not necessarily the be all to end all effect. But the cleaner issue for us here is that nobody's out there taking care of this state road. If we weren't in the position of being willing to have Fred, paying Fred to look at this, nobody _ would be interested in this. And as far as MnDot's concerned, it ain't their problem. I mean they understand that philosophically it is but financially, legally, they're just not going to address it. They're not in a position to unless there's some kind of a turn back. The worst situation we can imagine is 5 years from now, hopefully, when 212 is under construction, and MnDot's going to dump all this traffic out onto old TH 101 and it's going to go whizzing past all these homes because there is no connection to get up to Highway 5. So we took the . initiative and there's always a little bit of difficult when you do that because then the residents right away think well the city's pushing this. We're not pushing it. We're trying to move it in the right direction... Fred Hoisington: It's important to know also, Paul has raised a very good point. MnDot will build up to 86th Street as a part of the Highway 212 project. When is another matter but when they do, their project boundary comes up to here so you really only have about a half mile gap to fill and if we don't fill it, if the city doesn't address it, Paul's exactly right. They'll dump it onto existing TH 101 and that is not the solution...This is a major roadway. Scott: So another reason to realign 86th Street is to get MnDot. Did MnDot say they'll build it to 86th Street, no matter where that is? Well yeah, because I know the right-of-way was supposed to be vacated as part of the Mission Hills and I just, so is that the deal? Fred Hoisington: In this case, we didn't deliberately do this. Actually MnDot has aligned that. They created the alignment themselves because this angle. Scott: It's got to be 90 degrees. Fred Hoisington: Close to 90 degrees. And they required that...to get 90 degrees. Scott: Okay. So now we know where that came from. Fred Hoisington: What we can do is we can come back to you, we've still got some work to do to get this thing completed and we will investigate the cost question's a big one. How are 63 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 we going to resolve that. What will they let us do and can we mitigate the loss of the wetland or just what? In any event, there will be some...costs. We'll look at that a little bit more and meet with the neighbors again and then we'll come back to you again but be thinking I guess about this whole idea of whether what we do...criteria to come up with different scoring of the alternatives. Conrad: I can't figure out how to do that Fred. I've been looking at it and I think your scoring looked real accurate, as I know the area and as you assessed it. I could throw out one requirement on. I'm hoping we can throw out one or two, well one of those requirements on that scoreboard but it wasn't going to change the totals all that much and to weight one thing differently, boy. I think that's terribly difficult. This is a case where I do think what Joe said, and I hate to talk, I hate on the Planning Commission to talk money. I never talk money. That screws up really our... Scott: No it doesn't. No it doesn't. Conrad: But in this case I think we should see the money and I think it's just sort of netting each option out altogether. I don't think, I think you've taken it to a nice, you've done a good job but I tell you, I think you've got to come back and it's going to be a gut feel. Each one of those had some problems. Big problems for me. I hate to see some great trees taken down and I hate to see, but they're all happening, different things are happening to different, to those alternatives and I'm real sensitive to what the neighbors want there too. As you beat something to the punch, as you're anticipating, I do think that it would be nice to incorporate neighborhood input. It's one of those nice times when you can do that. But I'm not sure I like what they want either. Farmakes: Are you asking for the tunnel option? Conrad: Yeah, I think we should put a Lowry Hill. - Krauss: ...and probably ask you to amend the comprehensive plan to put this completed study in there so it has some standing. One thing too that we never completed...the alignments never got officially mapped so it's not... Harberts: Oh the new alignment? Krauss: Yeah. I mean we had a center line kind of alignment. We knew where we thought it was supposed to go but official mapping, under State law allows you to protect the right-of- way. And that was never done. 64 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1993 — Harberts: We have a park and ride lot mapped at 212 and 101, wherever that intersection is going to occur... — Fred Hoisington: Good to be back. Thank you. Conrad: Thanks for the update. We've absolutely given you no guidance Fred. We