Loading...
1989 03 15 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION .A REGULAR MEET I NG ~MARCH 15, 1989 Vice Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Ladd Conrad, Annette ElIson, Steve Emmings, Brian Batzli, Jim Wildermuth and David Headla STAFF PRESENT: City Planner Steve Hanson, Planning Director and Jo Ann Olson, Asst. PUBLIC HEARING: REPLAT OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 2, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, 2ND ADDITION INTO ONE LOT ON PROPERTY ZONED lOP AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CR 17 AND LAKE DRIVE, AMCON CORPORATION FOR EMPAK, INC. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chairman Emmings called the public hearing to order. Conrad moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Headla: I think the recommendations are appropriate. I think there _ShOUld be a second condition that the staff recommended. That's...the site plan gets approved for this item. In other words, if we don't approve...then whoever gets it gets the two lots. Emmings: So the notion would be if the site plan's not approved it would stay two lots. Otherwise, it would be joined as one. Wildermuth: I have nothing. ElIson: It looks pretty good to me. Conrad: I have no comments. I don't know that we need to make it conditional. Staff, does that make any sense? Conditional in terms of the site plan being approved. If some owner wants to replat... Headla: I think it makes sense. Why do it when someone else may come in? Conrad: It's their right. Headla: To come in yes. Conrad: It's their right to just join properties together. Headla: But I think we want to know what we're joining and why. _conrad: We did. Those two pieces of property. Headla: That's right. For this company for this reason. I think we ought to approve it for this reason. Not for some other reason later on that some other company does it. Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 2 e Erhart: I have no comments and I guess regarding the second item, I guess I don't see any reason Dave either. If they decide not to build the building, they probably wouldn't follow through with this anyway so I guess I don't see a reason for a second condition. Batzli: Is part of the replat issue the easements? Vacation? Emmings: No. Hanson: You don't act on the vacation. Council acts on that. Batzli: I just had one question about that and that was, in the discussion about Well No.4 there needs to be access or something, is that handled by what we're doing with this piece of property? It says that they need to have access during construction and something else but do they need continued access after the development of the property? The street goes to it? I couldn't tell where the well was I guess was my biggest problem. Olsen: The engineering, when they come out with their plans and specs, all that will be determined and if they need an easement or cross easement, they can be. Right at this time they did not feel that they e needed a utility easement or anything like that. Batzli: Where is Well No.4? Emmings: It's not on this property is it? Erhart: It's on this side here. It's down by, right there. That little box there. Where we have all the city parties. It's actually a public park and a well building put all together and it's used for, the public can use it. Batzli: This little block down here? Erhart: Yes, it's cut off at the bottom. Batzli: And how else would you get access if it wasn't over this property? Hanson: Ultimately we'll have access off of Lake Drive when that's extended through. But during the interim, Lake Drive won't be installed. Batzli: So you're going to access it via this property and you say somewhere in one of the conditions that you want access during the development and construction phase or something? ~ Emmings: Let's do this on the site plan review. Let's finish with the ~ replat. Just remember to bring it up because I think it's an important thing. Batzli: Okay. Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 3 e- Olsen: It's part of an easement that we are requiring that wouldn't affect the platting at all if that's what you're getting at now. Batzli: Yes, I didn't know where it should be addressed to be honest with you. Emmings: I don't have any comments. I don't see in your reason to add the second condition. Right now there are two lots there. These folks want to build on both of them. They've got to combine them into one and if the replat goes through and they don't build, then whoever comes in there has to deal with it as a single lot, one large lot and that doesnt' bother me. I could see doing it either way and I don't really care which way it goes myself. I don't see any compelling reason to do it but it could be done. So is there a motion? ElIson moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #89-3 to create Lot 1, Block 1 Empak Addition as shown on the plat stamped "Received March 1, 1989" with the following condition: 1. That the applicant receive vacation of the interior drainage and utility easements. e All voted in favor except Headla who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Emmings: And David for the reasons that you stated? Headla: Yes. I think it's appropriate for this person, if they go ahead with it but if something happens and it defaults and goes to someone else, I think it should go back to two. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR PHASE I AND PHASE II FOR AN OFFICE/MANUFACTURING/ WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON PROPERTY ZONED rop, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD 17 AND LAKE DRIVE, SOUTH OF HWY. 5, AMCON CORPORATION FOR EMPAK, INC. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Emmings: Jo Ann, the Lake Drive, when does that road get built? Olsen: They're getting real close to it. I think they're going to start construction this fall. _ Emmings: Okay, so that's going to be after construction of this? Olsen: They'll have to get temporary access from Carver County to get temporary access from County Road 17. Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 4 _ Emmings: But there will be a road there, a finished road there this year? Olsen: It's supposed to be. Again, you never know when they're going to be completed. Emmings: IS there a plan? Olsen: Yes. Emmings: If it goes according to plan, there will be a road? Lake Drive East will be there this year? Olsen: It's supposed to be finished this year, yes. That's my understanding. Erhart: Who builds that? The County? The City? Olsen: The City is building that. The feasibility study has been approved and it's going to be coming in also with Rosemount so there's a lot of pressure to get it installed now. Emmings: This is not a public hearing but the applicants are here anyway I guess. Do the applicants want to address items in the staff report? _particular the conditions. Have you read the conditions? Todd Kristoferson: I'm Todd Kristoferson. I'm with Empak for the applicant and we received a copy of the report last week and since then we've been talking with City Staff, County Staff, Watershed District regarding some of the conditions that we've got and all of the conditions we feel that can be worked out with staff between now and the 10th of April which is the Council meeting. So if there isn't anything specific that you want to ask me, I guess I'd just like to leave it at that. We are aware of all these conditions and we feel that they can be worked out. Emmings: I don't know what Empak does. Can you tell us what they do? Todd Kristoferson: Larry Welter here is with Empak and maybe he could address those. Larry Welter: Empak is a plastic molding company. Taking plastic residue and converting it into a product. This facility will be used for molding bottles. Emmings: Any comments? Tim? Erhart: More comments on the administration than on the site plan itself. There's an existing creek running down the eastern portion of this property, draining to the south and to Lake Susan. What's the plan for ~the oak trees that surround that creek? Olsen: I believe right now that that future, they won't really be touched right now... Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 5 e Todd Kristoferson: I guess I know where the oak trees are from driving by the site but I'm not sure exactly where they sit in relation to this phase of the project. Erhart: It appears from your building that what you're currently putting up, with the 20 parking spaces. It appears the building you're currently putting up won't affect existing trees but your plant expansion, I don't know. It's hard to tell. It looks like that mayor may not affect it. I might be wrong. Most of the trees may be actually down in this area. Is that what it is? Olsen: This site, has hardly any trees on it... Erhart: What is the plan to do with the creek? I heard one time that we were just going to replace it with a culvert. Todd Kristoferson: The plan is part of the City's improvements with the street and the plan is to replace the creek with a 36 inch storm sewer that will drain property from the north of the railroad tracks and also pick up the drainage from our project and the street. Erhart: And our engineering department is making those recommendations? e Todd Kristoferson: Yes. Wildermuth: I think that's the storm sewer plan for the street according to Gary Warren's letter. Erhart: We're eliminating a creek with a culvert. I guess that strikes me as... Wildermuth: Why wouldn't the DNR comment on that? Erhart: Creeks are not official wetlands. We learned that about a year ago here in another subdivision. Olsen: It's protected by the Watershed District and the Watershed District is also involved with that storm water study. Wildermuth: I didn't see a letter in here from the Watershed District. Olsen: This project isn't... Erhart: What project do we see where we get to comment on the idea of turning a creek into a culvert? Olsen: I believe it was the downtown storm water. That went before the Council. e Hanson: About a month or two ago. It was all part of the Lake Drive improvements and the assessments that were being done for the improvement of that which also included storm sewer and water and sewer lines along Lake Drive. L Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 6 e Olsen: It's always been in that storm water management plan to bring the water from the downtown area to the pond that's going to be in the park or south. Erhart: Every time you get rid of wetlands, it's always someone's plan to put a house here or industrial building. It's the same thought process that has caused us to allow 80% of our wetlands, loss of wetlands... It's really scary that the City are on one hand eliminating wetlands at the same time have such strict ordinances regarding preservation of wetlands. Maybe this is all good common sense and everything but then again, maybe this is a little one page in the back of a document someplace that no one really had a chance to look at. Just never really, it got through with everything else. I sort of heard about this some weeks ago and I guess I'd like to maybe, I'll let the other commissioners comment but it disturbs me that we're doing this. So that's my comment on that one. Administratively, we've got 27 conditions on this and I think it seems like the number of conditions has grown. Like some of these things. One, and I think I've heard the rest of the commission comment here, I think it becomes difficult to assess and provide valuable comments to the Council when it's difficult to really see what the plan is. For example, it's hard to go home and study the landscaping plan when it isn't there and then to respond to them at point in front of the camera with just a _comment. So some of these things, aren't they standards? Maybe they're not but like for example, the turn in the roadway shall maintain a minimum road width and shall be constructed with the minimum radius and 25 feet. Is that a standard or is that something special to this particular site plan? Olsen: It's pretty standard. Erhart: Parking lot lanes shall have a minimum of 25 feet clear width. Is that a standard or is that special to this? Olsen: That's the fire, Mark Littfin came in... Batzli: But Tim aren't these things normally in the other engineering and staff reviews and we kind of incorporate them by reference and in this particular one you've set them all out? Isn't that one of the big differences? Olsen: I usually spell out. Batzli: A lot of times we incorporate by reference. Things like saying that it's from Larry Brown's memo dated such and such. I agree. We rarely have 27 conditions. Olsen: When we got that from the engineering, department we did discuss ~ what to do and I did contact the applicant and requested to have something ~ in response to a lot of those conditions before we came in front of you. It was misunderstood that he thought I meant March 27th but anyway, yes a lot of those are typical and if you don't want them spelled out, we don't need to. Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 7 e Emmings: I think when you were gone, you missed something. I think it started down here at this end. Dave went on a war path and we all agreed that there is no sense to having so damn many conditions. There are some subjects that come up here 3 times in different conditions and it seems to me they could easily have been put under one heading or there could have been a heading for things that need to be done before it gets to City Council and those listed as sub things. Have them organized in some way. As far as, I can't wait to get to Dave. That's what I started at this end. I'm saving him for last. As far as this goes, this is the worse one I think I've ever seen in that regard and I think you kind of missed... Olsen: No, I heard it. And I totally agree. That's something we've been trying to... Emmings: And you're going to hear it 7 more times tonight. Olsen: I agree that we want to do that. It was just a surprise when we got that memo from the engineering department. It was a little spread out and I couldn't condense it. I don't have the reasons. Emmings: Tim, you're still on. ~Erhart: I'm not going to through it but it seems to me, I marked them at home, like 9 or 10 of these, it appears they were just standard conditions that were just restated again. Things like revised plan should be submitted for approval that address the conditions and discussion contained in the staff report. What does that mean? They have to revise your plans even to your discussion because it says discussion contained in the staff report. Even though you might show two sides of an argument, they have to show both sides. So anyway, I think we need to shorten these but I think we need two things. There's a comment we made previously. We need to have plans more closely to finished form which I think is what Dave has been asking for. Then secondly, if it's not, we want to be able to identify for the Council things that are unique I think in these conditions. Unique to this particular subdivision if I'm not wrong because I think that's what we're trying to do is bring up to the Council special circumstances related to this particular subdivision so they can think about those when they're reading their comments. Other than that, I think there really isn't a lot of say about this particular subidivision other than I guess is it possible to go through what the revised landscaping plan is at this point? I guess I would be interested in seeing that but, that's the only real thing I had along where the creek was in the trees. Conrad: My comments are very similiar. Just out of curiousity, the first point says all signage must meet the conditions of the sign ordinance. Do we have indication that they don't? So is this communication to the ~people who are doing the project so they pay attention? Is this the right ~vehicle to do that? Olsen: We don't have a detailed signage plan. Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 8 e Conrad: Okay, so really your comment is, we don't have the details on the sign so you can't make comments until the details are in. Generally, does this mean that staff hasn't worked together real closely with the group on this project or what do the conditions or whatever mean? Hanson: I think really what it means is, it points up the flaw that we have in the process that we are operating under. As an example, submittal date for your next meeting was Monday of this week. In order to set the agenda for that meeting we have to put public notice in the paper this Friday. Referrals go out this week. We get the comments back from even engineering, even departments within the city the week that we write the staff report. Quite often we write our recommendation and we haven't received comments from the other departments. The way we set it up in the process is that's coming through word processing. We get their comments and the secretaries essentially trade disks and all the engineering comments come out under our recommendation. I think in this particular case, there are several items that come listed out and that's for a couple of reasons. It's a different person at engineering who reviewed the plans who's ever done it before as far as the City so they, I think to their credit, were very particular about what they did and they noted everything. I personally believe that that's very appropriate for them to do. If the process was massaged a little bit, we would have those comments, give those to the applicant so they would have time to respond. eAS it is now, they're kind of behind the 8 ball in all honesty to be able to respond to something. Right now our option is to say to them, if we can go ahead, because we don't perceive a lot of the conditions as big deals, I think they're agreeable to all of them. A lot of them are fairly standard items. They're Code requirements if you will. Engineering stanards but we don't want those not to show up in the conditions because we want to make sure that those are addressed. We would like to see essentially all of these convered prior to going to Council. On the signage thing, they haven't submitted anything as far as a specific signage for it but also they can get the site plan approved, come back at a point later and file for a sign permit in comformance with the Code so it's not something that necessarily comes back to the Planning Commission for approval. The reason that we put that condition in there is to make it clear that they're not asking for something that's out of the ordinary. Conrad: How do you want to massage this process? Is there, I agree with what you're saying. In this particular case we're just hit with so many but Steve, do you see the proces changing at all? Ellson: He made a suggestion once before about that committee thing or whatever. Didn't you make a su~gestion one other time before about a committee or something? A preliminary thing. Hanson: What I'm hoping to do is to get a process put together and bring it back to the Planning Commission hopefully next month. No promises but ~hopefully in that time frame and one of the things I'm looking at "essentially two alternatives. One is that we move the submittal date back 2 weeks so there's a time for stuff to get reviewed and you get comments and then you do a public notice. The other option from doing that is to leave it the way it is and say, tell the applicant, look we can publish Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 9 _ the notice and we can go ahead, if it's not ready, we're going to pull it. If we have to republish then, we may reassess you but that becomes rather cumbersome and what I'd like to do is have a system where they can submit stuff and if everything's complete, we can proceed ahead and if there's something that needs to be corrected, we have a means for doing that without essentially put out agendas that have items that aren't fully complete. Emmings: Why wouldn't you just go ahead and do that? What militates against doing precisely that? Moving that back 2 weeks. Olsen: We get a lot of pressure from the applicants that it's already taking so long. Hanson: To do that, I would like to have that endorsement. I would like to have the endorsement of the Planning Commission...especially people who have been active in the community in bringing development projects through. I can guarantee you're going to get calls and there's going to be complaints until people understand it. On the other hand, we have applicants who have never dealt with the process here and find it very frustrating because they never get any input essentially until Friday before your meeting. _conrad: The point is, you should have agreement. When you come here though you should have pretty much agreement with the applicant except for where you disagree and that's where we should kind of come in and have our comments. Hanson: The other thing I think where there's a flaw is, I think we agree and they agree that the conditions are appropriate. Where I can see where you would be nervous is for example on the second one where we're talking about the landscaping and doing some changes to that where you're not seeing that so essentially you're relying on staff to handle that. You never know. Conrad: And 1 or 2 is fine. 27 seemed to be, we're out of control. Some other specific questions. What is 2 foot continuous screening? Olsen: The ordinance requires with a berm or screening. Conrad: So what is 2 foot continuous? ElIson: Bushes? Conrad: Is that a bush? Olsen: berming _so they Conrad: Usually it's a bush. Usually what they've used for screening is but this with the topography here you really couldn't berm a hill pretty much... Okay, is 50% opacity is that our standard? Olsen: Yes. - Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 10 e Conrad: I think one of these things we care about as long as you agree that they're alright. Information on where drainage is discharged and the possible need for a retention pond for wetland pollution and nutrient loading impacts. What does that mean? That really means drainage and does it mean that we're not comfortable with the drainage? Olsen: They usually submit calculations that show how much of the roof drainage there will be or runoff from the site and I believe engineering just wanted to see those calculations to determine whether or not the pond to the south is able to handle that or if there should be a pond. Conrad: So there may be a need for a pond? Olsen: Which means a drainage easement on the plat. Conrad: So we're not looking at the final thing. So what's going to City Council will be quite a bit different, or a little bit different. Number 24, plans should address the proper movement of pedestrian traffic around the building and site. Olsen: I asked him on that one and he was discussing showing sidewalks and things like that and that's not really... -conrad: We haven't done that to anybody else. Now it is an interesting thing. If we put employees in big buildings, I think there's validity in traffic movement or pedestrian movement around but we haven't done that to my knowledge to anybody else so that one, I think you can work with the applicant on that and figure out what you want to do. On one level, in the package Jo Ann someplace in here where we show, way towards the back, the schematic where we show a wetland on the other side of the road. What kind of wetland is that? Olsen: I don't know if that is a designated wetland. Conrad: It mayor may not be a designated wetland. If we built a road over it, would that need a wetland alteration permit? Because we'd force everybody else to do that. Olsen: I don't know if they... Conrad: I think City Council should know. Erhart: That whole area down there is intended for park I believe. Hanson: Yes. Erhart: I think the intent is to make that into a ballfield. What it is ~is it is cropped. There was agricultural crops on it today but it floods .. out frequently. Olsen: I can check on that. I'm not sure. Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 11 e Conrad: Would you check out and see what that is Jo Ann? And I agree with Tim's comments on the overall concern with making creeks into culverts. We didn't see it. I'm concerned like Tim is. Olsen: We could have, if you want, we could ask Gary Warren to comment on these plans. Conrad: The Chairman can decide what he wants to do. Emmings: I'm going to appoint a committee to decide what to do and you're it. ElIson: In general I think the site plan looks fine. I'm not going to belabor the point about 27 conditions. I think it's been discussed enough and I think we're going to be dealing with that so I'll leave you to Dave. Batzli: I agree about the 27 conditions. Enough said on that. The condition 3, additional phases or expansion of the site will require a site plan review. I'm assuming you're talking about the hatched line which says plant expansion? I'm also assuming that if you put that plant expansion on there, there's no way that they have the necessary percentage of impervious to non-impervious. ~Olsen:. I think they show that they still meet it even with that expanslon. Batzli: Well they would need additional parking I would assume when they put that expansion in as well. Olsen: That will all be reviewed if they have adequate parking versus the square footage. Batzli: What is the percentage? Olsen: 70% impervious. Batzli: But they say phase 1, 17% covered by building. Then the 16% impervious so they're saying there's only 33%. Now wait a minute, what is the total percentage of green space on this baby? Olsen: The first phase is the 171 and the 16%. Batzli: What's the 3.7%? What's the difference between impervious surface and parking area? Olsen: They usually do the site covered by building and impervious surface and you just add those two together. 17% and 16%. Actually I added them all up. They're definitely below it now and that's something ~we would look at in the future. Todd Kristoferson: I guess to answer that I would say that the phase 2 that's shown on there is just to show the intent and the direction of the building expansion and exactly how that would layout and exactly how the Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 12 e parking would layout would be designed at the time the phase 2 goes ahead and at that time we'd like to bring it in. Batzli: For instance, let's say you're going to need a retention pond due to the water off the roof. About the only place you're going to be able to put it is where your plant expansion goes. If that's the case, would you even want to put up the building? The first phase? Todd Kristoferson: I would say if we had to put up an 80,000 square foot retention pond, no. We probably would look at that very, very seriously at this point. I'm assuming that if we need a pond, that we'll have that resolved with the Watershed District between now and the Council. I have talked to Bob Obermeyer at the Watershed District about this site in general and we are working on our calculations for him. Talked about what might be needed. It's not apparent at this time that any pond at all will be needed and certainly not one of that size. Conrad: Brian, I think it's a good point. Given the fact that there's, on the diagram it says that there are a 89,600 square feet addition. That to me would indicate to the applicant that we agree with that and we don't think we want to. I don't think we want to say anything about agreeing to the second phase at this point. It's good to know where they're going but ~ I don't think the approval is the approval or sanctioning an 89,000 square ., foot addition. Batzli: No, and I understand that condition 3 is attempting to say that we don't approve of the plant expansion but... ElIson: You want to be a little more specific maybe? Batzli: Maybe. I think it's very specific on this plan what the direction and intent of the applicant is and I don't think, well we certainly don't have enough information in front of us to agree to that at all. Didn't we require a recent applicant for roof drainage to have traps of some kind and things like that coming off the roof? Olsen: Rosemount, yes. Batzli: Are we requiring these people to do that? Olsen: No, but Rosemount was directing it right into a wetland and so that's why we had that. It's something we could add on. Batzli: This is going into the creek isn't it? Olsen: I believe it's going down with the runoff to the south. Hanson: It's going into the proposed storm sewer system. e Olsen: Which ends up in the pond and then the lake. Batzli: Lake Susan? Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 13 _ Olsen: It ends up in the pond right north of Lake Susan and then it goes into the lake. Although Lake Drive East is going to direct everything to the east but not on this site. It's something you could add. It has a couple large rooftop and because it was going right to that wetland, that's why we brought that up. It's something that can't hurt. Batzli: I guess if in fact the drainage off of the roof is going into the storm sewer, the storm sewer is going to end up in one of our lakes or streams. It doesn't matter to me one way or another whether it's going right into a pond or into the storm sewer. It's going to end up in our water. I would prefer to see that we treat people somewhat equally as well as I prefer to see them put in the proper strainers or whatever they need to do for that. My last question, two questions sorry. One is the easement again for Well 4 or potential requirement for an easement, depending on when we build Lake Drive. If you're satisfied with condition 25 that all we need is access during construction and development, I'll be satisfied but if we don't know when Lake Drive is going in, I think we may want to, it's included not only during construction and development but thereafter until Lake Drive is constructed. The last thing, construction traffic shall not conflict with the City's improvement project which is condition 26 and I assume you mean the improvement project is Lake Drive? Hanson: The Lake Drive and the storm sewer and the water in the sewer _being constructed in the Lake Drive right-of-way. Batzli: Okay. I guess I would prefer that we say what improvement we're talking about. Those are my comments and my honest opinion is that I think we should table the matter. Wildermuth: I would definitely like to see a more complete package come to us with far fewer conditions. I guess I have a coupe of questions for the applicant. Are you planning any undergroung storage tanks for retention of any kind of solvents or washing solution or anything like that? Larry Welter: No. Most of the raw products is brought in and how I form plastic, it's stored in outdoor storage tanks and it's piped into the building during the manufacturing process and converted directly into the bottles. Wildermuth: So any waste you have is solid waste? Larry Welter: Right. Wildermuth: And it's probably reprocessed? Larry Welter: Right. .