1988 09 21
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21, 1988
e
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: James Wildermuth, David Headla, Steven Emmings, Annette
ElIson, Brian Batzli and Ladd Conrad
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart
STAFF PRESENT: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner and Larry Brown, Asst.
City Engineer
TH 101 REALIGNMENT, UPDATE.
Fred Hoisington presented the seven alternatives for the TH 101
realignment.
Conrad: What's the negative with that proposal Fred? What's wrong with
it?
e
Fred Hoisington: Ladd, as it turns out, In the course of the evaluation,
there are very few negatives about that. One of the negatives is that
accessibility to existing businesses will be diminished to a degree over
what it is today. Businesses exist here and putting the north leg here
with no connection to the south, means that we are somewhat detaching
these from the mainstream. Especially if the traffic is moving in a
westerly direction. You can't get into this area. I guess of all the
things we're considering, 13 different criteria, that's the one that's
probably the most concerned with.
Emmings: I'd just like to ask you, in the Minutes of the City Council, it
looked like you were presenting them four alternatives.
Fred Hoisington:
Steve, at that point we were.
Emmings: Can you tell us which of these four we presented to them?
Fred Hoisington: This was, the one I think that was referred to as the
fourth alternative is now number 6.
Emmings:
I suppose 1 was l?
Fred Hoisington:
1 was 1.
This one was number 2.
Mitch Watson:
solution...
Number 3 Fred, was the 2nd alternative.
The recommended
Emmings: I just had trouble connecting up the Council's comments on the
plan with the ones we were looking at but if you can't tell us.
Fred Hoisington: This one that is the sixth alternative, is the one that
received the more favorable comments from the Council. There were 4
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 2
e
members of the Council present at that session.
Emmings: Was what is now 2 presented to them?
Fred Hoisington: Yes, it was. As a matter of fact, that alternative, I'm
trying to remember the history of this, actually came after the Council
met. We presented it to them on the 12th but it came out of the prior
meeting after the meeting in discussion with the neighbors out in the
hallway actually. So it was one that sort of evolved out of the process.
Headla: On the Alternative 6, the furthest intersection to the east, you
had blocked off that total intersection?
Fred Hoisington: This one would be, at least the way we're showing it and
the way it's going to be evaluated, is it would have rights in and rights
out on both sides. Both north and south. It would have a median in the
middle however. In other words, traffic could not go straight across.
Headla: Did you consider for westbound traffic to be able to make a left
hand turn there, or isn't that practical?
Fred Hoisington: Westbound traffic in this alternative would not be able
to make a left turn until it got to this point and then would have to come
back.
ie
Conrad: Fred, the criteria that the City Council is going through, are
those your criteria or are those theirs?
Fred Hoisington: Those are a list that really evolved over, because of
the Planning Commission meeting. Because of the neighborhood meetings.
The two that we had prior to it and the businessmens meeting that occurred
before we came to the Planning Commission. Then the Council has had some
input into that as well so it's kind of been an accumulation of issues
that we've finally put together and in the end represented a lot of
interests.
Conrad: Some comments on this. I think what I see is kind of a mishmash
of stuff here and I'm not sure what is defined or what is meant by certain
things. Some things, it seems that, like number 11, MnDot acceptance.
They have to accept it so why is that a criteria.
Fred Hoisington:
That one's been dropped out. That's a must.
Conrad:
Traffic safety is again...
Fred Hoisington: We've also dropped that one.
Conrad: What I don't see in there, we'll approach it from that way.
e
Fred Hoisington: You've gotten all the ones we've dropped out. All the
rest of them are still there.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 3
e
Conrad: Good land use, now I don't see a category, and the reason I never
liked the south route, I should not tell the neighbors this but the reason
I didn't like it, it did not look like good land use. We were duplicating
roadways and trying to make TH 101 into a real nice highway when it
doesn't deserve that, in my estimation. What I saw in a lot of
alternatives were bad land use. We were taking land that could be
developed for other reasons, and I don't see, from a planning
standpoint, I don't see any criteria that says this is the best use of
land. Very definitely some of the alternatives that run the road, run TH
101 into the neighborhood is not a good use of land in my mind and on that
particular criteria, would score very low.
Fred Hoisington:
Number 14, what is number l4?
Conrad:
Development impacts.
Fred Hoisington:
That's where we're covering the land use impacts.
Conrad: Who knows the definition of what these are?
Fred Hoisington:
I do.
Conrad: Does the City Council, when they go through this, they're going
to have 6 alternatives and they're going to score these on a 1 to S rating
e scale. Do they know what these mean?
Fred Hoisington: They are looking at them in the most positive sense.
Based on our discussions with them, they're looking at those, for example,
minimizing residential impacts and they're giving us general impressions
of what those mean and we're feeding that back. We're trying to read what
they're saying, what they're reading into those and try to define those
for you. It's really a scoring system. They're weighting those criteria
now and then we have a scoring system that really is like this. Better
than the existing conditions or at least as good or better get a certain
number of points. That will be multiplied times the weight. The middle
number is, whatever that happens to be, in this case it's a 2 as opposed
to a 4 which is the first one, is acceptable. Then zero is kind of
unacceptable. I think we all have a fairly good understanding of what the
definitions are. At least I hope I'm reading the Council correctly.
e
Conrad: I'm going to have a real problem because the development impact
to me includes a lot of stuff that's far more important, and we get back
to weight and obviously they're making the final decision here but good
land use, I'm not sure that that's covered and Planning Commission is
concerned with land use and it's not in IS points here Fred. It's just
not. Providing for separation of land use. Again, the different uses. I
don't know that that's in here. Again, as planners we care about how
close we bring things to neighborhoods. We like to separate different
zones as much as possible. We don't like high intensity close to
neighborhoods. It's covered by residential impacts Fred but again, in my
mind, the concepts that we try to enforce here, I'm using different words
than what I'm seeing here and it kind .of bothers me that the City Council
is going to look at some of these things and they really aren't. We're
-
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 4
e
looking at planning issues, and I'm not seeing the words on the paper that
says these are planning. I don't see the categories quite right at this
point in time Fred.
Fred Hoisington: Let me give you a definition, for example residential
impact. The way the categories break down or the definitions break down
on the scoring breaks down is essentially this. That there would be no
additional traffic impact on Lake Drive East than would be inconsistent
with the present collector street classification for that street which
also translates into noise being closer to those houses and really those
are the two factors that are most important when it comes to traffic. As
opposed to bringing it nearer to the remaining houses, as opposed to
having it basically in it's present alignment of TH 5 so we are very much
considering those kinds of impacts Ladd on the residential areas. The one
we had trouble with was, is the taking of residences a residential impact?
So we struggled with that back and forth in definition for quite some time
and we concluded that that was probably under number 14 as opposed to
whichever one talked about...and dealt exclusively with remaining
residences, in this case, and the impacts that would be. Because if we
interpret what the Council told us to be, we're concerned about those
people on the south side. So yes, we have cranked that into the
definition so we hope read the Council well in doing that.
e
Conrad: So with each criteria, there's a definition to that criteria that
the Council will read?
Fred Hoisington:
That is correct.
Conrad: And we've thrown out the ones that are absolutes so they're not
weighting?
Fred Hoisington: With one exception. We probably should have thrown out
and that had to do with the adhering to schedule which at that time we
weren't sure whether we could with all the alternatives but now we feel,
and tomorrow when we meet with MnDot we'll confirm, hopefully to stay on
schedule with all of the alternatives. So what it's done is it's become a
must in the process and we could have eliminated it but we didn't know it
at the time.
Conrad: And you're telling me that my concerns are covered in your
definitions?
Fred Hoisington:
Your concerns are covered.
Conrad:
Okay, any other comments?
e
Fred Hoisington: Let me just tell you that we have, from a traffic
standpoint, Mitch Watson from Benshoof and Associates is here and we have
looked at the traffic levels that will be on Lake Drive, on TH 5, TH 101
as a result of all this. We've cut a window in the community and we know
what the traffic volumes are and all are going to be on all those streets
and we know that all five of the alternatives that remain, not the
existing condition and not number 5, the north leg option, all of them
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 5
e
work and the level of service on 4 of those 5, in all but one
intersection, is level of service 0 or better. So from that standpoint,
we know now from a traffic standpoint those will work.
Conrad: Itls just a real absolute that bringing TH 101 into Market Blvd.
is a good move in my mind. Therels just no doubt about it. When you
think of how to move traffic and give them the availability of downtown
Chanhassen in the future, thatls real smart. Thatls really great. In the
couple weeks that welve played on this, thatls just nice to see in this
plan.
Emmings: I don't know anything about a lot of these factors so I canlt
make any kind of credible assessment of these plans. I donlt know about
project costs or things like that but it seems to me 6 just plain makes a
lot of sense to me. It also eliminates a problem youlve got with a bad
part of TH 101. It straightens that out. It brings it in in a nice place
and I think that just looks like, itls basically the north leg option but
it's been improved by moving it to the west and straightening out TH 101.
Conrad: There will be some environmental impacts on 6 but I think in th
elong run, werenlt we going to put a grismill in that wetland Jo Ann at
one point in time? Wasnlt that where we were going to have the old
working mill in the wetland? You donlt recall that?
e
Emm i n g s :
That was part of the conference center.
Conrad: It was part of the conference center.
Olsen: Sunnybrook, yes.
Conrad: But anyway, therels some negatives.
Emmings: The only other question that I thought was, 2 is another one
that is attractive from some points of view but I think itls inferior to
this one, number 6.
ElIson: I agree with both of you. I think 6 is the best and I guess 11m
really proud to be associated with this planning group because they took
the comments from everybody and they could have not done much about it and
they went back to the drawing board and they spent, I know a lot of hours,
corning up with the alternatives. I think welre all happy to see that. I
think it's going to make a win-win situation for most of the people.
Conrad: Unless you own the McDonalds and I think McDonalds, there are
some negatives with some of the designs for certain businesses.
Batzli: I guess that was going to be my only comment about option 6. I
think it is the best of the options and I think from a drawback
perspective, I think McDonalds, DataServ, some of them are going to have a
tougher time getting access. Theylre going to be winding around.
e
Conrad:
Itls going to hurt their business.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 6
e
Wildermuth: I agree. Somebody coming west on TH 5 trying to get to
DataServ, what's going to happen wander around through the neighborhoods
to get to that business. It's probably going to result in a fair amount
of truck traffic. I guess that's the down side but other than that, I
think the plan looks, or appears to be the best of the 6.
Fred Hoisj.ngton: Can I just comment on that case? There will be an
intersection at Dell Road or 184th which means that the accessibility will
be much better in the future than we can imagine today.
Headla: That's what I was going to ask, about the road to the east.
Eventually, won't that be the intersection...
Fred Hoisington:
Yes.
Headla: Fred, I can see why they hired you. You've done a good job here
getting some different alterantives. I'm certainly pleased that you carne
up with 6 that are at least feasible. What about in the future? Let's
say 10-15 years from now, as more traffic grows or is it going to grow or
will traffic might go to some other highways?
e
Fred Hoisington: You're on a growth curve here that's going to last for,
you're really on the front end of it David. You're going to experlence
the same kinds of things, maybe not quite to the degree that Eden prairie
has been going through since 1977 so they've gone through an unprecedented
period of 11 years of significant growth and we think now that you have
the critical mass here that is going to continue that growth cycle here. I
don't know that you can avoid that. You're just in a corridor and you're
going to inherit a whole lot of things because people want to be out here.
Headla:
So traffic will continue?
Fred Hoisington: Traffic will continue to grow. The numbers on the
highway system, when you look at the studies that have been done, are
significant.
Headla: We don't have our monitors on.
we're talking about? Number 6.
Do the people here know what
Fred Hoisington: At least the public who was involved.
alternative 6. In fact, he sat through all of these.