love it. — Okay, anything else before we adjourn? Harberts: I'll just add that last Friday Southwest Metro received almost official confirmation. Conrad: Almost official. For what? — Harberts: That we'll be recipients of $3.5 million in ISTEA funding for I guess our major transit hub. It will be located in the vicinity of Highway 5 and Prairie Center Drive in Eden _ Prairie but it certainly will help us then appeal to assess the park and ride in the Chanhassen/ Chaska area. We received the highest ranking of all major arterial projects. Conrad: In the country? — Harberts: No, in the state. Conrad: Is ISTEA a federal or a state? _ Harberts: Federal. Scott moved, Mancino seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion — carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss — Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 65 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 • September 1, 1993 _ Mr. Gene Peterson 12910 Hamlet Avenue Apple Valley, MN 55124 and Mr. Matt Fischer Apple Valley Red-E-Mix 6801 West 150th Street Apple Valley, MN 55124 Dear Gentlemen: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review the models you prepared regarding the potential AVR relocation in Chanhassen. We have had an opportunity to discuss the proposal in-house and I developed the attached memorandum outlining staff's position. The memo has been forwarded to our City Council, HRA and Planning Commission as an information item and to get whatever input they could add. Sincerely, _ Paul Krauss, AICD Director of Planning PK'v Enclosure pc: City Council HRA Planning Commission Gary Fuchs, City Attorney CITY 0 F 401‘ CHANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 • MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager City Council Housing and Redevelopment Authority FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP, Planning Director DATE: August 25, 1993 SUBJ: Review of Potential Apple Valley Red-E-Mix Site Redevelopment and Relocation Several weeks ago I received a call from Gene Peterson, who is a developer I had met in the past. He indicated that he had been working with Matt Fischer, the owner of Apple Valley Red- E-Mix. They had developed redevelopment plans for the AVR site and plans to relocate the facility to the Stockdale property on Audubon Road, south of the City garage and railroad tracks. He asked if I could set up a meeting between themselves,the Mayor and City Manager to discuss the proposal. He further indicated something along the lines of preferring to make an attempt to explore solutions to the problem that may be able to head off pending litigation on the condemnation of the AVR parcel. I said we are generally willing to talk and set up the meeting. It was attended by myself, Todd Gerhardt, in lieu of the City Manager and, due to the on-going litigation, by the City Attorney. The plans we reviewed were in the form of extremely professional and apparently expensive scale models. Two were presented, one of the AVR redevelopment, the second of the Stockdale site. The plans were prepared without any input by City staff and the designer was clearly not up to speed on many issues affecting primarily the AVR site. The AVR redevelopment featured four office/retail buildings, two of which are multi-story, aligned ;roma east to west along the lang, narrow parcel formed by not only the A I( Darcel, but also the old 1 aco Shop and part of the Hanus site. External access was to be provided by three entrances including a right-in/right-out only from Highway 5, a new at-grade crossing running north over the tracks to West 78th Street and by an extension of West 79th Street around the Hanus building. Internal access is apparently provided by private drives running through parking lots of each of the structures. Mr. Peterson claimed to have tenants for each of the structures but did not indicate who they were. August 25, 1993 Page 2 While the plan is attractive, it raises a large number of often insoluble problems including: 1. The site is no where near wide enough to accommodate what was illustrated. Grading, access, internal circulation and landscaping requirements would result in a substantial down sizing of any potential building sites. 2. One building is situated on top of the Hanus parking lot that is scheduled for upgrading and landscaping in an upcoming project. This parking is critical to the functioning of the Hanus building and occupants. Loss of the parking would make the building worthless. It also occupies the site of the new, largely ISTEA funded pedestrian overpass. As designed, it would not be possible to accommodate the bridge. Although this could possibly be rectified, it would result in the loss of at least one of the proposed buildings. 