-Wildermuth: How about processed water requirements? Do you have any ~processed water? Holding machines generally, are you going to have heating and cooling, stand alone heating and cooling units for the dies or are you going to require cooling water? Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 14 e Larry Welter: The equipment does have, by it's cooling water although most of it is, it's all recycled to clean water. There's very little waste. Wildermuth: So you're not going to have any, you'll probably have some processed cooling tower, processed cooling water towers right? Larry Welter: Correct. Wildermuth: And those will be the rooftop units? But nothing will go down the drain? Larry Welter: Mainly in the sanitary. Wildermuth: The water demand will be to make up the processed cooling water that you lose in the rooftop units? 78,000 square feet of factory space and you're only going to have 50 people on one shift? Larry Welter: That's the initial phase, yes. Wildermuth: Yes, for phase 1. What do you do with all the floor space with only 50 people on a shift? e Larry Wel ter: It's mainly storage. It takes a lot of room. Wildermuth: Your product is bulky? I don't know if this is an issue that the applicant has to be concerned with, or if it's a city issue, but Jo Ann do we want to look at maintaining a creek where the 36 inch storm sewer should be going or is that something that the Watershed people will... Olsen: That's out of my hands with planning. I don't know if that's really what the engineering, if that was part of the plan that was approved by Council. I can look into that and see what the possibility of changing it. If it has to be there. Wildermuth: I agree with Tim. It would be a shame with an existing creek to just put a culvert in and fill the whole area over. Olsen: But sometimes there's benefits to that. They'll say that it's better than what's there now. I can check that out. Wildermuth: It would seem that the creek, it meanders along that lot line there back and forth. It seems like if it possibly could be redirected, that would be preferable to putting a culvert in. I realize that the applicant probably doesn't have anything to do with it. That's a City plan. I agree with Brian. I think for the moment this issue should be tabled until we have a more complete package to look at with about half e the condi tions. Headla: You're talking about a building construction much like MTS and Research? You're talking of building construction much like MTS and Research just to the east of us in Eden prairie? Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 15 - Todd Kristoferson: That would be the double T wall panel? Headla: Pre-cast concrete walls. Todd Kristoferson: Maybe we should address that because it's not entirely clear on the plan. The main portion of the building, the plant walls along the sides and the back, would be pre-cast flat panels very similiar to the McGlynn Bakery building that's going up out there. It won't have the projected fins like the MTS building. Headla: You say it will have? Todd Kristoferson: Bakery building. It won't. It will be very similiar to the McGlynn Headla: What color were you going to have the walls? The reason I'm asking is we've got one white castle now. You have a very nice location there and it would have a lot of view. Something stark white is going to stick out like a sore thumb. That's why I ask that question. Todd Kristoferson: We're hesitant to go to a white building for that very reason. This is the material that would be on the office portion of the _building. It's prefinished aluminum.. Headla: Pretty consistent with what you have over there now? That color? ElIson: With the other buildings and stuff you're saying? Headla: Yes. In the industrial park. What about the concrete walls? Todd Kristoferson: That would be painted a similar color but a lighter tone. Headla: Okay, very good. Thank you. Your injection molding, is that your business? Larry Welter: Yes. Injected and blow molding. Headla: And what are your machines, 15 by 25 feet? Larry Welter: Yes. Roughly. about average. It varies from among the sizes. That's Headla: And what do you do with the residue of these machines? The flashing. Larry Welter: We reprocess it. ~Headla: You'll continually reprocess that? Okay. Wildermuth: Pretty valuable stuff. Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 16 - Headla: Okay, the reason I asked some of those questions...on the number of people you say you're going to use and you use that to justify the number of parking spots. The closest I can come is 169,000 facility that has 600 people in it. If I run a ratio of people per square feet, you're probably over 3 times the amount of square feet per person which means, before I'd ever say yes, I think you've got a good plan here on parking spots, I'd sure what to see some rationale why you only have 50 parking spots. On the numbers of just common industry, I think you're way low on the number of parking spots. If you've got rationale for it and you can point it out, fine. I'd like to look at those numbers but I think those numbers have to be available if you're going to go that's your parking spots. Larry Welter: A rough figure that I used for calculating is 10,000 square feet machine. For instance, with all the machines you have 120,000 feet needed for warehouse space to support that production facility. You figure like a gallon jug and it takes up a lot of space. Maybe it won't have too much plastic in it. Headla: I'd like to see some documents showing that space. Now that kind of fits in. I think you're way, and I'm no way an expert in your business but just from what I see in the industry, I think you're short on parking lot. The size of parking lot then flows into Brian's point about you've e got runoff on the parking lot. We haven't put in skimmers. What are we dumping into our streams? You're going to have oil on those parking lot. You've got...on these parking lots going into our lakes and streams and the bigger the parking lot, the more cars, the more it's going in which means we probably should have the skimmer. That's why I would like to see some rationale for that. On why you went so light on that. Then, I think it's obscene that the number of deviations that we have. I don't think the Commission is here to judge on a process of how we get there or to judge on what's in front of us. No way would I recommend approval of this. I think it should be tabled. No way would I recommend approval of the applicant should provide an amended landscaping which provides the following. That's the stuff that's got to come to us before we can even approve it. I want to see what you're proposing. I don't want to leave it to just the staff. I see different things about the fire hydrants and then I've got a drawing here that shows a possible location of a fire hydrant. I don't want to say yes, I'm going to vote yes for that. I want to see it on that print and I want to see it documented and then we say yes, that's what the fire department agrees to and then we can do it. Dead-end mains shall not exceed 600 feet in length. If it's an issue, then it should have been resolved beforehand. If it isn't an issue, then it shouldn't have been in here but it's here so I've got to raise the question. Submittal of revised site plan incorporating the above conditions prior to consideration by the Council. I want to see all that stuff before it goes to the Council. Revised plan shall be submitted for approval that address the conditions and discussions contained in this ~ staff report. I want to see that. I want to see the erosion control .., plan. I don't want to leave that to the staff and put all that on them. They're our guidance and I want to give them as much strength as possible and I want you and them to work together and I think you have been but I want to see you work with each other and get it resolved so when it comes Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 17 e here, we've just got a couple of issues and maybe it's disagreements that we talk about. But we can settle on that and bang, we know exactly what's going to go to the Council. It's in crisp form and the Council can look at it and they can make a very good judgment on it. Right now everything we're doing, we're shoving it onto staff and then it certainly isn't crisp to the Council and I don't think it's fair to either one. Determination of waste water monitoring requirements. What I hear from you, that isn't even an issue but it was put in here so I flagged it and after hearing you, but it was in here. Access must be maintained for City forces to monitor and maintain Well No.4. That's got to be resolved before it comes to the Planning Commission. Not tell the staff to work it our afterwards. Todd Kristoferson: We have agreed to that access. Headla: Most of this should have been resolved beforehand so my point, I've got others but my point is, get that stuff resolved with the staff before it comes in. I hadn't even heard of your company until just a little while ago. Ernpak, now it's come up and I just saw a fellow you just hired today away from the company where I have my office. Not my company. He was happier than heck. He was just grinning from ear to ear so it must be a pretty good company the way he spoke of it. What you're doing, I think is good. I like to see your building. I like to see you 4Itin here but for the Planning Commission and the Council to make good judgments, I think we have to have those defined and documented. That's all. Wildermuth: I'd just like to say one thing. Basically I think we're very pro business and we certainly want to welcome you to Chanhassen. The project looks like a beautiful project. Your project just kind of got caught in a little internal conflict here. We're not basically critical of the project at all. Emmings: I am going to belabor the 27 conditions a little bit because it seems to me that what we're getting is, we're getting planning staff conditions and then it sounds like you're getting engineering staff conditions and you simply add those on. There's no synthesis done so we wind up with conditions that treat, and I think on the fire hydrants, fire hydrant things appear on 3 separate ones and two of them seem to be very similiar to me. When you've got, there's a condition here that says all driveways should be consistent with the City's commercial/industrial standard details. I think somebody else has brought up other ones of that nature. What the heck else? It's like putting in a condition that says, you'll obey th~ law. Unless it's a problem, unless they've designed something that doesn't meet the standard so we have to tell them they have to meet the standard, that should never be necessary it seems. Hanson: That's why it's mentioned in here though. e Emmings: Why? Hanson: Engineering, when they went through, the reason they would have mentioned that is that they didn't find something that met that particular Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 18 e standard explicitedly. Emmings: But that's not giving anybody any information to say that. Then it seems to me they should say that the plans do not meet the City's commercial/industrial standard details and must be redrafted. Olsen: ...a lot of that information. Emmings: But then why put it in this report? Olsen: It's to let them know. Emmings: That they have to comply with our standards? It isn't multiple choice. They don't have a choice about that. This almost suggests that they do. A lot of these, it looks to me like if somebody sat down and tried to do a little synthesis. You know say, here's all the points we've got, let's group them together so that we cover topics in a group. It seems to me even going with respect to fire hydrants and watermains, these things need to be done. With respect to landscaping. He did it under landscaping. But pull together what engineering has to say with what you have to say but there's no way there should be this many. I think tabling it may be, for the people who spoke for tabling it, all of these things seem to be things to me that the staff can handle I guess and I don't want eto punish the applicant by delaying them because we don't like the process or we don't like the way the staff is presenting this stuff or we'd like it presented in a different way. So until we can get this process straighten out, maybe we're going to have to put up with a little bit of this but I think we should work like crazy to try and get this done because it's been a topic ever since you've come on the scene Steve. I think we nailed you the first meeting. Headla: Steve, I think you slid over the important point. We're being asked to approve stuff that we don't have the definition of what we're approving. Emmings: I think to some extent, most of those things, if they're technical, if they're where trees are going to be located and things like that, I'm content to let the staff handle that between now and the Council myself. I don't see, if they brought one plan or another with trees here or there, as long as the staff tells me they've got an adequate number of trees under our ordinance and so forth. Wildermuth: We should be concerned with the concept, conceptual things rather than technicalities. Emmings: I guess I don't think it's worth delaying them 2 weeks so that I should decide they should move a tree. I'm going to let the staff, and there may be more significant issues in here. 4ItHeadla: I think you hit trivial with those things. I think those are... Signage. I'd like to know what they've got in mind for signage. I think that's very important. Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 19 e Wildermuth: That should be part of the package. Headla: I don't want to see that go to Council without seeing what, just a concept. I'm not asking for detail. Emmings: You said you store things outside in tanks? Where are those on the plan? Larry Welter: They're on the north side of the building and the east corner. Emmings: All those little round circles you see there? Okay. Wildermuth: What kind of a hardship is it going to work if we table this thing on the applicant? Todd Kr i stofer son: I guess I can add somethi ng there.. We're on a real fast track schedule with the owner to get him in production in late July. He has these very expensive pieces of equipment that are due to arrive at the same time that we finish the building. Two weeks is very important at this time to us. As far as the number of comments in here, we've tried from the time we got this report to address those with staff. Probably two-thirds of them I think could be eliminated either because they're e conditions that are already met or just things that state we need to conform to standard codes. Wildermuth: You said something a little while ago that you thought they were all, they could all be negotiated. Do you plan to comply or do you plan to stand up to a couple of them? Todd Kristoferson: We plan to comply. I didn't mean to think that were going to corne in and change anything. Some of them are open ended. Hydrant locations. We realize that we need to have some hydrants but where they are, I guess we want to work that our with the fire department so they're satisfied because they're the ones that have to sign off. Headla: What's the lead time of your big presses? What's the lead time if you go to order one? Larry Welter: That varies between 4 to 6 to 8 weeks. Headla: You can get them that quick? Wildermuth: Are these new or used pieces that you're moving? Larry Welter: New. e Headla: One other question and Steve brought it up before. When you in and talked to the Village, did you have a pretty clear, crisp understanding of what things you had to look at or did you have to go through ordinances and talk to our staff quite a bit? carne Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - page 20 e Todd Kristoferson: We talked to Steve and we got a handout that basically spelled out what they wanted to see. Headla: So you're making progress with that package steve? Hanson: What we gave them was sections of the Code. Right now we don't have what I would call a developers packet. Headla: Steve has been working on something there and I just wondered how he's progressing so when you corne in he says, these are the things you've got to look at. But it's pretty clear? Okay, thanks. Todd Kristoferson: Our intent is to conform with what the City Engineer's and Fire Department's want. We don't have any, on many of these items, we don't have any disagreement at all. We just want to do the next thing to have to clarify. Emmings: It seems to me that's all the more reason that we don't hang them up is that they've agreed to the ones that are here. Maybe, as a compromise Dave, I don't know of the forces that are in favor of tabling, maybe if there was signage and maybe some other particular issues you want to see back, maybe we could have those corne back. Pass the plan on but say that we want to see, we want the signage to corne through, or something ~like that. Just to not hang them up. Since they've already agreed. I'd just throw that out. Headla: This is going to go to the Council before we could see that information right? Emmings: Right but we would withhold approval on those issues or say those things have to come before us and should be withheld from the Council. Whatever. Our problem is with our staff, not with these applicants. Batzli: My point is with the proposed expansion and not with the staff in that I think I heard them say if they can't build their expansion, or if the potential isn't there to build the expansion, they might not build. So I would like to see more information before letting it go. Emmings: And on that, it seems to me that we simply say we're not approving the expansion period. They can't present a shadow of a plan and expect to get approval on it but I think if you change, what number was that? You already brought it up. Batzli: Which one? The one about the drainage? Roof drainage? Emmings: No, it was 3. That would simply say that this approval was not to be construed as approval of the expansion noted on the plan and any ~additional phases or expansion of the site will require an additional site "'review. The other thing that concerned me is I want to add another condition. ElIson: 28? Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 21 e Emmings: Yes, 28 because I just don't think there are enough. I was a little concerned. It says that the applicant has stated that roof top equipment will not be visible from the south. I don't know if there's any other possible place the roof top equipment could be visible from. TH 5 gets up pretty high and all I would say, there ought to be a condition that says that if any roof top equipment is visible, it will be screened because we've been real, starting with Pat Swenson back when, she looked at every plan and that was the thing, one of the things she really focused on. I think it was a good idea and that's one of those things I think we have to really be a watchdog on or we start losing our grip on it so I think there ought to be a condition that says that if it is visible, that it will be screened. Hanson: Steve, could I clarify that? Is the intent, if it's visible from a public right-of-way? Emmings: Yes. You can always crawl up on a ladder and see it. Sure. If it's visible from, I guess I'm thinking primarily of TH 5. I don't know if it's even possible that it could be visible from TH 5. Erhart: TH 5 is very high relative to the site. Emmings: So I guess if you said from a, I'm not thinking of being visible ~ from another building. I think that's alright. Okay, I don't have anything else. Does anybody else have any other comments on this? Erhart: Yes. Right at the beginning here you quote your Section 20-1125 that for office space, you have 3 parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet. How many parking spaces does this have? It doesn't appear that you apply that to this structure. Hanson: It's just for the office. 7,000 is based on the employees that they have. Erhart: I have another question here. All the Austrian pines in front of the future building are going to be put in place at the time of the construction of the building? Todd Kristoferson: First phase? Right. Conrad: No, just as the first. Todd Kristoferson: No, I'm assuming that these trees are also going to be put in now or in the future. Conrad: phase 2, are you putting in the trees in front of your Phase 2? - Todd Kristoferson: phase 1. All the trees shown on this site plan will go in on Erhart: In the center, is this going to be graded back to the natural after you get all done? What are they going to be, just left to grow natural? Are you going to mow that? I Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 22 e Todd Kristoferson: It will be seeded and mulched. Erhart: What does that mean mulched? Hanson: A strawed area. Erhart: Oh, so we don't have erosion? Todd Kristoferson: Right. It helps the grass establish. Erhart: And that's not intended to be mowed? Probably not. will it be mowed or just left to grow long? Todd Kristoferson: I would think that the plan is to mow that. Erhart: Are you intending to mow the whole thing or just let it grow wild? Larry Welter: It would be kept mowed. Erhart: It would be mowed, okay. So essentially you'll have just a big flat area out there except that these parking lots will be put in now and ~the dotted ones are for the future? This area is essentially what, your docks? Larry Welter: At the time that there Phase 2 is built, that trucking and dockage will be screened from the street. Erhart: Okay. There's landscaping requirements of trees every 40 feet on the interior lot lines correct and that's not in here so there will be some trees along the east line. Okay, thanks. Conrad: Most of the stuff I think administratively can be handled if staff agrees that it can be. Although they opened it up to us which I'm sure they're sorry for doing. My biggest concern that impacts this that basically tells me we may not be giving City Council the final plan is the drainage. If there's a pond, where does it" go? How does it affect the phases and I think that could really screw this up. That's the only thing that I see on this site plan that I really care about that the applicant should know that we're not going to bend rules downstream to make sure we get the additional area in for phase 2. We're also quite concerned that, and typically we handle storm water drainage, or any kind of drainage on site, or we have been with ponding. I don't know what the difference is right now because we haven't been informed of what kind of storm water drainage we have and what the impact is downstream on that and where it's going. So in my mind, that's the only thing I care about. That's the only thing that really impacts this site plan and it's a thing that, I .. think all the other stuff is administrati ve matters pretty much. I don't ~even care about signage because I think our sign ordinance is pretty specific on what it can be but I think in terms of this, I think number 19 is a headache for me and I don't know how we want to handle that. What's your guesstimate? What do you think? Are we going to find a problem? Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 23 e That's a big roof and if we go to phase 2, that's another big roof and we are reaching 70% impervious surface there and where's it going? I think that's a problem. Now City Council can deal with that. They certainly are going to get our notes but we haven't helped them and basically what it says is between now, if we don't act on this, the next meeting we have is 3 weeks from now so with the developer's schedule, we really are impacting them if we delay. So the question is, do we want to make City Council be Planning Commission for a little bit. Headla: Will they have all the information ready for us in 2 weeks if we have a special meeting? They've got to get the information anyway so since they've got to get it anyway, I want to see it before it goes to Council. I want to see a crisp plan go to the Council. Todd Kristoferson: I would like to comment on the drainage because that's something we've been discussing with the Watershed District engineers and we're fully aware that even if we get approval here and at the Council, that we have to also get their approval. They are looking at the drainage and they will be the ones that will be needed for approval of drainage and erosion control with them. I don't have the exact date. I know it's between now and mid-April. We are aware that we have to meet the drainage requirements for the drainage. I'd rather not get held up here because we haven't gone to the Watershed yet. I would rather see this approved ~subject to subsequent Watershed District approval. Conrad: Normally we have those in hand when things come in don't we? Olsen: We usually have comments from the Watershed District. Conrad: So we're sort of out of sync. Usually we like to see their comments first and you're telling us we're not going to see them for another 3 weeks or 4. Olsen: We usually see their comments before the final approval. They only meet once a month, the first Wednesday. Emmings: Any more comments? Larry Welter: I would assume on that, that would be pretty much black and white decision for the Watershed. You've got your square foot of the roof there. You know what their storm sewer size and the proposed storm sewer is. Emmings: I think what you're hearing though is, they make their decision but we make our decision too. I guess we usually take their comments into account when we're looking at a plan before we make our decision. It isn't a situation where we just let them decide. Anything else. Is there a motion? 4Itwildermuth: I just have one question addressed to Steve and Jo Ann. Do you have ordinances against employee parking on for example Lake Drive? I'm sure they can't park on CR 17 if there aren't enough parking places. Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 24 - Olsen: I'm sure they can't park on CR 17 but no we don't. Hanson: There's no restriction on Lake Drive. Olsen: We have that problem with Instant Webb, where they park on the street. Park Road. We have no way to prevent that unless we put no parking signs up there. We do try to work with the companies and ask them to ask their employees not to park there. There is no specific ordinance against it. Wildermuth: How many people are you going to have on the second shift? Larry Welter: Roughly a dozen people to start out with. During the day it would probably get into... Wildermuth: Even in phase l? Larry Welter: That would be phase 2. Wildermuth: What I'm thinking about is, if you have 11313 employees on the first shift, you have 1138 parking spaces. When the second shift comes, they aren't going to have anyplace to park. It just seems like you're a e 1 i ttle 1 ight on the parking for Phase 1. Larry Welter: What we've tried to show on this with the dashed lines is that we have room to add additional parking if it were to become necessary even with Phase 1. But we'd like not to. We'd like to leave as much green area out there as we can as long as there's going to be parking for employees and if it becomes a problem, we've got room to add spaces. Conrad: How many people could meet next week for a special meeting? Headla: If they have it ready, I'll be here. Conrad: I could show up. Batzli: Aren't we already having a special meeting this month? Hanson: That's one thing I wanted to talk to you about tonight, about setting up a special meeting on the Comp Plan. Conrad: When would that be? Hanson: When I can get the majority of you together. Emmings: I don't have my calendar here. Conrad: We could possibly do it together. e ElIson: Are we making the assumption they'll get this Watershed thing all put together? Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 25 e Conrad: Oh yes. They can try. Or staff can review it and that'd make me comfortable. Olsen: You want a report? Conrad: Yes. Olsen: In a week? Conrad: Yes. ElIson: You'd need more information and then you'd have to write a report, right? Emmings: Let's do this. Let's make a motion. Wildermuth: Let's ask the Mayor if he'll accept it like it is. Emmings: Let's make a motion. Headla: Let me ask the question first. When did the first application come in from Empak? _Hanson: It would have been 3 weeks ago. Headla: 3 weeks ago and they want approval of this but their machines are 16 weeks lead time. I've got a bunch of them on order and you've got to put them someplace. Todd Kristoferson: of Empak, came in to about this project. the application only been in this process I can add something to this. Mr. Bongaard, the owner talk to I believe the City Manager several months ago At that time we initiated the design. So even though came in 3 weeks ago for this meeting, I guess we've for some time looking at this site. Batzli: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Site Plan Request #89-1 as shown on the Site Plan stamped "Received February 21, 1989" with the following conditions: 1 through 27 set forth in the staff report and an additional condition 28. The applicant shall provide screening for roof top equipment if the same is visible from a public right-of-way. A sentence prior to condition 3 which reads, approval of the site plan is not an approval, nor does it imply approval, of any notations of plant expansion set forth in the site plan. End of condition 19 another sentence which reads, further skimmer and/or traps shall be provided subject to staff approval for all roof and parking lot drainage. Condition 25, the end of the sentence insert, and until such time as Lake Drive improvements are completed. The end of condition 26 insert, improvement project associated with Lake Drive. _ElIson: I'll second it. Erhart: Do we want to add something in referencing this 19 to strengthen the, encouraging staff to strengthen... Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 26 e Batzli: The creek issue? Erhart: No, the use of the skimmer or the pollution thing from the storm water run off and the roof and the parking lot? It seems in the past that we've gone beyond the Watershed District's approval and asked for certain things if we felt there was... Batzli: I added a sentence there that read skimmers and/or traps shall be provided subject to staff approval for all roof and parking lot drainage. Erhart: You added that to what, 19 or another one? Batzli: 19. Erhart: Okay. I had that note here. read my notes that I didn't hear you. I guess I was so busy trying to Okay, good. Conrad: things. Going back to drainage and erosion control and all those nifty In one week, would we find out anything? Hanson: If you were to meet next Wednesday? e Conrad: Yes. of this stuff it will go to If we met next Wednesday, I'm sure we could clean up some and send to City Council. If we approve it with 28 points, City Council with all 28 points. Hanson: Unless you make it a provision that those are complied with before it goes. Conrad: If they are complied with, do you eliminate them? Hanson: Yes. Conrad: What issue are we really dealing with in terms of the roof top drainage? Do you feel we have valid concerns? Is it something that staff wants to look into? I assume you're waiting for referral agency comments back but are there things that we haven't studied in terms of... Olsen: Usually, once it goes into the storm sewer, it's usually taken care of. The only time I can remember that we ever added anything additional was with Rosemount, and maybe I missed something again when I was gone. It's usually takes care of it adequately. If you want us to research exactly what's happening to it, we can do that. If you feel this is a sensitive area, which it could be. Conrad: I don't know what the Wateshed's going to say because of the impact on the improvements that they're making. e Olsen: It's the City that requires that they maintain pre-development runoff on their site. The Watershed District does not require that so actually our engineering department requires more than the Watershed District does. Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 27 e Conrad: Tell me about our policy, retention ponds on sites, how come not to have a retention pond here? storm sewer that we can drain? and we really do have a lot of right now we feel that it's real easy Is that just simply because we have a Hanson: I think that's part of it, yes. In some cases you don't have that capability. I think the other thing the engineering department is trying to raise in 19 is that they were unclear where the drainage from the roof was going. Olsen: And they didn't have the storm water calculations. Hanson: So what they were saying is we need some more information and based on that information, then it may become an issue. Conrad: So can we feel confident that because there's a storm sewer that will empty into a pond downstream someplace, that the adequate controls on that pond, skimming or filtering the pollutants before it gets into any of the wetlands, is that what we are assuming has been done? Just the fact that we're dumping it someplace and we know whatever that place is has been approved to control water like this. _Hanson: My assumption is, with the design of the storm water drainage, that improvements that the City has done and then putting it into that holding pond, that they've addressed that. And it's been addressed based on the roadway and projected development that would occur within the drainage basin that it's serving. Now I did not specifically ask that question of engineering so I couldn't tell you that... Emmings: When are the storm sewer improvements scheduled to be completed? Hanson: It's all part of the... Emmings: That's all part of building Lake Drive? Hanson: Yes. Batzli moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of site Plan Request #89-1 as shown on the Site plan stamped "Received February 21, 1989" with the following conditions: 1. All signage shall meet the conditions of the sign ordinance. 2. The applicant shall provide an amended landscape plan which provides the following: e a. Two foot continuous screening of the southerly parking lot from Lake Drive. b. Fifty percent winter opacity. e e9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. e 18. Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 28 c. Interior lot line landscaping. 3. Approval of the site plan is not an approval, nor does it imply approval, of any notations of plant expansion set forth in the site plan. Any additional phases or expansion of the site will require a site plan review. 4. Every dead-end roadway more than 300 feet in length shall be provided at the closed end with a turn around acceptable to the Fire Department. 5. Turns in roadways shall maintain the minimum road width and shall be constructed with a minimum radium of 25 feet at the inside curb cut and a radius of 50 feet at the outside curb. 6. Parking lot lanes shall have a minimum of 25 feet clear width between rows of parked vehicles for vehicular access and movement. 7. Distances between installed fire hydrants shall not exceed 300 feet. 8. Approximate fire hydrant locations are indicated on the site plan. Fire hydrants shall be supplied by not less than a 6 inch diameter main installed on a looped system, or not less than an 8 inch diameter main if the system is not looped or the fire hydrant is installed on a dead-end main exceeding 300 feet in length. Dead-end mains shall not exceed 600 feet in length for main sizes under 10 inches in diameter. Submittal of revised site plan incorporating the above conditions prior to consideration by City Council. In order to be placed on the April 10, 1989 City Council agenda, revised plans need to be submitted by March 27, 1989. Revised plans shall be submitted for approval that address the conditions and discussion contained in this staff report. An erosion control plan shall be included in the submittals. Contouring of the perimeter of the site will need to be shown. All side slopes greater than 3:1 will need erosion protection. Determination of waste water monitoring requirements with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. Watermain looping and hydrant locations shall be included in the submittals, including valves. Information on roof drainage discharge and possible need for retention pond for wetland pollutant/nutrient loading impacts. Further skimmer and/or traps shall be provided subject to staff approval for all roof Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 29 e 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. -26. 27. e , -~ and parking lot drainage. . All driveways are to be consistent with the City's commercial/ industrial standard details. A typical section of roadway to be shown on plans for approval with concrete curb and gutter throughout the site. Necessary County permits for control of access to CSAH 17 at the northerly access to the site shall be obtained. A 35 foot permanent utility easement shall be dedicated along the easterly lot line of the site for storm sewer purposes. The plans should address the proper movement of pedestrian traffic around the building and site. Access MUST be maintained for City forces to monitor and maintain Well No.4 at all times during construction and development of this site and until such time as Lake Drive improvements are completed. Construction traffic shall not conflict with the City's improvement project associated with Lake Drive. If the City's 18 inch watermain is not relocated, an easement shall be provided across the southwest corner of the site and any cut or fill over this main shall receive prior City approval which will be predicated on proper remedial actions taken. The applicant shall provide screening for roof top equipment if the same is visible from a public right-of-way. All voted in favor except Headla and Wildermuth who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 2. Headla: I think two reasons. Inadequate information available. I don't know what I'm approving and I don't see anything in documentation of the parking lot and drainage to make a judgment. Emmings: Same thing? Wildermuth: Yes. Emmings: I guess just as my closing comment I'd say, I think this thing probably should have been tabled in terms of what we should do in terms of supplying information to the City Council. I think it's kind of half baked and it results in our doing kind of a half baked job but I don't think the applicant should be held up for that reason. I think this stuff is going to get ironed out between now and the City Council meeting. J Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 30 e CONTRACTORS YARDS. Emmings: I have a little preliminary question there. We have something new in our packets in the form of a little folder. Does that signify that we should keep these for a while? Hanson: Yes. The intent is a couple of things. On some of this stuff, especially the ordinance stuff and when we talk about procedures and so forth, I expect we're going to go through a few generations on that and what I'd like to do is not copy Minutes from the last 7 meetings when we get to the point where we're about to approve something so what I'd like to do is give you stuff that we anticipate that you need to hang onto for a while. Emmings: Then I would also assume that from the time we get one of these, that will appear on every agenda after that as old business. Hanson: We can do that, yes. Emmings: I think we've talked about that several times and I think it's a good idea so that we have a handy checklist of the stuff that we're considering on an ongoing basis. Contractors yards, what have you got for us? -Hanson: Basically what I'm really asking of the Planning Commission is kind of a last check off to authorize us to go ahead and have the formal amendment, if you will, put together and drafted so that we can schedule it for a public hearing. What I'd like to do is publish that so you have what we're itending to, at least consider for the adoption before you. What the staff is suggesting is that we go ahead and delete contractors yards as a conditional use in the A-2 district. I guess there's one thing I didn't mention in there and I should have and that was the BF district. Whether we're going to delete it from that district. I was going to delete it from the BF district also. Then under the conditional use provisions, we could delete entirely the section on contractors yards. I guess it's a question of whether you want to deal with the BF district or now or if you want to leave it there or if the intent is really just to delete it from the A-2 district. Right now the contractors yards are allowed in the A-2, the BF and the lOP. Emmings: I've got a question. The last time we talked about this we kind of went around about whether we should say that we're, in the published notice for the public hearing, whether we're considering restricting the intensity of the use or whether we're actually going to abolish the things. Whether we're going to present that as an alternative or whether we are going to just present one alternative. What are you proposing to do? aHanson: What I'm suggesting is the alternative to delete it as what ~you're considering. Not the option of the mom and pop. Continuation of contractors yards as a mom and pop type operation. Headla: Did you say delete the mom and pop? Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 31 e Hanson: Yes. Emmings: Now the Section 20-574 is conditional use in the A-2 and 20-255 is what? Hanson: That's the conditional use requirements for contractors yards in an A-2 district. Emmings: Then you'd add this section down there for BF also? Hanson: That's what I'm wondering. If you want to keep BF or not. The conditional use requirements for the contractors, one's for the non-residential and then there's ones for the residential and agricultural so the criteria is different in those two instances. If we leave the BF alone subject to the conditional use requirements that apply in the lOP district. Emmings: I'm just trying to remember what was in the report that we got from Mark and it seems to me, I thought we had agreed that they were appropriate in the lOP but that's all. So it seems to me the BF stuff ought to be down here. Who's got comments on this? eHeadla: I have a hard time giving up the mom and pop type of thing. Emmings: I take it that we can still discuss that at the public hearing. The trouble is we're not throwing it out in the public notice which is, the notice for the hearing and I... Headla: That's my only concern. Wildermuth: I guess I'm in favor of deleting it in the A-2. I think that's the approach I'd like to see taken with the public hearing. Emmings: What about the BF? wildermuth: I think it could remain in the BF and lOP. Batzli: I was just trying to recall... Emmings: Are you going to... Batzli: Well, I should say I did and my problem was, I couldn't even add up the score of what the Council people were saying. I had 3 for ma and pa. One for eliminate. Our Mayor saying that if you couldn't limit them, maybe eliminate them totally and then I don't know what, so we kind of had 3 for ma and pa, 1 for eliminate and 1 of the ma and pa was kind of walking the fence and Councilperson Workman, I didn't know what he wanted a to do but I assume he wants to get rid of it in the BF from his comments ~as well. Which leaves I don't know what. I didn't really get clear guidance from reviewing that but I assume that since we only have 2 BF's and they're both along TH 212/169 there. I would like to see them eliminated from that because I don't think that's appropriate places to Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 32 e put them due to the increase in traffic, etc. and it's already a pot pourri of things that I don't think are appropriate there anyway so my bottom line is to eliminate them from A-2 and BF. Elison: Are we just