Uli knows about
Headla:
Is there a real problem with Alternative 6?
e
Conrad: I think a real problem is taken care of from the residential area
on 6 and 7. I think it gets back to the commercial aspects. The business
access and I think McDonalds is the primary one. I think DataServ and the
others will, there will be sources for access but in fast food
restaurants, winding through and getting. Fast food is a business where
you've got to have immediate access and they're not going to be pleased
with any of these accesses that close down left turn into the site. Okay,
Fred thanks. Jo Ann, anything else on this item? We gave you more
comments than you wanted but I think we wanted to.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 7
e
Fred Hoisington: And we appreciate that. The input is of value to the
Council.
ROSEMOUNT INC. PROPOSAL:
A. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, CITY OF CHANHASSEN.
B. REVIEW LAND SALE AGREEMENT.
Fred Hoisington presented the staff report on this item.
Conrad: There is a resolution in front of us. Are there any questions?
Emmings: No, it seems like a good thing and appropriate to me.
Wildermuth: Are we, as part of this consideration for the ...source
program or is that strictly the City Council?
Conrad: I don't know.
Olsen: The influx of source permit?
e
Wildermuth:
Right.
Are we part of that consideration?
Olsen: We don't even have to do that right now.
Fred Hoisington: At this point in time, that is not required to prepare
this waiver.
Resolution #88-2: Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning
Commission approve Resolution #88-2 as presented in Attachment #2. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Resolution #88-1: ElIson moved, Emmings seconded that the
Commission adopt Resolution #88-1 finding Modification No.
with the plans for development of the City of Chanhassen.
favor and the motion carried.
Planning
8 consistent
All voted in
SUPERAMERICA, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HWY. 7 AND HWY. 41.:
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO PERMIT GAS PUMPS ON PROPERTY ZONED
BH, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT.
e
B. SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW A 45 SQUARE FOOT GROUND LOW PROFILE
SIGN INSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED 24 SQUARE FOOT GROUND LOW PROFILE SIGN.
C. SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 3,200 SQUARE FOOT CONVENIENCE STORE.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 8
e
Jo Ann Olsen and Larry Brown presented the staff report on this item.
Conrad: WeIll open it up for public comments. I know welve heard a lot
of comments before and I think SuperAmerica has made some changes. I
think the one thing as we look at a conditional use permit here, it
appears that most of the communitiesl comments in some areas and maybe
still not happy with the gas station there but most of those areas that we
were concerned with, traffic flow and lighting and barriers and the
landscaping plans and disaster recovery type situations, it appears on
paper that SuperAmerica has handled that. One issue that has not been
dealt with by staff or that has not received a yea or a nay on what we
have to look for is the hours of operation in the conditional use permit.
Welre comfortable with 24 or if we feel that for the business
neighborhood, that thatls appropriate. I think you all have to remember
that welre talking about business neighborhood use here and make our
comments based on that land designation. But anyway, weIll open it up for
public comments. If there are any, weld sure like to hear your comments
and hopefully youlve had some insights into what SuperAmerica has been
proposing and seen their recent plan. Are there any comments?
Ben Gowen, 6440 Hazeltine Blvd.: 11m not aware of your maps and plans for
traffic flow. Is there any way that I can become aware of it at this
point?
e
Conrad: Actually you could have my manual right here, if yould like. Jo
Ann, what are we going to do with these? Are you going to collect them
and send them onto City Councilor could this gentleman?
Olsen:
He can have one. Welve got extras.
Conrad: Itls a pretty thorough. If ball counts, itls a pretty thorough
survey and you kind of have to be a traffic engineer to analyze some of
the stuff thatls in here. Thatls why we have our own engineer review this
and tell us what it really means. What hels saying, and without being an
engineer myself, I have to take our consultant, our engineerls word for it
that the traffic flows and the patterns created are acceptable based on
our standards.
Ben Gowen:
Then 1111 have to ask him a question.
Is that it?
Conrad: Ask him.
Ben Gowen: How can you have a single entrance and no exit and have a gas
station? There is no exit thatls public property.
Brown:
There is a proposed exit on TH 41 right now.
e
Ben Gowen: That is private property. That is part of the proposed, non-
existing shopping center that was supposed to have gone in last June in a
very brushed area. Nothingls happened. You can not have an exit on
private property can you? Thatls a straight question. Can you, yes or
no?
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 9
e
Brown:
Yes.
Ben Gowen:
You can have an exit on private property?
Brown: Correct.
Ben Gowen: I doubt it seriously. whether you're an engineer or not, I
don't think you can do that.
Olsen: Just for clarification, the development of this site is also
contingent upon development of the HSZ site.
Ben Gowen: That becomes private property. SuperAmerica is going to exit
on private property. You can not do that, I do not believe. You think
you can? Is that a yes or a no? Can you use private property?
Olsen:
They'll be able to use that exit.
Ben Gowen: HSZ owns that property and SuperAmerica is going to use it for
a public road. I don't think you can approve that.
Olsen: They'll have an agreement, a cross easement.
e
Ben Gowen:
property.
No, you can't do that. You've got to have access to your own
All they've got is a highway entrance. They have no exit.
Emmings: Let's say that the shopping center never got built and you've
got, so we've got a gas station sitting out there all by itself, which is
kind of my fear, but even if the gas station doesn't own that property,
they could buy an easement from the landowner of the HSZ site. They can
buy an easement from them to have access onto that road and as far as I
know, there would be nothing wrong with that.
Ben Gowen: That may be, but doesn't have defeat all of the HSZ propoganda
that we've been fed for the last summer?
Emmings:
Yes.
Ben Gowen: What are we getting here? It's a railroad and anybody can do
what they want to do? That's not fair to anybody.
Emmings: But you asked a question, can they go out that way and I think
the answer to that is yes. I don't see any reason they can't.
Ben Gowen: without an easement they can't.
Conrad: They're not going to be able to build without an easement. They
can't put it up unless there's access.
e
Ben Gowen: Has HSZ okayed the easement then? You're getting the cart in
front of the horse here.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 10
e
Emmings: Why don't we ask them what their arrangements are.
Randy Peterson: We have a cross easement and yes, they have approved it.
Ben Gowen:
I disagree with this procedure totally.
Don Dudycha, 6451 Oriole Lane: The last time you were here you were going
to build a shopping center, which is true. Those other two lots were
going to be vacant. They were going to be left. Now how corne they threw
the shopping center around and put this in there? Are we still going to
make that left turn lane out on TH 7 onto Oriole Avenue and close off
64th? What are they going to do? Are we still going to be sitting there
and all the traffic going around us or what?
Brown: The shopping center site has gone through all the hurdles.
They've submitted building plans. They are desparately seeking a grading
permit to start grading. They have received a letter of intent of
approval, as I stated in my last memo, from the Watershed District. The
Watershed District, unfortunately meets once a month so that's a definite
time crunch. Their next meeting is corning up, as a matter of fact it
should have been probably last night. I'm assuming that they got approved
as stated in the Watershed letter. That's the hurdle that they've been
waiting for and they will start construction soon.
e
Don Dudycha: Is that turn lane then still going to be off TH 7 on Oriole
Avenue and the other road, 64th going to be cul-de-saced?
Brown:
That is correct.
Don Dudycha: I thought that was supposed to be worked on too so that you
don't have to go off of suicide 7. It's still the same way. Nothing's
been surveyed or nothing.
Brown: They have surveyed it. The City has not allowed them to start
work until all the documents are in order.
Don Dudycha: I don't agree with putting a gas station in there. That's
another thing that's going to be all night. You're going to hear the cars
going in and out. Noise and everything else, I don't think that that's
going to be...
Headla moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Headla: As you're eastbound, after you turn out to go into the station
now...
Brown: No, I believe page I of your plan shows a right-in onto that site.
~ Headla: And that, for all practical purposes, approved?
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 11
e
Brown:
permit.
I talked with MnDot there and the final steps of issuing for a
They have guaranteed us that those permits will be issued.
Headla: Okay, that was one concern you had. Another concern you had was
the traffic going in and out onto TH 41. The more you thought about it,
and I had a hard time with it but no matter what we do in there, we've got
essentially the same type of problem. The way they've looked at it, they
said they don't see a problem with the type of business SuperAmerica is,
I've got to support that. The other one I had a big concern about is the
noise. The last time I said, I really used as my to develop an opinion is
at TH 5 and TH 4. The SuperAmerica there. I have a friend that lives
very close to that and he was complaining about noise. But when I talked
to him, particularly this summer during the warm weather, he said no, the
noise isn't from the station, it's from TH 5. I talked to him more about
it. He couldn't identify a problem with the station itself so that kind
of swung me that I think SuperAmerica is appropriate. I have no problem
with the 24 hour operation. I see filling stations all open for the
night, in the wee hours of the morning. ...don't hear anything so where
I'm coming from, I don't think there is going to be trouble due to the
outset and I don't have trouble with 24 hour service.
Wildermuth: The application in this case fits the zoning. I think the
applicant has demonstrated very good faith and meets the criteria that
we've set up. It's an intense use of the corner but as Dave said, any
use, any commercial use for that corner would intense use. I guess my
questions were satisfied.
e
Batzli: A question first for Jo Ann. Are the plans that we're looking at
now August 15th plans? The amended plans?
Olsen: Yes.
Batzli: So should the motions that we make reflect the amended plans, not
the July 11th plans?
Olsen:
Right, those should be changed.
Batzli: You'll have to forgive me for some of this because I wasn't here
at the previous meeting when we discussed this but lights on the gas
canopy being receeded into the canopy. Is that really what we care about
so much as where the light goes after it comes out of the light?
Olsen: Receeding it, further buffers it. When you drive by, when they're
not receeded, you're still going to see that. The light may not be
generated that much off site. But the receeded lights seems to make it
less of an impact to traffic driving by. It does make a difference.
e
Batzli: I guess my point is this. You can have a receeded light and
still have an angle for view that is just as great as if it wasn't
recessed. You can have it recessed with wide dispersion bulb. I didn't
know what that was trying to do when I read it. I assumed that it was
trying to keep the lights to a minimum so as not to be intrusive to the
highway or residential or wherever you're trying to keep it from.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 12
e
Olsen: From the highway and the neighborhood. We're just trying to keep
not intrusive to the whole area.
Batzli: Have we ever used wording like that before? Saying what we
really mean instead of talking about where they can put the lights?
Olsen: We did have them provide us with a lighting plan to show the
extent of the lights and that was our way of insuring that it wasn't going
to be a hazard to the traffic on TH 7 and TH 41 nor would be seen by the
neighbors. That site plan and that lighting plan has shown that that
won't happen.
Batzli: I guess I just thought this wasn't a very artful way to say what
we're trying to say because I don't think it says it. I think the intent
is there but it doesn't say that what we're trying to do is keep the light
underneath the gas canopy and out of adjacent areas.
Olsen: By having a lighting plan, as part of the condition of what they
were to do...
Batzli: Then I think is we said something like, changing the lights from
the lighting plan which we received would require City approval or
something like that would insure that they're doing what's on the lighting
plan, maintaining the lights within their property rather than talking
about the lights being recessed or not.
e
Emmings: How about this Brian? How about just adding, the lights on the
gas canopy be receeded into the canopy to eliminate dispersion into
surrounding areas. Put down the intent so if, even with their lighting
plan doesn't do what we think it's going to do, we still have something to
fall back on.
Batzli: I like that. The outside storage, is that during the day or is
that all day, all night? What is that intending to avoid? Most of these
stations we allow the bags of salt and 5 billion 12 packs of coke for the
day and then they put them back in inside. Are you attempting to stop
that?
Olsen: Yes.
Batzli: Isn't that display rather than storage? Then, the applicant
shall meet all conditions of the Assistant City Engineer. I don't know
that that's fair to anybody, that condition and I don't know what we're
trying to do by that condition. Are there conditions now being imposed by
the Assistant City Engineer?
Olsen: Right. In his memo there were several conditions.
e Batzli: Are there going to be further conditions?
Olsen: No. We clarify, in the dated.
can as memo
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 13
e
Batzli: I guess I personally don't like the way the traffic is being
routed around this whole development. I don't think that it's necessarily
a bad use for the area. I think that being where it's located, it's a
fairly good use. I guess I don't like the hours of operation because it
is business neighborhood and we're trying to blend it into the
neighborhood regardless of it being by two highways. I really don't like
the traffic patterns. I don't know how to change that. I'm not a traffic
engineer.