3 The access proposals are highly suspect. I seriously doubt that MnDOT would allow a new access from Hwy. 5 or that we would support it due to safety concerns. It is also unclear how grades could be made to work. The access around the Hanus building has been explored extensively in the past. Due to the narrow corridor between the building and railroad, the only way a full street could be built is to tear off the north bay of the building. The at grade railroad crossing is also problematic. The City has been negotiating for years for the Hwy. 101 crossing which is certainly more important and replaced an existing one, and has found the process to be nearly impossible. This proposal is likely to have a much tougher time and in any case would require acquisition of additional private property to reach West 78th Street. 4 Internal access is also highly compromised due to the constrained nature of the site and raise questions over parking adequacy and emergency vehicle access. The proposal to relocate AVR to the Stockdale parcel was also attractively executed. It used the depressed grade of the site and extensive landscaping to offer fairly good screening if the plan illustrated the situation accurately (which is sometimes not the case due to artistic license including the use of 50-60 foot high trees. We do not know if this is the case or not in this instance since we were never given detailed plans). The main tower of the plant was 50 high and would probably be visible although most of the direct views would be minimized. In this case, staff indicated that such a location theoretically possible since the ordinance does a rr:Y' € F. - as -i- be. 'ot -.era us: - re: ,.P r.:----A our -hat the Co ncil v hay-- re;.e• ova- the p- due to the many l .rneF that are being buil- short distance to the south along Audubon koaa. Additionally, tris type of use may adverseiy impact the quality and value of neighboring parcels in the office/industrial district. A church and the U. S. Weather Service have been approved across the street. The 55 acre parcel to the east is owned by Redmond and is considered a prime office/industrial parcel. At the present time staff is working on a proposal for a 10,000,000 square foot project of mostly office space on this August 25, 1993 Page 3 site. We told Mr. Peterson and Mr. Fischer that having AVR as a neighbor is not likely to be viewed favorably. The models were presented to us in their hope that they could somehow begin a dialogue to avert a lawsuit over the condemnation. After discussion, staff concluded that there is little possibility of this substantially altering the City's action to remove AVR from Highway 5. They did not appear to be promising enough to stop the litigation which has already been delayed by the AVR attorney. I asked for a clarification on what they would expect from the City if both plans proved to be feasible. They seemed to indicate a belief that even if this was to pass that it would reduce, but not eliminate, the damages they are seeking. Thus, there seemed to be little financial incentive to pursue this further at this time since a pending court action is likely to better define our liability in any event. I conveyed this position back to Mr. Peterson and sent him and Mr. Fischer a copy of this memo. Should the Council or HRA wish to have more information on these proposals, appropriate arrangements could be made. w•E• E P — 1 — 9 a'• 1•••1 E D 1 3 : 5 1 P . 01 7 : 23 M e. El METAL. FINISHXNG (J — 1 -- 9 -.6 W E 3:1 1-kits OlUe / by uary Larson . . . . f3..$i reW,)rf•h Inc JUISI rry ilillverrtal Prr.St hy 414.30 • Tii P I a rt Pt i Pi, CLee t. 137 . . I . ..........„:„1.4.,,-..--;.- .--:-._.,.- ....,,,,-,...,...,--....-rv. .w. ,.......:. ...,..,........,.., ...--- .4.""'" _,..„,... -7..,...."--....."-= .. ..- .... " 1,0.."'" ' ......-.. 70'.r:•".. ) / ..e' '' •"". ..,:r. ...&.... „,..." .,,,....7.... ... ...., .•••% .r•'..- .." ' .."'...." . ''..".7," •-r.,:..1: *rsz„...........5.... ..•-',...7.;„.e.. ..:•;," ....., --.... ellic;--;.1,•.-... ''... ..E.I:.-,......r... ...._. ... ... • • •• • . • • _ . 41i'd • • • // • . • .,,,,,,,- ./7/ F d 1 • • 0 • .........V........,....: 50....;....:::..... ... • • '''...?e". ..." ----.:.....----- - .--..,.. -''. / • to e . • • • • • ::::':••••• • • • •:•:::! - ::::.:. . „Iwo 1;::::•... ° ..... a •t:::::. s • . ;?.:::*:';:.,i,..,.„ it — 1 .. ., .9.. •••• :/;••••-::•::"...tli. • ..: .';'::::::::: ' :::•::•;:;!;:,..i:*;:i:;:::::;:;:::, .,,,....:, .., .,....:.:.,..: • 6 / • . • • i ' _ ii•....;...;:;',: :::;::: ::414:!1:7:::. 4:4..;:: ...;:i:‘,17, ...- CI . Ki"......"‘" • i 7 — ;:::i4::':::::::::.::::.:i:i;i::. .':' :;::;i4::: ::::::::::::::::i., .. I'''-'"-'.....'.k il'•;:::: :::::::::::::::.•::;:*. .....!::: !::' ::::::::;:':,;::::::::::•.: • ' '-:•:.:•:•:•:•:•:.:•:•:.:,:•: "..... ...7 •:: ......:•:.:.:•:.X....:0.,:.:, •••'.•::::::::::::::::::::1:::::: :::,;: '':, :::::::::::::::::::::•:::::: ... _ ...,..• •:•7:::•:::::::':',.: .:.:.;:. ••. •:::::::.:::::::::::::::::', -.%,.t....`....:::.:::1:"..''• :.: •:;:i:„At =7;ii :•:•:::. if / /' • / .1. Prairie dog developers