deciding here what to say in the public hearing? We're not making decisions are we? Emmings: No. Elison: Why are we going around like this? Emmings: In some ways I think it would be nice if we wait to make up our minds until after we have the public hearing. Batzli: But we're trying to decide what to say to the public though. ElIson: But let them come anyway. Batzli: I spoke with you. I would like to give them an option. Invite them in and hear their comments but if we've got to publish something, my recommendation to publish is, eliminate it from the A-2 and the BF. My mind is not made up in stone but if we've got to publish something, that's e what I'd like to publish. Hanson: Could I maybe clarify one thing for you Brian? Batzli: Go ahead. Hanson: You'll jump on me if I'm wrong but just as far as what City Council did when they looked at the issue because you did want to get some input from them. Granted the Minutes don't, I don't think the Minutes read what was said. Batzli: Hopefully they do. Hanson: Well, I think it's the words but my reading of what City Council said, there were 2 people that said, let's eliminate contracting from the A-2 district. And there were 2 people who were supportive of keeping the mom and pop operation. Batzli: Johnson and Oimler? Hanson: No. One of those was the Mayor. And the Mayor's point was, if there was a means where we could do it on a temporary basis, he would like to retain the mom and pop but if we can't, then his tendency was to say well, then maybe we should lean towards eliminating them. My understanding, and I don't recall who was on what side of the issue. I would say then that the other person, I believe it was Ursula, was less ~clear about what she wanted although she talked about the City ought to be ~ looking at what's going to happen in those outlying areas. And that would tend to tell you whether you should allow that kind of a use out there if it's going to conflict with what you're going to do long range so she was looking, I think, for a longer term solution on whether contracting yards Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 33 e belonged out there or not may depend on what the City envisions happening. That was my sense of what was said. I took that in my mind to be a direction of Council that really their direction was, let's eliminate it from the A-2. The question on the temporary use and Steve had brought this up at Planning Commission previously about whether we could do licensing. You have a memo in your packet from Roger on that and essentially what Roger said is yes. They probably could do something under licensing but the red flags in my opinion in his recommendation are not quite as bright as they needed to be. I've talked with him and he said, he feels that legally you could probably do it but that enforcement of it is really going to be a headache. His concern is once you've allowed the business in and you want to get it out, it's going to be real hard to do. He did mention to me that he's been involved in a case like that where they had a business. It was supposed to be in for a temporary time period and they had to get them out. He said the amount of legal fees and time that it took to get them out, he said it probably wasn't worth it. If I remember right, what he told me on the phone was they spent close to $50,000.00 to get the business out. Even though it was to be a temporary use. I think that's his fear with it and that's why he said in there, if you're going to proceed that way, he'd like to see us proceed fairly cautiously. Mayor Chmiel: Has that bill been introduced to allow a temporary use? -Hanson: I don't know if it has been introduced or not. I know that there is a bill proposed to change the conditional use to allow temporary. Mayor Chmiel: For x number of years. Hanson: Yes. And there's also a bill on the conditional use process to make it clear that a conditional use permit can not be denied. The City can't say no to a conditional use permit. They can only put conditions on it. So there is some legislation pending that could change the issue. ElIson: It doesn't really bother me which way the public notice says it. I think we would get the same people either way we notify them. Olsen: I think the only thing is, I remember Roger stating this before that the public hearing states something that if you were to approve is something more restrictive. ElIson: Then maybe you should ellude to the fact that it may end up being total elimination. Then I guess you should write it as strict as it could possibly turn out. That's what you should do it. Conrad: I agree. The only question is, should we instruct staff to prepare a procedure where we would allow ma and pa? Do we want them to review that with us during that public hearing formally? Procedures and 4Itthe pitfalls of doing that. Ellson: Yes. Emmings: I do. Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 34 e ElIson: The pros and cons. Emmings: Do you? Conrad: Yes. Emmings: Dave does I guess. What about you Brian? Batzli: Yes, I'd like to see that. Emmings: Jim too? Wildermuth: Yes. Hanson: I'm sorry, I missed that. Erhart: Be prepared to discuss the pros and cons of the ma and pa if the discussion goes in that direction. I guess if we get a lot of people that come up and say... ElIson: We already have some council members that were thinking they liked the idea of mom and pop. We should really know the pros and cons to eit because it's already being thought of seriously. Emmings: Think about the kind of place that would be, somebody who's lived here for 35 years and they've got 1 truck and 1 Bobcat and they run this place right out of their home and they're sitting on 40 acres. That isn't the kind of thing we're going after in prohibiting these things. The question is whether or not you can reasonably write any kind of standards. Batzli: And then enforce them. Emmings: And then enforce them, yes. So I guess that's the problem. Wildermuth: The other side of the coin is, maybe we've got to look at some zoning too. Emmings: I don't know what you mean though. Erhart: I think Jim, my point is, you've got a lot of this A-2 out there really is residential today and when you've got a downtown area where we've got some pretty restrictive uses of in town lots in terms of overnight parking and what you can have in your front yard and what you can store in your back yard. We as Chanhassen, we have those rules yet now you've got essentially a residential area out there that a guy can have his Bobcat and his dump truck right next door so if we do it at ~large, I think that's the easiest way for the City and other cities have "'filled precedent that they've eliminated contractor's yards when they get to our stage of growth. On the other hand, if we're going to allow some ma and pa, then I think we've got to do what Jim's referring to and that is, I think we need to look at the A-2 area and find out which is Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 35 e residential and which is rural. I'm okay with either approach. Headla: Where are you going to draw the line on this? Wildermuth: If we say we want some contractors yards like the ma and pa operation, then I think we've got to look at some zoning allowing them on critical highways. Headla: Are you getting to a point that if you own a Bobcat, you're in violation of some ordinance? Emmings: No, that's not the objective. That's not going to be a contractors yard. That's not going to fit under the definition of a contractors yard. Erhart: If you have a business with that Bobcat. If your business uses that Bobcat, then that falls under the definition of contractors yard. Headla: I don't know of a single Bobcat that's used that isn't used for a business of making money. Erhart: You're probably right. Your initial question was what then? eHeadla: Erhart: business If I owned a Bobcat, I'd be in violation of some ordinance here? You're saying then that you own that Bobcat and you operate a with that Bobcat? Headla: Yes, that's what you're implying. didn't expect to make some money on it. I wouldn't own a Bobcat if I Erhart: But then if you owned a lot, do you want your neighbor to operate a business with that Bobcat where he's loading it up, unloading it? The question is, the real basic question here is, is that kind of business appropriate for an urban neighborhood? Headla: That isn't my question at all. My question is how definitive are you going to get? What if I've got a tractor with a bucket on it? You're going to get down in a gray area there that you could hit a lot of people so I think we've got to be prepared for that. Erhart: I think the definition is, does he use that for his main source of income. I think that's the definition. Emmings: It isn't the definition but maybe we want to look at that too. We may want to look at all this stuff. We're getting beyond what we've got to do tonight. Are we? What I'd like to do, I guess you have an idea of what we want for the public hearing and I guess we're saying go _ahead and do it. Is that what we're saying? Erhart: Both districts right? For the public hearing. Ellson: Right. As strict as it might possibly be. Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 36 e Erhart: And then we can back off from there? ElIson: Right. wildermuth: Let's say eliminating it altogether from everything. Erhart: Well we've got to have it in the lOP. Emmings: What he's saying is if you want to make it most restrictive, just say we're going to consider eliminating them. Erhart: I don't think we want to eliminate them from the lOP. wildermuth: If you just have it in the lOP, it's tantamont to eliminating it pretty well. Except for the one little lOP that we've got down here. Erhart: lOP is the industrial park. Wildermuth: I know but who can afford to put a contractors yard in the industrial park. Hanson: You have one that you've approved in the A-2 district that's 4Itlooking at locating in the Industrial Park. Erhart: I think when all the other cities have outlawed them, essentially they have to go to the lOP's. I think it's a good business and I think we do want them in Chanhassen and I just think the lOP is a good place for the. I think we ought to at least put our sign out someplace for these businesses. I guess I assumed all along that we were talking about allowing them in the lOP's. ElIson: Jim was just saying, if you're going to go the most severe possible in the public notice, do it that way. Erhart: That's almost like saying, we want to chase you guys out of town completely. I'm uncomfortable with that. It doesn't leave us the argument that... wildermuth: If they've got a permit, we can't do that anyway. They're in because the permit goes with the property. Erhart: I understand that. I'm just saying that if somebody comes into our town with a contractor's business, what this is saying is we don't want you. Do you want to leave that answer with them? Emmings: the idea? _Hanson: Do you need any kind of a motion or anything or you've just got Yes. I 1 -I Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 37 e CONVENIENCE STORES. Hanson: As you may have heard me mention to you, the City Council on December 19th put a moratorium on convenience stores within the City. It really resolved around two issues. The two issues were, first of all the proliferation of convenience stores and there was a concern for that. Then the second part of it was the issue of service stations allowing full service and having service bays. The one concern, it really centered around the Amoco project coming in and losing those service bays and having it replaced with essentially a convenience gas facility. At that time one of the real concerns and issues was how do you define what a convenience store is. In all honesty in my mind, that's still a cloudy issue. It's a situation where I think you talk to the normal person on the street and you say a convenience store, gas pumps, they think of Tom Thumb or a Holiday or 7 Eleven. You have an image of what it is and typically those facilities are around 3,000 square feet. The problem is trying to put a definition on that. If you say 3,000, then does that mean if it's 2,900, it's not a convenience store, it's a gas station? Or at what point, is there an upper limit on it? Is there an amount of the square footage inside that's important? In the memo that you have before you, it's by no means intended to be a definitive answer on what a convenience store is but what I wanted to do at this time is give you some background information. The first part of that is a list of where _convenience stores with and without gas pumps are allowed. Be it as a permitted use or as a conditional use. Also, where auto service stations are allowed. One definition that is not included in the present Code is what I would call, for lack of a better term, a gas station or a self service gas station where you don't have the convenience. It's not a convenience store but it's not a full service gas station either. I don't know, to my knowledge, we don't have one of those in the City per se unless you were to classify the one down on TH 212 and TH 169, the Super America down there and I'm just not real familiar with that facility but I think it's more than just the gas station. It doesn't fall within that kind of a definition. The other thing I've included in the infor'mation is the conditional use requirements for those facilities. The intent statements for the various zoning districts within the town. I've given you a brief definition, a shot at a definition for a convenience store. And what I've said in there, probably the critical part is that if it has over 400 square feet of floor area for retailing of non-automotive goods. Then also some proposed additions to the conditional use provisions. The first of those stating that it must be attached to an integrated shopping center so that it's not a free standing facility. Secondly, that there's no outdoor storage and display which I think typically has been a condition that's been placed on the conditional use for convenience stores that have gone through. In looking at that from that standpoint and I've taken just a rough shot at where those uses would be allowed. In reviewing the Code right now...the right way to look at neighborhood business, there's a couple ways to look at the convenience side. Whether ,4Ait's a convenience to the residents in a neighborhood or whether it's a "'convenience to the people commuting to work. If the intent is to be a convenience for the residents in a particular neighborhood, then my logic would say, then you allow the business center in a neighborhood business district. But if the convenience store is-really convenient for the Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 38 e traveling public, then it really belongs in the highway business district. Whether you want to make that distinction or not, that's kind of a flip of the coin. I don't think from a land use standpoint or a planning standpoint, I