ElIson: I am glad to see that they are going to have the turn offs, both
the left and the right turn from TH 7. The left turn onto Oriole and the
right turn there and I think that that's an improvement for anybody even
if they're not using this development. I like SuperAmericas. I used to
live by one. I think they're a well run organization and they are a nice
business to have in the neighborhood as far as some of the others you
could have in this area zoned. I'm disappointed the way that it was
handled initially when we saw this development in two outlots when, you
know by assumption this was probably planned ahead of time and could have
corne through with the original zoning. Once we've already zoned it
business neighborhood, and I see that this is meeting the conditions, at
this point my hands are tied. I have to allow it to go through but I'm
not quite sure I like the way that it was finageled around to bring it in.
e
Emmings: The applicant has done a lot of address all of our concerns.
The zoning allows it. I'd vote for a conditional use permit. My only
reservations, I agree with the wording changes that Brian suggested. My
only reservations are hours of operation. I have a feeling that it's not
going to be a big noise generater but I don't know that. I'm having a
little trouble coming up in my own mind with a suggestion for limiting
hours of operation. I don't know what would be reasonable in cutting a
compromise between the surrounding neighborhood and the business itself.
If somebody has some suggestions like that, I'd sure like to listen to
them but if no one else does have any changes along those lines, than I'd
be inclined to say, keep it open for 24 hours.
Conrad: Talk to us a little bit about the 24 hours of operation versus
18.
Bud Kelp: My name is Bud Kelp. The advantage to a 24 hour operation is
the time to do the necessary clean-up, fix-up, stocking shelves, things
that you do while it is quiet and slow. Stores that are 18 hours that
have to have a truck corne in during the daytime. They've got merchandise
in the aisles while you're stocking shelves. It becomes quite a problem.
Emmings:
Do you have to be open while you're stocking shelves?
e
Bud Kelp: If you're working 18 hours, that's when the people are there.
We don't have somebody working third shift when we're not open for
business. It tends seriously to get blown out of proportion. The amount
of business on the third shift, really almost anything from midnight on is
truly minimal. You're looking at 5 or 6 vehicles an hour. I think it's a
pretty exaggerated figure. Around 5:00 in the morning, people start
moving around. Some people are leaving for work that start at 6:00. You
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 14
e
might start getting a little more traffic. I think mainly we like the 24
hour for the purpose of the stocking and cleaning. We do have an area
manager here who will be supervising this particular store. Would you
care to address that any further?
Area Manager: Not really. I think what Bud's really trying to say is
that our overnight shift is important to us to maintain the standards of
the store. Putting the store back together to make sure it's up to our
standards daily so that our view, or the way the community views us is
positive. It's not that we're going to generate a ton of traffic at night
but it works very well in our operation to be open that 24 hours, to have
that time to put the place back together. It's basically as simple as
that.
Bud Kelp: We are also there for the emergencies, whatever they might be.
Sometimes you do tend to want to travel somewhere and leave early in the
morning. We are there for that purpose. Sometimes you forget something
and you need something at night. Your little one gets sick, you need some
aspirin, we're there. This is part of our image. We are 24 hours just
about allover the country. There are very, very few locations where we
are not.
Conrad: Thanks for your comments.
will be limited to an 8 hour shift.
shift. I don't know what that means.
Jo Ann, in point 8, tank deliveries
What does that mean? To an 8 hour
e
Olsen: That was another issue during the other public hearing that they
didn't want tankers coming in in the middle of the night and making a lot
of noise so the applicant is willing to limit tankers coming in to refill
the tanks to an 8 hour period.
Conrad: Which somebody will dictate and it won't be at night.
the assumption?
Is that
Olsen:
That's to be determined.
Conrad: Who's going to determine that? We have it in this motion.
Olsen: They have said, let the City determine when they want the shift to
occur. You'll most likely have it during the day because you want to
remove the noise.
Wildermuth: Wouldn't you rather say something like 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
or 7:00 to 8:00?
Olsen: I'm leaving it open for you to determine what hours you want.
Emmings: For us or for somebody else?
e
Conrad: We can do it.
Headla:
Shouldn't we let that be negotiated with the staff?
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 15
e
Conrad: Well, what's our direction. I'm just trying to figure out what
we're trying to accomplish here. Are we trying to keep the trucks off
site at night? Is that what we're doing?
Headla: Yes, that was the intent. Remember I was asking about the size
of the tanks and then the concern about the big tankers corning in.
Conrad: So when would you not like them to corne in Dave, because you're
in the neighborhood? When don't you want those trucks corning in?
Headla: To me it would be like 8:00 to 8:00 but I would like to see the
neighbors have an input to staff and the staff can negotiate that with
SuperAmerica. Leave it flexible enough so they can get in. If 8:00 to
8:00 is satisfactory to both parties, that's great. I don't think we've
got enough input to just corne out and say, these are the best hours.
Conrad:
Does 8:00 to 8:00 to work?
Bud Kelp: We could sure use, no deliverys after say 9:00 at night until
6:00 in the morning? Between that period?
Conrad: That's different than 8:00 to 8:00.
Bud Kelp: Well, 8:00 to 8:00, we could live with 8:00 to 8:00.
e
Conrad: Does that seem reasonable?
going to ask you a question. Going
concerned that we're going to build
that we are because you're seeing a
I think to me it does. Larry, I'm
back on buffering. The residents are
the shopping center and you're saying
lot of activity.
Brown: If I may add one more comment. The entire SuperAmerica site is
dependent upon the rest of the amenities of the HSZ site. That being the
ponding. That being the storm sewer. That being the watermain and
sanitary sewer.
Conrad: So what you're telling me is the rest of the improvements are
going in so HSZ is pretty motivated to put something up?
Brown: Very much so and SA depends on it.
Conrad: But we don't have a guarantee that there's going to be a shopping
center there. There's not a, and I don't know that we can force that
guarantee but right now we don't know for sure.
Brown: However, we don't have 100% guarantee that the shopping center is
going up. However, if we don't have the shopping center, we don't have
SA.
Conrad:
Tell me how that works.
e
Brown: Solely because the developer for the shopping center has to enter
into a development agreement before the final plat is signed for the HSZ
site. SuperAmerica on the other hand is waiting for that plat to fall in
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 16
e
place before they start with their site so essentially we have them all on
a leash.
Batzli: Is that part of your memo? The utility serVIce is contingent and
that stuff or is that more...
Brown:
site.
That's mechanics. HSZ is bringing the utilities to them, to their
Batzli: But they couldn't even get utilities or any of that without the
HSZ being...
Brown: Correct.
Conrad: I think SuperAmerica did a real nice job in responding to our
questions. I always find that the folks who respond nicely like they did
to concerns and questions are good neighbors. We found that throughout
Chanhassen. There are very few exceptions to that. I think the
neighborhood is still concerned with a gas station there and there are
probably some sequential things that give us some concern but overall, I
think that SuperAmerica has done a nice job with this application.
Echoing what Brian said, I think the traffic flow still is lousy in terms
of internal HSZ flow but I don't think we had total control on that and
therefore will let the City Council deal with that issue or that concern.
Other than that, I'm happy with what we got here.
e
Headla: Are there any limits on what they can sell? You talk about gas,
oil, coffee and donuts. Do we draw the line at all on what they sell? Do
we really care?
Olsen: We don't have any special regulations limiting.
liquor and that.
They can't sell
Wildermuth:
Isn't that part of retail trade...by the State?
Olsen: On the liquor?
Wildermuth: On the general.
Olsen: They have to receive a permit from the State.
have any specific limitations.
The City does not
Conrad: The only other thing in our motion, if it doesn't include hours
of operation, it will be noticed by it's absence. Whoever makes the
motion should, I think we can do a couple things. We can defer the hours
to the City Council.
wildermuth: I don't see any reason to limit the hours of operation. I
think that the public convenience far outweights whatever noise situation
may be generated. There's a traffic light there that's going to generate
an awful lot more noise with stopping and starting...than a service
station.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 17
e
Conrad: I don't see a problem with the hours of operation other than the
lighting. I think welve taken care of the noise.
Ellson: ...like with the Holiday in Chanhassen. Do we have any of them
regulated now? If we have some already 24 hours, I think it'd be pretty
hard to say this one can and this one canlt. I would think it would be
pretty difficult to tell them they couldn't when we have it elsewhere in
the City.
Batzli:
I think it's easy.
It's a different business district.
Conrad: It's a business neighborhood district and that's a real
difference. However, it's on a major highway. It's a real contrast.
wildermuth: Are the lights on the Shorewood Shopping Center on all night
in the parking lot? I would guess they are.
Brown: Is the Super Value open 24 hours?
Emmings: No, not anymore.
Conrad: Is there a motion?
Headla: Are you looking for the site plan first?
e
Conrad: No, I think conditional use permit first and then weIll go to
site plan.
Wildermuth: I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Conditional Use Permit #88-10 as shown on the Site Plan stamped "Received
August 15, 1988" with the following 10 conditions, a number of which were
reworded by Brian and to include an 11th condition that there be no
limitation on hours of operation.
Conrad: Jo Ann, would it be helpful to reword some of Brian's comments
for the record right now?
Olsen:
I think lIve got them.
Conrad: Let's go over them. On 7, we
8, we were talking about 8:00 to 8:00.
on the memo dated such and such. Back
Brian, do you have a better teminology
were adding the word display. On
On 9, we were talking about based
to 6, Brian didn't like the intent.
for it?
Batzli: Steve can put that in the proposal.
Olsen: To eliminate dispersion into the surrounding neighborhood.
e
Emmings: Maybe on 7 we could just add the words, and say of merchandise.
There shall be no outside display, storage or sales of merchandise.
Wildermuth: Are we trying to limit the display or storage?
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 18
[e
Olsen:
Both.
Wildermuth: In other words, you don't like the idea of the Coke and oil
stacked out there?
Emmings: I think it cheapens their building, is my own personal feeling
and they were willing to go along with that. I was kind of surprised
about that but they were.
Conrad:
Is there a second?
Headla:
I'll second that.
Batzli: I don't necessarily approve that in a conditional use permit we
put a condition that business hours won't be limited. In effect what
you're telling them is if they wanted to only work 8:00 to 8:00 they
couldn't so I will vote against it on the condition 11.
Headla:
Say that rationale again.
Batzli: I believe that it was worded that the hours of operation will not
be limited which in effect means they have to be opened whether they want
to or not and I don't think that's appropriate.
e
Conrad:
I would prefer not having that condition in there.
Batzli: That's what I'm saying.
Ernrnings: It isn't a condition.
Batzli: Well, the condition is that they can't close.
Wildermuth: No.
Emmings: But that's what it sounds like. You can operate your
business...
Wi Idermuth :
In other words, it's at their discretion.
Batzli: But that's not what you said.
Headla: If it's not limited, you don't have an outer limit.
Batzli: I will vote against it with that one in there. I don't think
that's a good condition for a conditional use personally.
Headla: What are you suggesting?
-
Batzli: I'm suggesting that we don't say anything. If we intend to allow
them to operate as they see fit, then I don't think we need to say
anything.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 19
e
Headla: Don't you think we ought to give some kind of signal to the
Council?
Batzli: I think the Minutes that we just talked will reflect to the
Council what we're doing.
Wildermuth: That's fine. Strike condition 11.
Conrad: Dave, would you withdraw your second?
Headla: Yes.
Wildermuth moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit #88-10 as shown on the site plan
stamped "Received August 15, 1988" with the following conditions:
1. No unlicensed or inoperable vehicles shall be stored on the premises.
2. No repair, assembly or disassembly of vehicles is permitted on the
premises.
3. No public address system shall be audible from any residential parcel.
e
4.
Gas pump stacking area deemed to be appropriate by the City shall not
intrude into any required setback area.
5. No sales, storage or display of used automobiles or other vehicles
such as motorcycles, snowmobiles, or all terrain vehicles is
permitted.
6. The lights on the gas canopy shall be receded into the canopy to
eliminate dispersion of light into the surrounding neighborhood area.
7. There shall be no outside display, storage or sales of merchandise.
8. Tank deliveries will be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and on days
determined by the City.
9. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Assistant City Engineer
as in the memo dated September 14, 1988.
10. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of the site plan
approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
-
Headla moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Site Plan Review #88-10 dated August 15, 1988 with the
following conditions:
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 20
e
1. The site plan shall meet the conditions of the conditional use permit
approval.
2. The wall signs shall meet the requirements of the ordinance.
3. No signage will be permitted on the gas canopy.
4. All rooftop equipment must be screened from view from any direction.
5. The trash enclosure must be totally screened.
6. The applicant shall not receive a building permit until MnDot has
approved access permits for Hwy. 7 and Hwy. 41, the access points have
been installed and the final plat and development contract for HSZ has
been recorded with Carver County.
7. The revised plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation prior to final site plan review and
comply with their conditions.
8. Storm sewer calculations shall be submitted to the City Engineer for
approval prior to final site plan review.
9. An erosion control plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for
~ approval prior to final site plan review.
10. The applicant shall provide the City with a copy of the executed
roadway easement for the portion of Lot 2, Block 1 which serves the
westerly access for the subject parcel.
11. utility service for this property is contingent upon the HSZ site
improvements.
All voted in favor except Batzli who abstained and the motion carried.
Wildermuth: Why are you abstaining?
Batzli: I don't like the easement that they're doing. I don't like the
traffic pattern there.
SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW A 45 SQUARE FOOT GROUND LOW PROFILE SIGN
INSTEAD OF THE PERMITTED 24 SQUARE FOOT GROUND LOW PROFILE SIGN.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order.
e
Roman Mueller: I'm Roman Mueller with SuperAmerica. We've looked at the
24 square foot sign and it deals back to the same issues we've had for
other Chanhassen signs. visibility for traffic speed, etc. so what we're
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 21
e
requesting is to go up to the 45 square feet instead of 24 for that
visibility purpose. If you're all willing to go along with the change in
the ordinance or the amendment to the ordinance, we'd be more than willing
to wait for that process to go through. Otherwise, we would like to push
for the variance with an option to change it at a later date. It's
strictly a visibility issue for us with the signage. It's a matter of one
sign versus two signs. Same square footage basically. Just in one
location.
Conrad: Jo Ann, this is not an old sign ordinance. It's been approved
recently. Do you think we have a problem? Obviously our sign ordinance
is restrictive and it was restrictive with intent. Do you think that it's
worthwhile for staff and City Council to review this item?
Olsen: Again, the site is unique because it's on two highways. Typically
the BN districts are more in the neighborhood areas where there's a
collector street, local street and slower traffic. I do feel that there
would be justification for reviewing the ordinance. I feel that this
could be applied to other sites.
Conrad: Because the business neighborhood sign is restrictive and you
feel that other business neighborhoods should have that same perogative?
e
Olsen: I see it as an option to reduce the number of signage also. They
can have two signs on the site, you can only have one. The 48 square feet
still isn't a real big sign that would be negative to... The only other
development we've had in the BN district was permitted...
Conrad:
So the advantage is to combine? That's what you'd like to see?
Olsen:
I think so.
Wildermuth moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted
in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Emmings: I don't see the hardship and therefore I don't think we should
grant a variance. I think we should go through the other process.
ElIson: I like to shy away from variances too. In this case, that sounds
like a good combination but as soon as we get into one place, the next
time it will be different.
Batzli:
store?
What the heck did we end up doing at the other SuperAmerica
Or what did the Council end up doing? I don't recall.
e
Olsen: Staff was doing that as a variance and they had the option...but
they wanted that option to go through a conditonal use permit. They got
to the Council and the Council felt it should be, because they couldn't
find a hardship, they said, this should be reviewed as a conditional use
permit and not as a variance. So we took it back through the process,
through the Planning Commission and the Council so they have their sign
with a conditional use permit. That did permit a larger sign with a
J
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 22
e
conditional use permit.
Batzli: So a conditional use permit isn't available in this?
Olsen: No.
Batzli: I don't see the hardship really. As I recall last time they were
talking about a couple of square feet, not doubling in size. I also don't
necessarily think that amending the ordinance is the way to go. I think
we've got a good ordinance that we made good and tight for a reason. I
don't see the need to readdress that issue.
wildermuth: I would like to try and avoid a variance also. I guess the
requesting from a visual pollution standpoint is one large sign any less
offensive than two small signs or is it more offensive? I would be
willing to take a look at the sign ordinance again but I don't think
there's a hardship in this case.
Headla: I think we should ask the staff to go back and take a look and
see if we want to reword in certain situations.
Conrad: Yes, I don't think this justifies a variance either. I'm not
sure I'd change the ordinance but I think what we need is City Council
direction on how staff uses it's time. If they feel the sign ordinance
should be reviewed for the business neighborhood district, they certainly
can do that. Is there a motion?
,e
Batzli moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
denial of Sign Variance Request #88-12. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Conrad: A footnote to that motion I guess Jo Ann is to make sure that
City staff gets direction from the City Council in terms of review of the
sign ordinance.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LANDSCAPING CONTRACTOR'S YARD ON 12.1 ACRES
OF PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATE DON GALPIN BOULEVARD
1/2 MILE NORTH OF HWY. 5, DAVE STOCKDALE.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Dave Stockdale
Mike Klingelhutz
Applicant
4It Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order.
---
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 23
e
Dave Stockdale: First off, a minor glitch for the total 55,000 square
foot building. It should have been 5,500. A little history, I've lived
out there, I bought the property on a conditional use permit about 9 years
ago. For one reason or another, I wasn't able to executed upon my
conditional use permit at that point in time. Basically what I've done on
this proposal, I've reduced the size of the parking lot and did some of
the screening. I understand...the 1 mile limitation has been...and that
seems to be the biggest stumbling block as far as things hanging. The
other two issues are hours of operation and the other one was working
within the 500 foot distance to my neighbor to the northeast. I don't
know if the letter...for consideration. My intention when I moved out
here was the fact to run a business next to me for obvious reasons of
effeciency of running a business. This happens to be kind of... I have
been in business for 13 years and have really...professional operation
both in the field. My intention is to carry that through, to maintain a
very clean site and...
Mike Klingelhutz: ...1 was wondering if a conditional use, or whatever
he's applying for, does that go to the person who buys the lot?
Olsen: Yes.
Mike Klingelhutz: ...your house is separate from the land that you're
e planning to.. .you could sell... Is that your intention?
Dave Stockdale:
No...
Mike Klingelhutz: That's just one of my concerns. His house is
beautiful. His yard is beautiful but say he sells his house, it will
still be a conditional use permit and I wouldn't appreciate it if that
happened but if he retains ownership of it and works there and lives there
and keeps it up the way it does his house...
Conrad: It's a good concern. Contractor's yards are a real problem for
us to deal with here. A lot of pressure to eliminate them all together. I
think we've tried to accomodate people who wanted to live and have their
work on the same property that they're living. I personally felt
comfortable doing that but we've had people who wanted to do different
things. Here's a case where by having it separated because of mortage is
an interesting deal but legally is a problem. You legally could sell that
and you'd be in different land. I guess that gets me a little bit
uncomfortable. I guess our Attorney would have to advise me on that but I
think all he could say was that that land is transferable and a new owner
would take the right to the contractor's yard.
Olsen:
It just could not be expanded.
It would have to remain as it is.
Conrad:
I think the biggest thing is dealing with the 1 mile issue.
-
Dave Stockdale. Just to clarify, whatever stipulations...so that
whatever...
-
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 24
e
Headla moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Headla: I agree with the staff's recommendation but I think there's one
other one. The one about, the first one, will not be detrimental to or
endanger the public health, safety... Generally what I think what Dave is
proposing is good. If it was in a different location I could support it
but Galpin Road there, particularly if you're going back to TH 7, that is
dangerous. Anybody corning out of there, the applicant has said he's going
to use that road, and I'm concerned about the traffic that would be there
in the morning and in the evening. I do disagree with the staff's
comments here that it would not be a problem. I think it is a problem. I
think it's a safety concern.
Olsen: That will be reviewed by Carver County for the best access for the
site plus they also suggested or recommended that the...generate 20 trips
per day and that...
Headla: But when they go back to TH 7, it's a narrow road. Going down
Murray Hill, that road is narrow. Yes, they can tell us, 99% of the time
they won't use it but a couple times a year you use it, just like I see
corning from CR 18 to TH 5, in the morning I see heavy equipment corning out
on the road. In the evening heavy equipment going in. They guaranteed
that wouldn't happen. I disagree with the logic that they would take that
e road. It happens.
Wildermuth: I'm impressed by the letter of testimonial and I'm impressed
by the neighbor's description of how the applicant keeps his residential
property but I guess there are two major stumbling blocks. One is the
fact that the yard is within a mile of another yard. The other one is the
fact that there is going to be that subdivision in the immediate area. I
think we have to look at this application against the backdrop of having
approved that subdivision.
Mike Klingelhutz:
I was the subdivider of that property and it's not...
Wildermuth: Do you feel that's going to influence the potential value of
your building sites in any way?
Mike Klingelhutz:
Wildermuth: The one stumbling block I guess I really have is the fact
that we would have two working contractor's yards very close together.
Clearly in violation of our ordinance.
Batzli: I was curious, did you have a valid conditional use permit
several years ago and not act upon it? How long is a conditional use
permit valid? Is it annual? When does it expire?
e
Olsen: If there are not any improvements made to the site within one
year, it is no longer valid. He did have it. It was recorded and he did
not take any action.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 25
e
Batzli: So that's been expired for 2 years or did he get approved 2 years
ago so it's been 1 year? I guess I was just curious as to the timing of
when we approved that second contractor's yard.
Emmings: It was approved March 18, 1985 by the City Council.
Batzli: When did we approve the one that's too close?
Wildermuth: February 4, 1985.
Batzli: See, I thought the dates were funny. I'd like to say that
they're too close but I didn't know if they really were.
Olsen: They came in, what happened is they amended the ordinance to allow
contractor's yard as a conditional use so we brought them in, we passed
several conditions on them. Everyone pretty much all came in at the same
time.
Batzli: I guess I'm impressed that the Staff has done a real thorough job
in reviewing this. I think that with a little bit of more work with the
staff, I guess I'd like to look at exactly what the heck the timing
involved with those applications was because I don't know that, I almost
view this as a variance type of situation where dependent upon the timing,
there may be some sort of hardship that we've almost imposed on the
~ applicant by the timing of the original approvals.
Conrad:
You'd like staff to look at the timing?
Batzli: I guess I'm not sure. I didn't quite follow exactly when the
original conditional uses were approved, how long ago they expired and if
in fact the only reason that we would, I think there are safety issues
raised here but I don't know that the adjacent land owner and the
subdivision are expressing any disapproval or the adjacent property
owners. The thing that does concern me, just as a side, is the fact that
it would be going with the land and not necessarily...but getting back to
my original point. It may be the type of situation, at least in my own
mind, that if the only thing that we're going to deny it on, and that's
not the case right now, but if it was, is that it's within a certain
radius limitation and originally we had allowed it two years ago. It's a
question of timing and when the ordinance. I might be in favor of
allowing this contractor's yard but I'm still not clear as to the dates
and that sort of thing.
Conrad:
So you'd like the Attorney to...
Batzli:
I'm freely associating.
e
ElIson: Actually I'm concerned with exactly what he's talking about.
It's as though we asked everybody to come forth to apply for a conditional
use but they really weren't able to...we asked them to please come in and
then sign up to please be restricted. Basically we're saying, please come
in because we want to constrict you somewhat. So they're nice enough to
come in and then we take away what he bought it for in the first place.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 26
e
It really doesn't sound like that is a nice way to go about it. Not only
did he comply. Okay, I'll come in and be restricted. Now you give me a
deadline and I couldn't meet my deadline so now I'm out for what I bought
the property for initially. What you allowed me to buy it for. I just
don't think that's good business. It seems like he got caught in a
loophole. Like Brian said, if we could come up with a way of being a
little more lenient that way. It's different than if it was somebody just
buying the site now and deciding they wanted to make it something. When
he bought it, we said yes, you can do all this on it. Come in here and be
restricted and oops, we gave you this restriction, now you can't do it.
It almost seems like he didn't have to come in and get that conditional
use in the first place but he did to be nice and now he just niced himself
out of his property so to speak. It doesn't seem right. I don't like
that. It just didn't seem like the right way to handle it. Do you know
what I mean?
e
Emrnings: This one is a very hard one for me. I have to reveal that Dave
did work at my house 5 years ago. I regard him in the same glowing terms
as his neighbors do. He is a very high quality contractor. A very nice
person to work with. I have no doubt in my mind that if we wanted to have
a contractor's yard in Chanhassen, we'd want it to be Dave Stockdale's.
It's exactly the kind of contractor's yard that we talked about wanting to
allow. It's a guy who lives on the land with a modest size operation.
He's doing a lot of screen it and make it pallatable to the neighbors.
Again, the neighbors have said they don't think it's going to harm them in
any way so that's a very positive thing. But he is asking for a variance.
He's got to have a variance to the 1 mile limitation. He ought to have a
variance to the 500 feet to neighboring residence limitation and then in
addition, the third problem is the fact that he subdivided his own
property. On the third one, it seems to me, this is exactly the problem
Tim had on his own property. Where your mortgage company says we don't
want to mortgage on anything that's 10 acres or more because of
foreclosure restrictions so we're going to make you subdivide your
property and somehow I don't feel that it's fair to hold that against him.
The 500 foot limitation, since we have this nice letter from the neighbor,
that's the person it affects the most and I'd be inclined. I don't know,
that's not really grounds to give him a variance but I'd be inclined to
maybe look past that. The I mile one is the one that I really get stuck
on.
Wildermuth: Why was that put in place?
e
Emrnings: I don't know but it's there. To me, in my own mind, I'm
weighing that I mile limitation against kind of the fairness kind of
things and Annette and I think Brian a little bit, have eluded to. Dave
specifically carne to Chanhassen to have, I know he moved from St. Paul and
he picked this area because it was closer to where he was working and he
wanted to have his business operation with his home operation and he even
conditioned the purchase of his property on being able to get this thing.
He had it and then because he didn't it, he lost it. Somehow I feel like
that makes this a special case that ought to be accomodated somehow. I'm
just having trouble doing it in terms of hardship. It isn't really a
hardship and I don't think I could sell that to anybody but just in terms
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 27
e
of fairness, it seems to me that he ought to be given back what he carne
out here for and what he had. Particularly in view
opposition and the quality I know of his operation.
have to vote against it unless somebody could think
get around that 1 mile.
of the lack of
Tonight I think I'd
of a way that we could
Conrad: I feel the same way. I have two problems. The 1 mile and no
matter what, I'm not going to do anything that jeopardizes the
restrictiveness of contractor's yards. I do not think that we should do
anything that will open up the floodgates because we've had so many
problems. The other problem is dealing with land owner not really on the
property. Therefore, tonight I'd have to turn this down but I guess I'd
like to direct staff, between now and when this goes to City Council, to
work with the applicant in seeing if there's a way to solving those two
problems. One, can we tie Mr. Stockdale to this particular property?
Emmings:
Link the two properties back together for this purpose?
e
Conrad: For this purpose because the intent of the ordinance is to allow
somebody to, we want people working on their own property. If they're
going to have a contractor's yard, I want the owner there. By not having
that included in anything that we do, we're saying, hey, you can sell this
off. Which you're not going to do but it sets precedent in other cases.
Somehow I'd have to find a legal way of tying them in so if he were to
move, that permit would vanish along with it. The other item is the 1
mile and I think it's a case of fairness versus the absolute. I don't
know how to break the absolute. There is a really valid reason for having
that 1 mile radius. Again, here's another case where I would challenge
staff to see if there's a way we can, without granting a variance, which I
don't want to do, is there another way to get around this problem?
Tonight I'd have to turn it down. The only other option is for us to look
at the 1 mile, to go back to the ordinance and take a look at the 1 mile.
Wow, that's just like something we don't want to do. Why show up every
other Tuesday night to do that stuff. I don't know as though that's
something we can deal with.
Ernrnings: The other thing that I wrote down here that I forgot to mention,
we have approved a variance to that one mile thing in the past. In the
case of Gardeneer on the Volk property.
Conrad: Do you recall the rationale for that?
Olsen:
...it was on the same site.
That it really wasn't...
Emmings: Why is that better? I don't remember the rationale. I think at
that time we were kind of thinking it would be better to have contractor's
yards lumped together in an area rather than, that was in the discussion,
rather than having them spread out allover a mile apart. We maybe
should, staff maybe should take a look at that to see what is similar in
this situation or different.
e
Conrad: Anyway I think I'd look for a motion right now. Dave do you feel
any sensitivity? You're pretty much against it. Is there anything here,
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 28
e
you're concerned with traffic and the ordinance itself.
Headla: The other thing I didn't mention is, yes the resident within 500
feet did write a very nice letter. I don't put any credance to that. I
don't know if that person's going to be there in 3 years. So in 3 years
that person that lived there wrote a bad letter, are we going to take it
away? I don't think we can add weight to that.
Emmings: The weight to me Dave is that if that person is planning to move
and they think this will detract from the value of their property, they're
never going to write a letter like that. That's the importance of that
letter.
Batzli: The people moving in will have a chance to see what they're
moving in next to. If the contractor's yard wasn't there when they
purchased it...
Headla: Let me make a motion the Planning Commission recommend denial of
Conditional Use Permit #85-2 for the reasons listed by the staff. The
three.
e
Emmings: I'll second it. I think I would like to add, the hours of
operation I would take out because he says he's willing to change that.
I'd replace 3 with the fact that we're concerned with the legal
consequences of allowing a conditional use permit on a parcel of land
that's separate from the parcel in which his residence is on.
Batzli: Don't we have other contractor's yards that there's no residence
on them at all? Are we concerned that here we're in the wrong district
for that?
Olsen: There's nothing that says you have to live on the land. The Harry
Lindbery one, he doesn't live there.
Emmings: My understanding is that was exactly what we were trying to
approve.
Conrad: That's what we wanted but it's not in the ordinance. That was
the intent but it's certainly not worded that way. But that's good logic.
Emmings: If logic was intended, that means we ought to put down as a
reason for...
Conr ad :
So what did you want?
Emmings: I would just take 3 out because I don't think it's a problem
anymore. He said he'll comply with those hours of operation. I'd just
replace 3 with the fact that we're...a conditional use on a parcel of land
that's separate and distinct from his residence which kind of violates the
intent of the ordinance. If it were to be...
e
L
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 29
e
Headla: Do you feel comfortable saying this is the intent of the
ordinance when we really haven't discussed... I feel uncomfortable
listing that now because we didn't discuss it at all before that other
item.
Emmings: Fine, take it out. Let's drop it but to me that was sort of the
essence of the contractor's yard out here. The notion being that we want
to allow someone who lives on a large parcel of land, if they have a
business that requires them to use trucks and bobcats and stuff like that,
to keep the stuff at their home.
Headla: I agree with what you're saying there.
here but I also think if we take 3 out...
I think it's appropriate
Emmings: Okay, let's just take 3 out and compromise.
there are to turn this down, the better I like it.
The fewer reasons
Headla moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
denial of Conditional Use Permit #88-2 for the following reasons:
1. The contractor's yard is located within one mile of an existing
contractor's yard.
e
2.
The contractor's yard is located within 500 feet of a residence.
All voted in favor except ElIson and Batzli who opposed and the motion
carried with a vote of 4 to 2.
ElIson:
permit.
I somehow feel he should be like grand fathered in to his original
We didn't have the 1 mile then.
Batzli: I'm voting against it partly for my free association earlier
which didn't make much sense but I guess I'd like to see and raise the
flag to the Council that there was a feeling that this person would
probably have a fairly well run contractor's yard. That there was some
sort of feelings of fairness that something might be done in this case.
Conrad: And as an additional footnote Jo Ann, I think in general if we
could communicate this to the City Council. We feel that the applicant
would operate a good contractor's yard and we would like to see if there
are ways that we could help the applicant without granting a variance and
without changing the ordinance.
Batzli: I agree that we don't want to necessarily change the ordinance
unless it is to put back in what apparently was the intent and somehow got
lost along the way. Because we've been granting or looking at a lot of
contractor's yards and the residences were nowhere near the contractor's
yard. The farm house. The garbage hauling operation. The telephone
operation.
e
Emmings: But just slow down.
The farm house, we turned that one down.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 30
e
Batzli: I know we did.
Emmings: The City Council didn't but we did.
Batzli: I know but there was no residence at all. We never discussed
turning it down because the residences wasn't located there.
PUBLIC HEARING:
GOLF DRIVING RANGE AND MINIATURE GOLF COURSE OPERATION, PROPERTY ZONED
A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED AT COUNTY ROAD 117 AND HWY. 5, JOHN
PRYZMUS.
A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20, ARTICLE IV, DIVISION 3,
REGARDING STANDARDS FOR GOLF DRIVING RANGES WITH OR WITHOUT MINIATURE
GOLF COURSES TO PROVIDE REGULATION OF SIGNAGE, TO PROVIDE REGULATIONS
AS TO LIGHT STANDARDS AND TO ESTABLISH HOURS OF OPERATION BEYOND
SUNSET.
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO INSTALL LIGHT STANDARDS, EXTEND
HOURS OF OPERATION BEYOND SUNSET AND PERMITTING THE INSTALLATION OF A
SIGN.
I
I.
Public Present:
Name
Address
John Pryzmus
Mike Klingelhutz
John Hennessy
Applicant
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order.
John Pryzmus: The hours of operation obviously will be determined as the
season goes. Right now I close at 8:00 at night. The season will be
ending here in another month so we're closed for 6 months approximately...
The sign that I put up was the same sign that was approved. A 12 x 8
plywood sign... The video games, the City Council I guess we were trying
to accomodate children so... Other than that, I didn't think originally
the Council had...on trees and berming. Now, I think we've added 16
more...on the site right now. Light standards, basically there isn't
anything that the Council said...light standards of a baseball field or
something like that... It does help. I've kept the lighting at a minimum
so I can extend my hours. When it starts getting dark and people can't...
two closest competitors of mine are 7 Hi and Excelsior. Excelsior...days
and weekends. The guy at 7 Hi...
e
John Hennessy: I live across the street from this thing. So far he has
run a pretty good operation. ...the basic guidelines of the basic... I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 31
e
was not in favor of this at all at the beginning...
opposed to it...
I was vehemently
Mike Klingelhutz:
I was planning on...it's kind of pretty.
Batzli moved, Headla seconded to close the public hearing. All voted 10
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Emmings: I just want to ask a few clarifying things here. When he got
his conditional use permit from the City Council, did it in fact prohibit
from having lighting?
Olsen: Condition number 9 of the conditional use permit, there shall be
no light standards on the light premises. Hours of operation shall be
sunrise to sunset.
Emmings: It says no light standards. Do we have a problem with the
language there? Was the intention that he should not have lighting?
Olsen: That hours should be from sunrise to sunset.
Emmings: And I understand he went ahead and put up lights out there?
e
Olsen:
Yes.
Emmings: As far as the hours of operation are concerned, I understand
you've been given sunrise to sunset, is that correct?
Olsen: Yes.
Emmings: And has he abided by that?
Olsen: No.
Emmings: He's been using his lights to stay open later. He just said
something that sounded like, regarding the sign that sounds like it
conflicted with what we have here. He said he was allowed a sign. Was he
allowed to have a sign?
Olsen:
No...