don't see that there's a real issue that you can put your finger on and say that it makes more sense than one or the other. In the proposal that I've put down there, what I've suggested is that a convenience store without gas pumps would be a permitted use in the neighborhood business, the CBO area and the general business and the general business is intended to allow virtually any retail use. That it would not be allowed in the highway business or in the business fringe. Now if it's a convenience store with gas pumps, then it would be a conditional use in the neighborhood business, the highway business and the general business as a permitted use and not allowed in the CBO and BF district. Now I'm aware that the Brooke Center is in the CBO and it has convenience and it has gas pumps. When I read the intent of what the CBO is, personally I think that's a mistake. I don't think that's the appropriate location for a convenience store with gas pumps is not in the CBO. I don't think that's the kind of activity you're trying to encourage down there. It belongs more on the fringe of that area. It belongs either out on the general business or in the highway business. I guess I tend to look at the convenience stores and the gas stores, the logical place for a lot of those is on the major intersections where you have the traffic. It's a question of accessibility and getting on there and ~getting off and getting back on your way. So I guess the bottom line of this long discussion is that I don't have a clear answer for how the convenience stores ought to be dealt with. I think a lot of it is how you perceive the problem. I think some people's perception is that the convenience stores are taking away fr~ what everyone would like to see as far as a full service grocery, larger grocery. I have a hard time with that argument because I don't think the convenience store is taking business away from that. I personally don't think the market's here yet to support that grocery store. I think those facilities are being provided by our neighbors and until we get a little more population and market that can support that, that type of facility isn't going to happen. When it does happen, I don't see that the convenience stores will take away from it. I think just the opposite is probably going to happen. The grocery store will take some of those convenience shoppers from the existing convenience stores. When you go and you buy the gas and you go in and buy a candy bar or the Coke or whatever, it's not going to take that, I think some of the normal grocery items that I would expect at some of those convenience stores would lose some of those. Another suggestion was that there be a minimum separation between convenience stores. A mile or half mile or whatever figure you want to have. I guess if the concern is that there's such a proliferation of convenience stores then that's a way to get them separated. On the other hand, I think the trend has been that they like to be next to each other. Not necessarily right next to each other but on the same intersection so they're picking traffic. For example, if you're on TH 5 and you're westbound, it's a whole lot easier ~to go to the one that's on the right hand side of the road rather than "'having to make two left turns. One in and then another left turn to get back out on TH 5. So consequently it makes sense from that standpoint to have a convenience on both sides at a major arterial where you can get in and out fairly quickly. The existing stores, just for your information, I Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 39 e did a quick look at what sizes they are. The SuperAmerica, the new one that's up on TH 41 and TH 7 is roughly a 3,300 square feet. The Holiday's 3,900. It's the largest. The Total Q is 3,000. Brooke's is about 3,000. The proposed one in West Village is approximately 3,200. The Amoco site, the one that's being proposed there, that building is 'only 1,000 square feet so there's a dramatic difference in size between those. The thing that's interesting when you look at it, the signage that was proposed for Amoco, they called it a Food Store. But the retail area within that Amoco site is approximately 570 to 740 square feet. It depends on whether you include the coolers in that retail space. The coolers are, you open the doors and access them but there's also storage in part of that. So they're roughly 60% to 75% of that facility is retail space. ElIson: Both SuperAmerica's are 3,300? Hanson: No. The one that was approved up on TH 41 and TH 7. But a lot of those are in the 3,000 square foot range. The last issue is the issue of the auto service/full service stations. I guess one way to try to encourage that is to take one, have one of the zoning districts that allows that particular use and say, for example does not allow a convenience store with gas pumps. I don't know if that's something that you would want to do. I guess I have a hard time saying that the highway business is really intended for a full service gas station and it's not ~intended for a convenience store with gas station because really, when you look at the intent is to service the highway users. Both of those are highway users. If you have an area that you felt was appropriate for automotive uses, that maybe there's some credence to that having a district that's intended to have automotive related areas. I think when you start to do that though, we're not talking about that large of an area where the business districts are. I had mentioned I think in the report that there was an attachment. This is just a copy of the zoning areas and really the commercial districts we're talking about are around the CBD area with the exception of the commercial zoning up on TH 41 and TH 7 where you have a SuperAmerica. There's not a spot on that particular site for another one. You have the other SuperAmerica down in the BF district. Then in the memo I've just kind of listed a bunch of other things that can be considered as far as restricting or trying to define the difference on these. What I wanted to do at this time was just kind of go through this and get any comments that I can. What I'd like for the next meeting is I'm trying to get some information from the convenience store operators and owners as far as how they view what their business is. Hopefully I can get that so we can present that at the next meeting. Emmings: How about some samples of how other communities have dealt with the same issue? Like any information like that? Hanson: I've talked to some. A lot of people haven't done anything. eEmmings: Hanson: Could we find some examples though where they have? Yes, we can get some examples of that. Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 40 e Olsen: I can't remember which city it is but I know they allow convenience stores with gas pumps but they also require them to require service stalls. I've heard that's one way to remedy. Emmings: And then they just let the service stalls sit there? Erhart: What was the fundamental for imposing this temporary moratorium? Emmings: Too many. Erhart: Simply what, too much competition concern? Hanson: No. I think there was a sense that there were too many convenient stores. ElIson: It was a concern of mine I remember when that carne through. I just thought, a person will drive in and we don't even have an established dry cleaners or anything like that and all these convenience stores are here before a true downtown area is anywhere and I know that was a concern of mine. Erhart: You have too many because one's going to go broke? We have too _many because it's cluttering the City or people are buying too much? Emmings: It was my perception Tim that there were just so many over such a short time. Getting so many applications and so many of them springing up but I don't know if that's right. Mayor Chmiel: That basically is right what you're saying. I think the other intent was the fact that you're losing a full service to be provided to the citizens. Emmings: And the full service one you're losing is Amoco. It's obvious that Amoco has made a decision to convert, I've seen them converting one station after another from a full service type operation to the convenience store with gas pumps. It's like the gas station that we kind of all knew and grew up with is a thing of the past. It just doesn't exist anymore. Hanson: One of the comments that, when I talked with Amoco, and it wasn't during the meeting but outside of the meeting, one of their comments was it's becoming almost virtually impossible to try to be able to service the vehicles that are coming in now. What they're saying is because of some of the high tech applications, that they just can't do, if somebody drives in and their car doesn't work and they say well, they can't deal with it. We can change a tire and those things. ElIson: Like towing services and things like that, I know that they were ~the ones that were assigned by whomever to tow all of TH 5 here just last "'night. What do we have as choices around here? Is it just saying that we basically ousted the little guy that's next to Kenny's there. Now this is being gone. We're saying here we're this great city. We're growing. We're going to provide you with what? Nothing for your car. You'll have Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 41 e to go in town. I like her idea that we almost encourage the convenience store with the gas pump, please with the service bays if you could. We'd certainly help your bottom line if it's the convenience stores that's going to get you that but I don't want to be a city that doesn't give everything you need. I don't want to have to drive into Bloomington to get my car serviced or whatever. Emmings: But it seems like this is a market thing. If the market is here for some guy to open a repair shop and make a living at it, he's going to do it but if he can't service most cars because he needs such high tech instruments and tools to do it is more and more of his work I'm sure and with extended warranties on cars, I'm sure more and more of the work is being done at the dealerships. You've got a 6 year/60,000 mile warranty. Conrad: Fewer problems literally in the business. They're making cars that just don't have that many problems, even though we think they do. They're forecasting that that business is being reduced a great deal. Emmings: But I don't think it's going to matter whether we make it, if we made it a permitted use in every district in the City. If the can't make a living, it's not going to happen. I don't know. Conrad: I think an interesting issue is, we're sort of around it, why ~isn't anybody coming into town? What is Gary Brown doing? Does he see a viable business opportunity here in town? I really can't believe, for a population that's growing, I can't believe somebody doesn't want to come into town. Whether it be Gary, and it's just not Gary. There should be enough market here to support a couple service stations that can change, take care of the radiator and a few of those things. I guess the question in my mind is, why aren't they moving in? What's wrong? Based on what Gary's perception is and Don maybe you've talked to him and maybe we have some of those answers but I think the City should be encouraging that kind of stuff coming in. I'm not sure it's with what you had down here as I went down the list I put no by each one. I like the intent statement but I'm not sure I want to encourage it with those particular reasons but I think the City should aggressively go out and try to pursue whether that be through Brad or whatever. Bringing somebody, some groups into town. Mayor Chmiel: B.F. Goodrich is looking at it as well. Gary is looking at putting his own 4 to 6 bay service shop in adjacent but he can't put it on Amoco property. They won't allow them. Amoco won't allow the existing dealers to continue with their kinds of service. They want to promote their Certicare which again is increasing his cost in operation of that particular facility. To rent the so called food shop or just with gas alone, I think his increase would more than double. They want $7,000.00 per month. They're interested in must pumping gas. Ellson: It will be a self serve too I'll bet you. &ayor Chmiel: Now you take into consideration too, for our residents within the community, handicapped people, they have to have, we have to have some kind of convenie9ce for those people. Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 42 e Conrad: I think the promoting, somehow getting those interested parties in. I think we should be doing that. I think Steve what you've done makes some sense to me. There are a couple things that, I went back to objectives. What are we really trying to do here and one of my objectives is to encourage service stations. Full service stations into town. That's an objective and that was what I was reacting to when Gary was forced out over there. I wasn't reacting to convenience store as much as I was hey, there goes another and I don't think we're a good community if we don't have service stations that can work on some of the minor things that go wrong with the car. I think there are some other objectives that we may want to look into. Do we care about looking like a convenience center town? Does that have any kind of impact and when a grocery store comes in, it will impact their business so then are we stuck with a lot of operators that aren't going to make a living? They1re going to make a living right now but when a grocery store comes in, does that have an impact so I think I personally would like to have staff tell me something about that. I think the market will determine how many convenience stores can come in right now but we know something that we know that there's a grocery store that might come in sooner or later and what impact will that have on a variety of convenience stores. I think another objective is to provide convenience stores where they're necessary. I guess being really convenient. _Wildermuth: Promote it through appropriate zoning. Conrad: Right. So if they are convenient stores, we should make sure they are convenient. My mind even got to the point where should service stations be convenient to the neighborhood? That's sort of radical thinking for me because I'm not trying to get these little neighborhood, I think you lose some control when you start putting your business neighborhood stuff around. But then again, what's wrong with having a gas station that can work on your car a couple blocks away from your house. I don't know that there's a negative to that. I've thought of some. They can be hang outs. There can be some negatives so therefore I question whether the auto service station or whatever, shouldn't be in the business neighborhood. Maybe it should. Maybe because my objective was to make it convenient for the neighborhood. That's not that we have to put in, that's a low intensity use I think so some of that makes sense. The other objective would be to