-
Emmings: I have trouble looking at this, just like concerns of fairness,
making me want to help somebody like Stockdale who comes along. I have
trouble looking at this objectively because every time Mr. Pryzmus comes in
here, he's already done what he's asking us to do. As I recall, he asked
us for a wetland alteration permit after he'd been told by the City to
stop filling in the wetland. We wound up denying that. I'm not sure I
can be real objective about looking at this proposal. Just off the top,
trying to be as objective as I can, I don't see any reason to change it
from sunrise to sunset. He's talking about his competitors at the 7-Hi
and Excelsior but neither of those places are located in the A-2 district
and I don't think we can lose sight of the fact that this is going on in
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 32
e
the A-2 district. 7-Hi is on a commercial corner and Excelsior is next to
a McDonalds and next to a car wash. That's not really analogous. But
again, trying to be a little objective about that when we have neighbors
out here, a couple of them, who said it's not really offensive. We got a
letter from Art Partridge that doesn't agree with that but that may be a
personal point of view. I don't see any reason to change the hours.
Sunrise to sunset seems to be good enough and that may eliminate his need
for lighting. As far as the sign goes, if he's going to have his business
out there, it seems to me and I wish Tim were here to comment on this, but
I wouldn't have any problem with him having a sign except again, we're in
the A-2 and I don't know if we want to start putting up signs out there.
The sign ordinance again is one of those ordinances that is meant to be
restrictive and it's not permitted in the A-2. As far as the video games
go, that seems to me to be a reasonable accessory use to a minature golf.
I don't have any real problem with the limitations that they've proposed
here.
e
ElIson: Already saying that it has been approved, starting from there,
I know that there was an awful lot of hub bub in the past about even
allowing...but I think miniature golf is a good addition from the
standpoint, we voted down a community center. There really isn't a lot of
places for younger people to go. They're not old enough to drink. They
can't go to certain places. They end up hanging around by the McDonalds
or they're accused of rather, you see these kids hanging around different
places and I think when I was this age, I played the miniature golf all
the time. Until 11:00 during high school and what have you. It's a nice
safe place to be...to places they could be. I think once you say you're a
miniature golf course, it almost comes to reason that miniature golf
course stays open late and has those younger kids at it and you offer them
video games and those are your major customers. The fact that we already
said you can have miniature golf here I think is an indication to do all
of that so I would agree that those hours are good. I would like to see
those good outlets for younger people to have an extra night. I can see
the video games and the like as well.
e
Batzli: I'm going to play devil's advocate. I think that that would have
been swell had we not said that they've got to be right next to TH 212 or
TH 5 and I don't know as though I want my kid hanging out by the highway
at 11:00 at night. I think the video games do attract them to that. I
think that's exactly right but I think we created you've got to be in a
traffic corridor to have one of these things and now we're going to try
and encourage younger kids to go. I didn't know that that was the initial
intent so much as it was going to be something where the little kids go
play miniature golf while dad takes his swings. Not to be sexist but I
thought that was the original intent rather than we're going to create a
haven for kids late at night so I have a hard time with that. I know what
you're trying to say and I would agree except for that I don't think
that's what we were initially trying to create with this type of a
situation. I think they do need a sign of some kind. I again have a real
tough time with this being objective because I kind of echo the sentiments
of Steve. It does seem like what happens is that he does it and then he
comes in when we find out that he does it and says, oh, by the way, can I
have that? That's kind of irritating. I would basically, other than
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 33
e
allowing the small sign, not want to change anything.
Wildermuth: Jo Ann, there isn't any signing allowed in the A-2 district
now? No signage?
Olsen: Not for the advertising of a business.
wildermuth: I wonder if the City Council was thinking when they approved
this permit and there was no provision for a sign. I do think that the
ordinance needs some modification for some kind of a sign. If we're going
to allow commercial businesses in A-2 districts, there's got to be some
kind of provision for a sign. I don't think operating late into the night
is appropriate. We've either got to look at rezoning or restrict the late
hours of operation of the business. As far as video games are concerned,
I guess if I had an objection there, if the Carver County police blotter
shows some sort of problem, I guess I don't have a feeling one way or the
other.
Headla: John, do you have a well out there?
John Pryzmus:
Yes, I do.
Headla: And a septic tank, sewer system?
e
John Pryzmus:
Yes.
Headla: What do you size that for? 2 people or 20 people?
John pryzmus: What the City Council has done at this point was include a
holding tank and we have a contract to have it pumped. So we have a men
and women's bathroom and then there's a gauge on it and they pump it. The
well is just like a 4 inch well. Just to comment on the thing about
danger, we are putting a fence up so there will be a 6 foot and 4 foot
fence. Kids won't be able to get onto the highway. They will have to go
through the building to get anywhere in this development and back out
through this building to get out of there.
e
Headla: We almost religiously watch businesses on TH 5 and no retailing
and even though a well and septic system, I think we're in like a real
gray area. I don't think we should have even allowed that. I don't think
you want, we ought to have lights. I don't think it's appropriate for
that area. I think it should be sunrise to sunset. The video garnes, you
know John, you and I talked about it when you were here before and the
intent was to provide, I don't want to say minimal but only an adequate
number to, if a kid carne over with his dad, he'd play video games while
his dad swung but that's all. It wasn't to attract anybody in to play
video games. I'd like to see us stay at that. Put on a limit to the
number of games. I'm certainly not the one to determine that limit. Maybe
John has got some good input on the variety but I think we ought to stress
that there should be a parameter that it's only for to accomodate the
customer's children while they're there at the golf. I do like the
pondscaping. It is very good. That's all I have.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 34
e
John Pryzmus: If you want me to comment on the video games. That
building is just a little over 800 square feet so you get a pop machine
and the candy machines and change machines, you can't get over 8 or 9
machines in the place so it never could become an arcade. A video arcade
type of place...which means there are some top video games but...40 or 50
kids coming out to hang out, we just couldn't accomodate them. We
wouldn't. I have a manager and basically gearing it towards the
professional, serious golfer. The miniature golf course were designed and
built tough. ...one small course for little kids. I think we're trying
to accomodate the whole family. It's not that big a building so an arcade
part of it won't fit.
e
Conrad: My brief comments are very in sync with what I've heard. Based
on the intent of the agricultural area and what we're trying to do in the
A-2 district, I think some things are not in sync with what is here and I
think lighting standards and late night operation are simply not in sync
with what we're trying to do in the A-2 area. I think sign installation
is important but I think what I'd like to do there is talk about passive
signage rather than active signage. Again, if we're in daylight hours, if
we're operating in the daytime, I think we can have signage that is not
neon signage, that may fit in character with the area. I think if we
allow the business to be there, I think it's appropriate to let them
advertise that they're there. There's no reason we should prohibit that
but I also think because of the agricultural area, the sign has to be
consistent with that area itself which means we restrict neon and
aggressive flashing, we always restrict flashing but we may want to
dictate a few more restrictions in terms of signage. However, I do
believe it's appropriate for a business that we've allowed to go in.
Never been an advocate of video games out there so I have a tough time
recommending a number on that. I think the purpose on that and the reason
that we felt that it could possibly go out there was simply using the land
as it was and keeping some of the character of the land at the same time.
I'm not sure video games is in sync with my understanding of that. I
think Jo Ann, what you presented us tonight is a zoning ordinance
amendment but basically as I read that, it's an updated zoning ordinance
for the conditional use. You've basically worked in the current
conditions with the recommended conditions, or Barbara has. I'm not sure
adminstratively how to handle this. I think we have to go through one
item at a time and decide whether we feel it should be incorporated into
the amendment and more than likely I don't see, if anybody agrees with me,
our signag~ comments, I don't see us approving this tonight. I see staff
coming back with a recommendation if we believe signage, or anything. If
we want lighting I think there has to be standards for lighting.
Wildermuth: There should be a lighting standard and I think we ought to
address this issue that...it's an accessory business function.
'e
Batzli: I think in essence it changes depending upon whether you allow
lighting. Because if you allow light, let's say you allow the driving
range can only be operated from sunrise to sunset but you allow the
miniature golf to be lit, then I think we do get a kids hang-out more.
Although it was an accessory use during the day, perhaps it becomes the
dominant use at night. I think that's an issue that has to be addressed
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 35
e
before we tap all the other ones. Whether we're trying to promote that.
Conrad:
Promote what?
Batzli:
Nighttime use.
Conrad: By agreeing with allowing nighttime lighting, you're gOIng to
tell us right?
Batzli: Well, yes and no. Are we allowing nighttime lighting for the
driving range or for the miniature golf course?
Conrad: We don't know.
Emmings: To take what Brian is saying one step further, he split them in
half. Are we talking about lighting for a driving range and are we
talking about lighting for the miniature golf. The miniature golf,
originally we only approved that as an accessory use to the driving range
which was supposed to be the primary use.
Batzli:
There's a lot to talk about here.
Conrad: Let's talk about it. Do we want to be as routine as going
through these and give direction to staff on the various issues? Which
ones to pursue. I think that's what we have to do.
e
Emmings: Are you talking about tabling this?
Conrad: I think we have to table it because it's certainly not in the
form that I feel comfortable with if we were to send anything along unless
we reject it all. But I think there's some valid things that we should
look at. In terms of lighting, we'll go through the three items that
we're talking about, in terms of lighting, what do we want to do in terms
of lighting? In the agricultural area for this type of a use, are we
comfortable with the daytime hours or do we feel that we should allow, and
what's permitted based on the conditional use permit is the driving range
and the miniature golf. Do we want it to occur at night, and I'm not
against what Annette says, having recreational opportunities here because
I think we then to zone those things out of town and I'm not against that.
Yet on the other hand, looking at the ordinance, and looking at the
purpose of the A-2 district, what do you think? I'll just go around.
Emmings: Sunrise to sunset.
ElIson: 11:00.
Batzli: I could a little bit after sunset but not to 11:00.
a half hour after sunset.
You can fish
e
Conrad: But do you want lighting standards so you can operate the
operation in the dark for miniature golf and the driving range?
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 36
e
Batzli: 11m torn because I have gone to driving ranges at night and lIve
enjoyed it immensely but from a planning perspective in the A-2 district
along a highway, I donlt know if I want it at night.
Emmings:
You have to declare yourself.
One declarative sentence.
Batzli:
Sunrise to sunset.
Wildermuth:
Sunrise to sunset.
Headla:
Sunrise to sunset.
Conrad: 11m comfortable with that too.
nighttime use.
So what welre saying is no
Olsen: What we have, we have the proposed amendments to the zoning
ordinance on page 4, (b) would remain as it is originally. The hours of
operation shall be from sunrise to sunset. Do you want to just go through
these? Would that be easier to go through each one of these?
Emming s : (a) al ready ex i sts right?
01 sen: Right.
4It Emmings: Welre not talking about changing (a).
Olsen: And (c) is the same. (d) would be the same.
the ones that you would need some discussion on.
(e), (f) and (g) are
Conrad: So now welre getting to request number 2. Installation of the
sign. Steve, do you agree with signage in this area?
Emmings: I like very much what you said about not illuminated signs.
Some sign that would be visible in the daytime and would be not visible at
night.
Conrad: Annette, you canlt agree with Steve. You canlt because you want
to operate at night so you would have to lean...
Ellson: You took away my night so...
Conrad: Youlve got to be consistent here.
Ellson: Yes, lId like to see a sign.. .
Conrad: So some kind of sign.
Batzli: Sm all sign.
e
Wildermuth:
lId like a small sign.
Headla:
...welve got to do signage.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 37
e
Conrad: I guess on that one, Jo Ann I think you should bring back to us a
recommendation on what kind of signage would be appropriate out there.
We're not trying to hide, it was approved to go in and it is a big area
but we don't want it illuminated. We're not trying to scare the neighbors
but we have to inform people that it's there. Video garnes, installation
of video games. Dave, we're going to start at your end. Do you think
they should be allowed and if so, I think based on City Council's
directive and Jo Ann, does City Council like the video games?
Olsen:
I think they liked them.
Conrad: So based on what they feel, we're being real arbitrary here. I
don't know if 2 or 5 or 8, I don't have a clue what the right number is
and I hate to get into games when you start dictating some of that stuff.
Is there a number that you want to hange your hat on and say this
definitely is a secondary use to the primary purpose of the site? Is
there something that you feel good about?
Headla: No, I'm not that familiar with video games to hang a number on.
...100 video games but if you've just got a coin machine, yes that's
different. I think we should send a signal we've got to limit the number
and let that number be negotiated between the staff and John. But with
the clear intent, it's a passive situation for people to entertain while
some of those other things... Pretty soon we've got another 1,100 square
tit foot building with more video games in it.
Conrad: Do you think the building, like John said, the building is going
to dictate what he can put in it. Is that a better way of doing it? The
City Council allowed an 800 foot building.
Wildermuth:
The City Council could allow a 5,000 square foot building.
Headla: Yes, I'd like to see the number of games set because I don't
know, the next thing may have another building.
Wildermuth: I think we ought to have an ordinance requiring licensing of
video games and that ordinance should be a parameter or index of the
number of video games per square foot...
Conrad: What do you think Brian?
Batzli: I think 10 is a great number. Seriously, I never considered that
prior to 10 seconds ago. I think that's probably a pretty good idea. In
the meantime, I think in this instance, I think 10 is a fairly good
number. Actually, it might depend more so on the number of spots you have
for people using the driving range than square footage of the building.
It seems to me that it would be more appropriate to link it to that. 10
might be a good number.
-
Headla:
How about linking it to parking spots?
Batzli:
Perhaps parking spots.
I think it should be an accessory use.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 38
e
Wildermuth:
line.
It should definitely be low because you're outside the MUSA
Batzli: I think it should be clear that it's installed as an accessory
use too.
Ellson: What number did they decide on, 10? 10 or under sounds fine to
me. According to this, it says one time the City defined an amusement
arcade as having more than 5. It sounds like it's an arcade if you have
6. If you don't want it be an arcade, than it gets back to 5. I don't
mind it being there. The number doesn't really make a big deal to me...
Emmings: The number obviously is arbitrary and if 10 makes people happy,
it would make me happy too. I think one way to be sure that this stays an
accessory use is the hours that the building can be open would be the same
as the driving range. You can't have that building open and the driving
range not open.
Headla: That's a good point.
Conrad: You want to come up with an ordinance to license and what's the
purpose of doing that? What does that do for us?
Wildermuth:
It ...concentration so thereby you control...
e
Conrad:
Is that common to do?
Are you making this up?
Wildermuth:
doing that.
I know of other cities that have licensing requirements for
Conrad: What do we do in Chanhassen?
Olsen: I don't think we have a license for games. I could check with
Public Safety, I know we just passed a solicitor's ordinance.
Emmings:
Did you say what you thought about video games?
Conrad: The first time through I sure did. I don't like them but
specifically in terms of numbers, I don't care. It's arbitrary. I don't
like arbitrary numbers. It's almost like the 1 mile radius for a
contractor's yard.
Emmings: We do it all the time.
e
Conrad: I think tying it to hours of operation is real valid but I think
we definitely want to make it a secondary use to the site which is real
important. I guess Jo Ann what I'd like us to do is have you come back
and talk about the benefits of licensing. If we need that and maybe
somehow give us a way to say, a way to say 10 is a number or 100 is a
number but for us to pick out something. I'm comfortable with the
building size, to tell you truth, limits it but I don't think everybody
else here is so we need some planning input to tell us how to do it.
Based on square footage. Based on parking stalls but very definitely
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 39
e
based on a secondary use supportive to the prime use. Okay, we've talked
about those three. That means that we should table this item.
Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission table both
the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 20, Article IV, Division 3 and
the Conditional Use Permit Amendment until staff can corne back with more
information. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Olsen: Did you want to, just for my benefit, the conditional use permit,
we do have specific conditions for those light standards that are on
there. I was wondering what I do with the conditional use on that part.
Wildermuth:
Just take the lights right out.
Conrad: The lights are gone.
Olsen: You don't want lights? Then number 3 would be whatever we come up
with and 4 would change to sunrise/sunset.
Emmings: Wait a minute.
Conrad: I think your wait a minute is probably valid.
e
wildermuth: This ordinance is for this particular driving range and
miniature golf course, right?
Emmings: No. Anyone that would corne up. They're dependent to TH 5 and
TH 212 and it would affect anyone that would corne in under, so it's
general too.
Conrad: It's being done in response to what he's already done and we're
approaching it from a forget about him for the time being. Should we take
a look at...
Wildermuth: There should probably be some room in there somewhere that
would allow a nighttime operation so we probably ought to leave the lights
in.
Batzli: ~e next issue is, what if we're allowing a golf course with a
driving range and they want to put up some lights? If it's a private
course?
Emmings: That's different use.
Batzli: It's in A-2. You could put it in the A-2. This would cover it.
e
Emmings: Here you have the driving range as a primary use. There you've
got a golf course as an accessory use that's a driving range and I think
we can probably... Here, Jo Ann, in her conditional use permit discussion
on number 2, she says he can light for security. It should be allowed for
that so we're going to have to look at that.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 40
e
Wildermuth: But in an A-2 area, probably the security lighting allowance
would be the same as any farm.
Batzli: Why were the tees to the left going to be illuminated?
Emmings:
So you could use them.
Olsen: We'll come back with the amendment and at that time you can adjust
for the specific conditions of the conditional use.
SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A SELF-SERVICE CAR WASH AND AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE
STATION LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED BH, BUSINESS HIGHWAY LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF TH 5 AND TH 101, AMOCO.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Jim Filippi: My name is Jim Filippi and I'm with North Star Engineering
Consultants and I prepared the plans here. I represent Amoco Oil Company
who is, by the way, the property owner of record on this. The only
property owner of record and I think there's been some confusion over the
years as to where that ownership lies but in fact Amoco Oil Company is the
owner of record. What I'd like to do is just pass around an artist's
rendering of what it is we're proposing to build. Then what I will do, if
I may, because of the lateness of the hours, is I will address very
quickly some of the peripheral site issues because I think what we're
talking about, as you can boil the entire issues on this site right down
to this one curb cut right here and whether it's a single driveway or two
driveways with the curb cut and that's the only issue that really stands
up when everything is said and done. We've gone through the staff report.
The parking is one issue identified as needing 5 spaces instead of 4 which
we have proposed. We were reading the ordinance as basing it on 1 per 200
square feet of retail store area which in this case is 724 and that
includes the coolers, actually 528. The entire building is 1,030 and that
includes storerooms and the restrooms and the corridor areas and is not in
fact retail space. In addition, the service station characteristic of
this, which is what it is, an automobile service station, calls for 4
parking spaces and 2 for service bays which we do not have any service
bays so therefore we feel our parking requirements would be 4. Handicap
spaces are provided at the rear adjacent to the 2 handicap ramps along the
sidewalks adjacent to the building. We have an issue that staff has
indicated that, I think that is discussed in vehicular service area or the
driveways should be pulled back 25 feet. We feel that applies to the
parking and parking areas and in fact Section 20-1191 from the regulations
requires only a 10 foot strip of land between the abutting right-of-way
and the vehicular use areas ~ich includes driveways under your definition
required and along TH 5 we do meet that 10 foot requirement. So we don't
feel that we do have a variance or any other necessity to move the
proposed driveway access areas along TH 5.
~ Conrad: Jo Ann, what's your response?
e
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 41
.
Olsen: We want to require all the vehicular moving area to the setbacks.
I agree that the ordinance does not specifically state vehicular
variance...
Jim Filippi: As far as the requirements of MnDot for additional right-of-
way access, we have been in contact with them. We do have the study
copies of their plans and we have talked with them as to how much access
they would, additional property they would need which they would be taking
an easement and not right-of-way. We have made provisions and
accomodations so we have moved the entire site plan back 11 feet from the
initial submittals which we gave to the City back in July so we have made
accomodation for the right-of-way requirements. Mr. Green explained to
us, including those which would be necessary with the median on TH 101 so
we feel we made provisions for what is to be going on in there. Sewer and
water, I don't think we have any problem with the access to. The grading
plan, we will raise the car wash by about 3/l0th's of a foot so we will,
in lieu of the rip rap area here install a catch basin and a 3 foot
sediment trap with a 4 inch diameter cap over it as a oil floatables trap.
There are two storm sewers here in the storm sewer system and that would
be involved and tie those three inverts togethers in the ditch. Other
than that, channel the area. We have, and this was the original landscape
plan which was submitted and we received the staff report today so
I apologize to Jo Ann for not giving this to you. We picked this up about
.5:00 this afternoon with modification of the landscape plan based on the
comments and what we have provided here are trees on 4 foot or closer
spacings around the perimeter of the site. We have shown 4 existing trees
here. We have taken the trees that were actually over the sewer line, we
have moved those off and provided appropriate screening and berming on the
interior parking lot area. At this particular point, this car wash is a
future situation. We're not asking for approval on that. Signage, we
will remove the one additional sign that was on this side of the building
and leave the two signs so that won't be an issue there. We certainly
want to work with MnDot in order to get that median cut. One comment that
we think is fair in some relation here and some responses to the comment
by Mr. Hoisington, with all due respect he is not here at the moment, but
if the median were to be installed on TH 101 and there was not a cut,
there would be a significant drop in volume that occurs at this site. The
reason is, there is no convenient, were the station left as it is today or
rebuilt, there is convenient access back to TH 5. The primary time in
which customers purchase gas is going horne, 3:00 to 7:30 at night. This
is the going home side. You make the right turn, corne into the site,
whether we get two driveways or the single one. Enter the site and you
have to be able to return back to TH 5. That is the convenience for the
customer's trip. If you lose this cut, then there is no return to TH 5
without going through downtown Chanhassen. That is not convenient for the
customer. The station will suffer a severe drop in volume to the point
where it will probably not be economical. It's happened in Brooklyn Park.
It's happened in Bloomington, Richfield. As medians have rerouted
traffic, it's occured. It will happen here. If in fact this median cut
.is not in place, the station will not be built because it doesn't justify
. putting $600,000.00 to $700,000.00 into the site. Which you have to level
the building, bring the thing up to grade is required. So what we're down
to is this particular issue with TH 101 and whether it be one access or
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 42
e
two accesses. We feel and we would certainly want to work with the City
on this particular median cut, that if these two accesses were combined to
one in this location, the trees were relocated, we will change the light
standards to meet the downtown streetscape standards on the two... That's
not an issue. This site plan would not change. There is sufficient room
with this single driveway corning in at this point. Returning movements
to occur for the transport to corne through the site and enter back out and
return to TH 5 so that we would not propose any changes. If there are no
changes to be made, based on whether there's a single driveway here or
these two, then what is the reason to hold it up? If there is no median
cut, there will not be a building. If there is, it comes down to the
single driveway. We would like to be in a position where we can proceed
with building with the MnDot driveway permit and not have to go through
back to a 30 or 45 or 60 day process once MnDot makes their decision,
which mayor may not occur. We're in September of 1989 and MnDot issues
it, then now we're another 45 days, then we've lost a second construction
season. This one is doubtful. At this point we'd like to try for it. If
MnDot can issue their decision, that's where we want to be. We don't feel
there are any other issues that are on the site. If there are any other
questions, I'd be glad to answer them.
e
Conrad: Staff has made a motion to table. I think there are
disagreements between, there are more than one item and I didn't hear that
you were in agreement with the staff report so given that there are other
items, whether a 25 foot setback or number of parking stalls, there are
other items that were disagreement on. One thing I do like to do, I do
like to see a site plan that's going to City Council that's the accurate
one. Traffic is the most major problem on this site. Period. Right?
And that's the one issue that we don't have a clue on.
Jim Filippi: There's only one other...
Conrad: Why isn't there access from the north? Is there no possibility
for access from the north?
Jim Filippi:
property line.
any proposed.
No. That's an adjacent property all along that northerly
There is no street right-of-way along here nor is there
Wildermuth: What happens to the existing car wash? Does that get torn
down or is that not part of the Amoco property?
Jim Filippi: That's not part of the Amoco property.
Wildermuth: So you're looking at having a car wash right next to a car
wash?
'e
Jim Filippi: They are two different types of car washes here. This is
the automatic which currently exists in the station. This is a separate
type of facility.
Headla: If you put that in there, are you going to dig up all the old
storage tanks?
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 43
e
Jim Filippi: Everything will be completely replaced with new tanks,
underground lines protected in accordance with current EPA regulations.
Headla: How are you going to be able to locate, that's a real old
station?
Jim Filippi: Amoco has records of the location of the tanks throughout
the history that they've owned that site.
Headla: When does that go back to? 1950? I'm just wondering if the real
old tanks that the station had forever...
Jim Filippi: I've worked with site plans in Kansas City, Chicago, as far
back as into the 40's and they have the underground tank location shown on
that and there is a complete record tracking in the upper right hand
corner as to what changes were made to the site.
Headla:
If it's an Amoco?
Jim Filippi: From the time they took it over, yes.
Headla:
I'm talking about prior.
e
Jim Filippi: We would go through and remove everything that's there.
Wherever we could find them.
Conrad: What's your feeling Dave? Do you want to table it or do you want
to act on it?
Headla: Table.
Wildermuth: I'd just as soon table it. ...kind of discussions of staff
that normally accompanies a proposal as large as this.
Batzli: In reviewing it, I thought that there were a few more
disagreements and things to be ironed out. It appears that the applicant
right now is telling us that these things won't be a problem but I guess
I'd prefer to have him sit down and let the City staff and make sure that
they really are before we approve it.
Ellson:
Table.
Emmings: I agree. When they talk about that catch basin down in the
corner there, that apparently is something he hasn't talked to Larry about
before so I think there's work to be done between the applicant and staff
before we see it again. One other thing caught my eye and I'd just like
to ask as a side, there's a line here that says, the ordinance only
permits motor fuel price signs within the gas pump area. SuperAmerica
that was just in here wanted to put the price information out on the low
profile sign that was out on the corner.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 44
e
Olsen:
too.
In the ordinance it does permit them to use the ground profile
Emmings: So what it says here is not right?
Olsen: Right.
Batzli: The sign on TH 169 is going to have prices on it and they said
that was required by State Law.
Emmings: Okay, so this is just wrong?
Olsen:
The only. But that's in the BH district through.
Conrad: It's a funny thing when you think about it. with downtown
development and what's happening in Chanhassen, we don't have any more
garages that work on cars. There are no service stations in Chanhassen.
Brad, how do we take care of that problem?
Brad Johnson: We're working on it.
Conrad: I think that's terrible. That really is terrible. We don't have
a service station.
e
Brad Johnson: There's no zoning at the present. Sorry, business highway
does not allow service stations. I will be back about that.
Conrad: That's just terrible.
Emmings: Business highway specifically provides for automotive service
stations.
Brad Johnson: With gas.
Emmings: It doesn't say that.
station center.
It just says, number 3, automotive service
Brad Johnson: They do? We were told that that had to be with gas. We
were told that we had to have gas with an automobile service station.
There is a problem that we will address.
Conrad: It's a real big problem. We've got one in downtown Chan but
you're going to tear that down.
Brad Johnson:
They're both being torn down.
Conr ad :
So there's no place to repair a car in Chanhassen.
e
Brad Johnson: We're trying to correct that and we are working with the
Amoco people at this time. Not directly but I'm saying there is a plan.
But there is a zoning problem currently.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 45
e
Conrad: We've got to solve the zoning problem. And who's going to
stimulate that? Are you going to do that Brad?
Brad Johnson: I'm working with Jo Ann, I didn't mean to blame her for our
problems but...
Emmings: Under our definitions, an automotive service station is a retail
place of business engaged in primarily in the sale of motor vehicle fuels
but also may be engaged in supplying goods and services.
Brad Johnson: That's what they read to us. It is the case in the
business highway, which is where the Hanus building where it would be
going, we can not service cars, trucks or anything by ordinance. We can
do it only through... We'll be back. We're trying to move two tenants
out of downtown. That's one of my current problems. I've been trying to
move Loren Anderson over there. Under the current, we'll get it
straighten out but...
Jim Filippi: Are there any other issues that we can address?
e
Conrad: You talked about them tonight. I think what we're telling you
right now, based on what I just heard, we're going to table it but we
really want you talking. If you disagree with our ordinance and disagree
with what staff's saying, then you're probably not going to get approval
from us as it goes to City Council so I think in the next couple of weeks
or months, you'd better talk to them about our setbacks and our number of
parking stalls. If you believe that that's how the ordinance reads, we
either have to clarify the ordinance or we're going to stick to it. I
think the staff has brought up some points that you need to resolve. We'd
sure like to see them on a site plan the next time back but I think we
also want to see where the site location is for access. I think that's
important to us so you resolve some of those. If you believe you're
right, you obviously don't need to change it but because we see these
items every 2 weeks, we know what we're asking other businesses in the
community to do and we hope that you'd listen to what we're asking other
businesses to do. So if you can do that in the next time period, we'd
sure appreicate it.
Jim Filippi: Just for the commission's consideration, we can not move
another 25 feet back. The shape of the property is so narrow, you're
essentially going to destroy the capability of where you're building
actually. You can look at what the City staff has asked for but that's
why we take what the ordinance reads.
Conrad: Well, we have an ordinance that we're having everybody else
adhere to and we'd like you to.
Emmings: The other point is that has to be discussed with staff and maybe
that's grounds for a variance. If it's dictated by the site, it may be
grounds for a variance. It may not be but you're going to have to work it
out with them before it gets to us. You're just going to have to.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 46
e
Brown: As was eluded to, this island has a big impact on the other sites
on West 79th Street as well as this site. The reason I stopped or I want
to make this point before you make your motion, Mr. Hoisington has
indicated to us this afternoon that the plans for this 400 foot island
have cleared the central office of MnDot. As Jo Ann brought up, the City
has what we call courtesy review to accept or deny the plans and if we
deny the plan or give a response that indicates that we'd be in favor of
the cut, then that's grounds for MnDot to bring this back to central
office and say, wait a minute let's change the plans. What we'd like you
to do this evening is also add any comments that you might have. Your
feelings as far as the island cut which would be an indication to MnDot so
that we can make the process a little faster. If that makes any sense?
Conrad: Larry, how does the realignment of TH 101 affect this whole
traffic issue on this particular intersection? If we pick one particular
route or another, is that going to relieve MnDot's concern for an island
there? It's not? I can't believe that.
Brown: No, it boils down to one major traffic and engineering principle
and that being cars taking the free right hand turn will not have enough
room to change lanes to get over in that left hand turn lane to make the
left hand turning movement onto West 79th. That is the basic reason for
having that island there. Unfortunately, there's just not much you can do
short of moving West 79th Street north to improve that situation.
e
Conrad: Maybe we should cul-de-sac it. Let's make a motion and let's
give some opinions as to that. If that's the principle, what's our
comments going to do versus the principle?
Brown: Like anything else, we start with principles as the guidelines but
sometimes we have to realize the impact to these businesses and go with
our feelings sometimes.
Conrad: I think it's ludicrous to cut off the access period. I don't
need to call a question on that. I think from the Planning Commission's
standpoint, to put an island down there, regardless of planning principles
or traffic principles, it's just so harmful to the business that I don't
think, would anybody consider?
Emmings: What if they told you that it's absolutely unsafe?
Headla: I'd say I don't believe them.
Emmings: I'm just saying, I don't think we can, it's a technical issue. I
agree with you. Anybody going north on what is now TH 101 ought to be
able to take a left onto 79th or come out of a gas station and get back to
TH 5. I'd like to know the reason that they don't want people to do that.
Why doesn't MnDot want people to do that? I sure as hell don't have the
expertise.
e
Conrad: Larry, do you feel that it is a hazard at this time? I have
never felt that that is a real hazard but maybe I don't turn there enough.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 47
e
wildermuth:
Especially if you take the pressure of TH 101 traffic off.
Conrad: Yes, that seemed like the logic to use. If TH 101 is not going
to be going through there anymore, we're trying to resolve that issue with
them and I've got to believe that we got to press that point Larry that
we're trying to resolve the TH 101 traffic issue and push it other places.
Emmings: No alternative for TH 101 keeps it where it is.
Conrad: And putting an island in there is certainly not going to help.
Brown: That's the direction we'll go back to MnDot with and hopefully
speed the process up in getting it back to central office. As Jo Ann
mentioned, there will be an open house so this will be a little fuel to
the fire.
Conrad: We're making efforts to solve some other traffic problems. The
community is going out of their way to solve those problems and now we're
creating additional problems for businesses. That just doesn't make
sense.
Batzli moved, ElIson seconded that the Planning Commission table action on
Site plan Review #88-11 until the issues with the TH 101 median,
additional right-of-way and Gary Brown's access can be resolved with City
Staff. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
e
SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 25,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING AT
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HWY. 5 AND PARK DRIVE, (PARK PLACE OFFICE/
WAREHOUSE), DOLPHIN CONSTRUCTION, INC..
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report.
Brian Wass:
I'm Brian Wass. I'm the architect. This is Joe Hardy.
Conrad: Anything you want to tell us?
Joe Hardy: No, unless you have any questions.
Brian Wass: The only question I've got is the 15% opacity. I don't know
what that means. On the north and west side. What's the issue there?
ElIson: If you had trees with leaves that fall down in the winter, you
could get rid of that with evergreens...
Brian Wass: How high does that go?
Olsen: We have a minimum of 6 feet.
e
Brian Wass: Okay, so we're looking for a maturity of something that's
about 6 feet high?
Headla:
Is the parking lot going to have any lights?
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 48
e
Olsen: They are showing lighting standards...
Headla: You don't have any problem with the way they're going to have
their lights?
Olsen: No. Actually have met the standards.
Headla: And have they talked much about signage?
Olsen: ...but they'll have to meet the requirements of the ordinance.
Brian Wass: There were some elevations. The intent is for individual
backlit letters.
Headla: Is that going to be built right into the building? Are we dead
sure they're not going to touch any of the trees there? What I'm
wondering is if we should put in something about saying that any trees
they take out they replace with an equivalent amount of wood. Like if
they cut down a 4 inch tree, for whatever reason, they've got to put up 4
1 inch saplings or something like that.
Olsen: We can do that. We can have them stake out their extent of
grading and I can walk the site with Larry...
e
Headla: I'd feel a little bit more comfortable with that type of
response. I don't think that's restrictive. I just want to encourage
them to try and keep as many of those trees as they can.
Brian Wass: That is the intent of the plan so far. We've been out and
taped the site and in addition to the survey information we received and
the intent is to leave that existing grove just the way it is.
Headla: How close do we corne to that?
Brian Wass: It's shown right on your plan. It shows the extent of the
existing grove and where we're developing up to the edge of that. It's a
very defined edge because it's kind of an alfalfa field now. The intent
is to corne up to the edge of those trees but not to disturb them. Number
one because they are a good diameter, large mature trees and also because
that's the point where the ravine starts to take off and we just don't
want to get into that.
Brown: If the commission so chooses, as we did on the Woodcrest
Subdivision when the same issue carne up, we can have the applicant erect a
snow fence at the limits of trees.
Headla:
I think that's a good idea.
e
ElIson: Then they take it down after they're done constructing?
Headla: That would give me a lot more confidence.
/j
Planning Commission Meeting
September 21, 1988 - Page 49
e
Headla moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Site Plan Request #88-13 as shown on the site plan stamped
"Received August 29, 1988" and subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant provide additional and continuous screening along the
south lot line to the easterly side of the parking area.
2. The applicant provide evergreens along the north and west property
lines to provide 50% opacity.
3. The applicant provide complete screening of the dumpster areas.
4. All rooftop equipment must be screened.
5. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the
Watershed District permit.
6. The plans shall be revised to address erosion control and shall show
the City's standard details for Type II erosion control. These plans
shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to final
review.
7. The plans shall be revised to include an energy dissipator manhole
structure as shown on Attachment No.1.
e
8.
Calculations which indicate the increased volume of runoff shall be
submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to final review.
9. The driveway shall be constructed with a concrete cross gutter per the
standards of the City of Chanhassen for an industrial driveway.
10. The developer shall install a snow fence along the edge of the
construction limits prior to construction on the site.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ernrnings moved, ElIson seconded to approve the
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 7, 1988 as
amended by Brian Bazli on the Members Present. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
wildermuth moved, Batzli seconded that the meeting be adjourned. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:15
p.m. .
Submitted by Jo Ann Olsen
Assistant City Planner
4It Prepared by Nann Opheim
1