protect the neighbors around that. Then my other objective would be to provide highway services for tourists and people going through town which tells me, I don't care if they have convenience stores in the business and highway business district if Chanhassen wants to make some money on people driving through town. I don't care if they stop for gas and food at the same time. So those are my, and I went back to objectives. Encourage service stations into town. Keep us from looking like a convenience mecca because they may close down in the future. Provide the convenience of these things where it's necessary for the residents. Protect the residents and provide services for highway ~traffic which probably could be gas and food. That's where I started. ~don't know where that goes. I Batzli: center, picture the strip in Eden prairie right across from this shopping is that your idea of a convenience mecca? Starting at, what is Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 43 e it, Hardee's going down to the gas station and Skippers and all that other stuff down there? That, in my mind, is the epitome of a convenience mecca, that strip right there. I think it looks tacky personally. ElIson: And that's what our downtown is turning into. It's very close all around here but you're right. $5.00 will go a long way between multiple storage of something. Conrad: And that will be what our BG district looks like. For sure because that's the less restrictive district that we've got downtown. Because we couldn't bundle it into CBO so you're BG district is the one that sort of says, all the strip stuff, anything that needs a stand alone unit's going to go down there and that's what it's going to look like. ElIson: Versus a downtown like Excelsior which is what I'd rather. Erhart: ...convenience store. Conrad: Which? Erhart: Over by that Eden prairie Center. restaurants. It's all fast food ~Batzli: I know but in my mind, I guess we do. We have Midas so that's a bay place. Erhart: The Q station in there is the only convenience store. Batzli: Is there only one? But to me it's a convenience mecca. Erhart: I agree, it's a mess but I don't know that what we're talking about here is going to prevent that. We're talking about it's a mess of fast food restaurants. A muffler store and a convenience store. Batzli: I think there's just an incredible mish mosh of convenience everything there now that I think about it. I was thinking there was like 3 of them in there. There's one right by the Midas shop and then I thought there was another one up by Hardee's. Erhart: There's a Standard station there. Batzli: Okay, that's a Standard? Conrad: It's hard to prevent that. ElIson: I know. That's why I'm saying, maybe we should actively be going out after what we want before the other stuff comes in. .-Conrad: I think a market will drive a lot of this stuff and I hate to get .in the way of the market but I think sometimes we know more, we might know something that the market may not take into consideration and that's in grocery stores. That may impact a bunch of these. My real issue goes back to, let's make sure we have service stations in Chanhassen which is Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 44 e really not protecting, really is not as keen on the convenience store issue as let's make sure we get those service stations. I literally think we should have 2 of them in 6 months. Hanson: This isn't going to shed any light on it but just food for thought. I do know that there's another convenience store that's waiting in the wings. Emmings: What will be their location? Hanson: They're tentatively talking about the Legion site. Emmings: That's 3 back to back then. Hanson:. They're literally on top of each other. Ellson: That's exactly what I think would be terrible. Emmings: Ladd, do you think that the separation notion for now will keep the number down? Conrad: But it's going against what Steve said. Convenience ~major intersections so they, by the nature of their marketing ~they have to be on those intersections. So if we say there's are definitely not eliminating... stores go on strategy, a space, we Ellson: We've answered it already with one of the left at that corner and one on the right at the corner. Conrad: You won't have one on the left and right. You'll have one if we have a distance requirement. Ellson: I'm talking about the ones that are grandfathered in right now are there. Those we're not going to say, leave Holiday. Leave Amoco. Leave Total. As far as we're trying to sell that sort of area. I don't want that to come in on that corner. I want a reason to say no and I'd like to run after what I'd like to have in there. So a sell job to somebody else. Mayor Chmiel: Go by total numbers? Go by population as to what, or is tha t . . . Hanson: That would be pretty tough to regulate. When they're trying to locate one, they're doing that as far as assessing the market. Emmings: But that's try of the population of the City that may be insofar as the neighborhood is giving it business but then they're looking at how much traffic goes by that corner and those people of course may be coming ~from anywhere I supposed so I don't even know how you'd figure it out. I ~guess what you're saying though is that there should only be a certain number of stores per, for every 1,000 population there's a quarter of a store or whatever. "- Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 45 _ Conrad: The stations do that or any good marketer does that. They figure the population. They figure the traffic and they know if there's one gas station, they'll pick up so much they know they can pick up half the business. So they do the same ratio that we're talking about when they determine to put a unit in. Mayor Chmiel: By the same token, before putting up a station in residential areas, that's a long time where stations go into locations. They don't last very long...total gallons of gas should be pumping in accordance with Amoco or Holiday or whoever. So that sort of knocks those out. When you go into a lot of the older areas where that works, the traffic flow and the station is no longer there. Conrad: That's what I started thinking about is the old fashion corner service station. Mayor Chmiel: There's not enough to support them is the problem. Conrad: But if they put food and a service bay and a gas pump. Hanson: At least we haven't seen the Amoco/Burger King station come in. I don't know if you've seen, there's one of them... _ElIson: It really is a tie in now? Hanson: Yes. The one that I'm familiar with, the one in Denver that was close to where I lived. You drive in and you get your gas and while you're getting your gas you can order your burger from the thing and you drive up to the window and you pay for your gas and you pay for your burger and they hand you it. That's a combination. It was either Amoco or Standard and Burger King. Elison: I think something has to be done. I don't know that we've come up with an idea but, especially if there's one waiting in the wings, I don't want it. I want a way to tell it no. Conrad: What do you want to do on a special meeting? I have to go. Emmings: What do you want to propose on a special meeting? It wasn't for next week though was it? Hanson: We had I think contacted some of you. Some of you were out of town. We're trying to set up a special meeting so we could get the Comp Plan cranked up. What Mark and I had talked about, what would be ideal is if we could have a special meeting where we don't have anything else on the agenda because it's been so long, so we could take a couple hours and really try to bring everybody up to speed on where we are and bring you up to speed on the revisions that have been made to date and e things. Emmings: What date are you proposing? L - Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 46 e Hanson: We had tried to set it up for the 29th. We couldn't get a hold of some of you and some of you were going to be out of town that week. Emmings: Is that a Wednesday? Hanson: Yes. And if I remember right, I think Mark has a conflict. Ernrnings: Are you going to be out of town on the 29th? Conrad: I'll be gone next Thursday through the following Monday. gone for 10 days. I'll be Emmings: So we either do it next week or after that if Ladd's going to be there. Erhart: Is transportation one of the items we're going to discuss? Is the official mapping going to be done April 10th for the TH 212 freeway. That's on the City Council agenda. Does that a significant impact on the Comp Plan discussions? It seems to me it would. Hanson: Yes. Erhart: Would it make sense to do this after that or can we assume what _will happen? Hanson: There are several sections. Ernrning: We're going to meet more than once. Hanson: Yes. We're looking at, I don't have the schedule that Mark and I have worked up but we had, I believe 3 or 4 meetings with the idea that we'd get to May and we'd have the draft of the plan so we could say at that time schedule public hearings. The one thing I did want to mention to you, we talked about our list. Our to do list. Our goals and that at City Council on Monday. At some point I want to go through those with you as far as what some of the priorities were. One comment that was made was maybe Planning Commission ought to look at taking half it's time and only allowing half the time for development requests and the other half to deal with the to do list and the Comp Plan so that we don't get it continually pushed off because we don't have the time. Really we ought to maybe take some of the development requests and push them off. Maybe our priorities are skewed. I think that's something else that we need to talk about. Right now what I'd like to try to do is if we can set some time when we could get together and at least get the Comp Plan process going. Emmings: I'll make a suggestion. I can't give you any dates because I don't have my calendar. I think it sounds like, can you be ready by, is next Wednesday something that we can do or is that too soon? 4ItHanson: We can do it but Mark's not going to be able to be here. Conrad: How about Tuesday? Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 47 e Hanson: Tuesday would probably work. Emmings: Why don't you call, why don't we all call in and give you dates that are open because I think everybody should be there. As many as possible but it would be nice if everybody was there. These are important I think. So why don't we all call in and give him our schedules. Maybe we'll even have to push it into April. Hanson: Yes. Even if for like the next 3 weeks or something. Dates that might work and maybe we'll hit one. Sunday at 7:00 in the morning. Emmings: What was the Tuesday that you could make? The 28th are you talking about? Conrad: Next week. Tuesday and Wednesday of next week. Emmings: And that's it. It sounds like that's too soon so maybe we should try for the week after our next regular meeting. That'd be the second week in April. Does anybody know they have a conflict there for the week after our next regular meeting. On the 12th. Wildermuth: I won't be here on the 12th of April. ~Erhart: Either will I. Emming: Alright. Let's all call in and give him our dates for the next 5 or 6 weeks and then we'll just let him pick a date when most people are available. Headla: Call in your available dates for the next 5 or 6 weeks? Emmings: No, for the next 5 or 6 Wednesdays. ElIson: What if it happened to be a Tuesday? Maybe just say when you absolutely can not. If you find certain days left open without XIS through them. Emmings: Let's try for Wednesdays unless it's impossible. Are there any more comments on this convenience? Batzli: Did we decide on anything on the convenience stores? Emmings: We don't have to. He's going to corne back with more information next time. It was a discussion item. Keep your stuff. Erhart: I'd like to hear what the Council. Even though I was there Monday night, I did have to leave at some point and I did miss the ~discussion Monday night on what the Council's reaction to our work ~schedule was. I'd like to hear. Hanson: I'll give you a synopsis. Initially I was just going to present the list and I thought well, I probably ought to give a shot at what I Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1989 - Page 48 e thought the priorities were. What I had suggested to the City Council was the Comprehensive Plan was a priority in completing that update. Then I had listed under the zoning Code amendments as a priority, contractor's yards. Completing that. Updating the zoning map. Convenience store moratorium. Talking about that. Then I dropped down to updating the development procedures. From my standpoint, that's what I said I felt that our priorities ought to be, or at least from my perspective. I think there was a general concurrence with that from Council that those were priorities but not necessarily that that was all of the priorities. There were listed, and there really wasn't a concurrence I don't think by the whole Council that these were all the priorities but a couple of the members listed a couple and those were the blending ordinance. The sign ordinance. Wetland violations. How to deal with those. How to deal with after the fact wetland permits? Just generally violations on how violations of the Code ought to be handled. Outdoor storage and front yard fencing. Those were two new issues from when we had met. Then computerizing the land use files. Trail involvement by the Planning Commission. Recycling oil. Eurasian Water Milfoil. Ellson: What was that one? Hanson: greatest -Erhart: The water milfoil from Lake Minnetonka that's the latest and weed to be infecting the area. On the trails, what was the comment? Hanson: It was just a comment that the Planning Commission should be involved and participating. I mentioned in the memo that I gave them that yourself and Dave were both interested specifically. ElIson: That weed thing, that weed problem, how would that corne to us? Land use turn into a weed problem? Hanson: It was something that was mentioned. Really it's being handled by Public Safety. ElIson: It's just a priority of your department? Hanson: It's a priority of the City. Emmings: When you say it's being handled, what does that mean? It's my understanding that as long as, if the public access is open, you're going to get it. Hanson: It's being handled in the sense, what I meant by that is it's been delegated to somebody to be responsible for and to put together essentially a study and a group or whatever is going to take place. aMayor Chmiel: .year? One suggestion was just close off all the accesses for one Emmings: But then we just delay it for a year. Planning Commission Meeting \ March 15, 1989 - Page 49 ~ t Headla: What are we going to do, shoot all the ducks and geese flying over Minnewashta? Batzli moved, Wildermuth seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.. Submitted by Steve Hanson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim - e