Highway 5 Corridor Plan and Ordinance7
u
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner
DATE: February 2, 1994
At" WCW
Wo rsed. �P
Wodif%e
pe�ected_
1W submitted to commissiog
a�
SUBJ: Public Hearing Highway 5 Corridor Study, Environmental Assessment for North
Highway 5 Access Boulevard and Highway Corridor Overlay zone
OVERVIEW
On January 19, 1994, the Planning Commissi - held public hearing for the purpose of making
a recommendation to the City Council on theiighway � Corridor Land Use and Design Plan and
the Environmental Assessment (EA) Docut ent. The iz6Tidor study has two major components:
one is the Land Use Study, and the other' the proposed Development and Design Standards.
The third issue the Planning Commissit�n must considers the of the alignment alternative for
the north Highway 5 access boulevard: ` The Planning commission has spent the better part of
the last three months reviewing the components of these plans. At the conclusion of the public
hearing, the Planning Commission "recommended adoption hk the study, affirmation of the EAW
and the northern frontage road as the preferred alternative
Staff is
' on the
0
outstanding issues to
BACKGROUND
zone. Later in this report, we
he.Council's review and recomn
Commission recommendations
dor study including land use
Have attemute to frame the
In the spring of 1991, the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan was adopted after years of effort.
As a condition of approval, at the request of the Planning Commission and City Council, work
was to proceed to define uses for the two 1995 Study Areas which were identified on the
Comprehensive Plan. These study areas were located outside the expanded MUSA but
represented the next likely expansions of the community. The Comprehensive Plan left these
areas blank, and this program was essentially going to be designed to fill in the blanks.
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission ,
February 2, 1994
Page 2
At the same time, it was evident that there would be growing pressure for development along
Hwy. 5 and there was increasing concern among members of the City Council and other groups, '
lead by Councilman Richard Wing, to make sure that what happens on the corridor is of the
highest possible quality. Councilman Wing had contacted the University's Urban Design Center
for advice. At the same time, Planning staff organized a bus tour of the corridor.
Growing out of this mix of issues, the HRA retained the University's Urban Design Center to
do a conceptual corridor report to better define community interests and establish goals. This '
work was completed late last year and was presented to the task force and is now being presented
to the Planning Commission.
The City's Comprehensive Plan contains quite speck recommendations for the Hwy. 5 corridor. '
Among these are the following:
• The Hwy. 5 corridor, west of downtown Chanhassen in particular, should not ,
become an industrial or commercial strip road as has been the case in Eden Prairie
and on highways in other communities. Thus, the Land Use Plan was developed '
in such a way that residential land uses occupied much of the north side of the
highway and break up the corridor on the south side in the vicinity of
Timberwood. ,
The Comprehensive Plan designated a middle school (now an elementary school)
site at the intersection of Hwy. 5 and Galpin Boulevard. This was done not only '
because we think it is a good school site, but also because we think it has a
tremendous amount of merit in providing permanent and substantial amounts of
green space in this area. '
The plan envisioned some expansion to Lake Ann Park, as well as preservations
of environmental and recreational corridors along both branches of Bluff Creek. ,
The plan envisioned a system of collector streets (currently called parallel access
boulevards) that will allow the movement of traffic without reliance on Hwy. 5. '
The plan established a 1995 Study Area at the northeast corner of the intersection ,
of Hwy. 5 and Hwy. 41. In large part, from some perspectives, this may prove
to be an optimal commercial site; however, it was determined that it is in the
city's best interest to make sure that the downtown is fully developed before other ,
commercial developments proceed.
The city has also been involved in a number of initiatives that have a direct bearing on Hwy. 5. I
These include the following:
' Planning Commission
February 2, 1994
Page 3
• We have taken a proactive role in working with MnDOT to make sure that as
' Hwy. 5 is extended, there are unique and interesting design elements added to the
project. The HRA has been extremely active in the vicinity of the primary
entrances into the CBD and has retained, Hamel, Green and Associates, HGA, to
' prepare these design elements.
The city has retained Hoisington Koegler Group to complete a vision study for the
' Central Business District "Vision 2000." The study's mission is to create a city
center that serves as the focal point for public services, abundant retail
opportunities, entertainment, recreation and cultural facilities.
' The city received ISTEA (transportation enhancement) funding for a
pedestrian/bicycle bridge crossing Hwy 5. The location of the bridge at the
' Apple Valley Red -E -Mix site and east of the American Legion property will link
neighborhoods divided by Hwy. 5. The city is also working with Southwest
Metro Transit to locate a park and ride on the American Legion property. A park
and ride not only ties in to the mission of the Vision 2000 goals, but it also can
be benefited by the future bridge.
' In the past two years, city ordinances have been extensively modified to require
much higher levels of quality development than had been the case previously.
During this time, we have adopted new landscaping standards, a new PUD district,
some improved design guidelines, buffer yards, as well as a number of other
changes.
' The city has embarked on a Surface Water Management Plan which is designed
to enhance woodland protection, manage surface water as it flows through the
' community, and improve water quality. We have historically been ahead of the
pack in this area with our trend setting wetlands program. This is likely to assist
in preservation of water features in the corridor.
• The city is working with the DNR Forester to develop an urban reforestation plan
and program for the city as well as a tree preservation ordinance.
The city is working to secure a grant from the Legislative Commission on
Minnesota Resources LCMR, that assist in the protection, acquisition and
' recreational development of the Bluff Creek Corridor.
• The city has been proactive in the past in working in public private partnerships
with developers as deemed appropriate. This mechanism not only assists the
development but also gives the city an extra measure of control over the quality
of development that is produced.
1
Planning Commission ,
February 2, 1994
Page 4
Arboretum Boulevard Background
One aspect of the corridor study is the coordination with MnDOT on the design of the Highway
5 main line improvements as well as coordination between the city and MnDOT on the
construction of the north access boulevard, referred to as "Arboretum Boulevard" in the Highway '
5 Study. MnDOT is utilizing the new federal transportation bill in part to justify support for the
city's efforts in constructing this roadway. This roadway will ultimately have a beneficial impact
on Highway 5 since is it designed to intercept local trips from throughout the northern half of
our community. I
It appears that the funding for Highway 5 and the frontage road may not be available until the '
year 2000. Development in the area of the frontage road and portions of the road may be built
prior to any Federal or State funding availability. The city is funding the drafting of the
Environmental Assessment document that is required to obtain state and federal funding for '
Arboretum Boulevard because the city still views this as an investment that may secure a larger
amount of state and federal funds as a part of cost sharing for the roadway itself.
The idea for what is now being called Arboretum Boulevard goes back to the city's 1990
Comprehensive Plan. It contains a description of access boulevards to be located on either side
of Hwy. 5. The one located south of Hwy. 5 is somewhat discontinuous due to existing ,
development patterns. The one located north of Hwy. 5, which is now being referred to as
Arboretum Boulevard, has the potential of extending from Hwy. 41 over to Hwy. 101, east of
the Chanhassen CBD. At the time the comprehensive plan was developed, it was believed that '
this road would be important to manage traffic issues.
The idea of parallel frontage roads or access boulevards was given great emphasis by the plan '
developed for the City by Bill Morrish and his staff. Mr. Morrish viewed these roads,
particularly the northern route with its continuity, as an extension of the main street of
Chanhassen. In part, this stems from its connection to West 78th Street in the Chanhassen CBD, ,
but also because of its continuity throughout the community which encourages the development
of strip commercial along the highway. Their report described these routes as high amenity
boulevards that could be used to orient development. The goal was to avoid having development '
oriented to the main line highway which is what has been normal practice in most communities.
The typical pattern, consisting of a 300 foot wide corridor for a 4 -lane highway, an 80 foot wide
corridor on either side of the highway for frontage roads, and potentially an additional 200 to 300 '
feet of black top beyond for parking lots, is what has yielded the bleak urban vision of University
Avenue in Fridley. Rather, the report conceptualized focusing development on these routes '
directly. These routes also offer a means for residents to utilize a more user friendly facility to
get from their homes to community parks, schools, centers of employment and shopping
opportunities. I
z4
Planning Commission
February 2, 1994
Page 5
As these early plans were developed, staff began working in earnest with MnDOT to secure their
cooperation and gain support for access roads ultimate construction. MnDOT agreed to help fund
only the northern route. Their decision is based upon the fact that only the northern route offers
full continuity across the community. Additionally, MnDOT had already proposed building short
' segments of a frontage road in this general vicinity to serve properties whose sole access would
otherwise be directly to Hwy. 5. As time went on, staff worked with MnDOT to develop a joint
approach towards coordinating the construction of this roadway along with Hwy. 5. MnDOT
' support was conditioned upon the City of Chanhassen's undertaking the completion of the
Environmental Assessment document that is required to secure the use of federal funds. The City
Council authorized this expenditure and gave firm guidelines to staff and the Highway 5 Task
' Force that it was imperative that the Hwy. 5 project itself not be delayed because of this effort.
Additionally, MnDOT established the ground rule that their participation was linked to the
coordination of the construction of Arboretum Boulevard with Hwy. 5.
' While reviewin g Y the Corridor Study, the Planning Commission saw potential development
proposals from the Gorra, Conway and the Vandeveire properties. The city staff has not
' reviewed these proposals except on a very rough overview. The Gorra property proposes a golf
course with a club house, 10 -one acre lot subdivision and outlot, and an assisted elderly living
facility. Mike Gorra, the developer and owner of the property, states that any frontage road
' would prohibit him from developing his property. Staff's general position is that we anticipate
that direct access onto to Hwy. 5 as is proposed will be unacceptable to MnDOT.
The other proposal for the Conway and Vandeveire property was presented by Brad Johnson.
This site plan proposes a frontage road although the touch down point on Galpin Boulevard
' would split the J.P. Links (Swings) property in half. Staff would recommend against this location
for the access boulevard.
'
Highway 5 Task Force Actions
The analysis of potential alignments has been reviewed by the task force on several occasions.
' Preliminary alignments were developed by Chanhassen staff and our consultants from Barton
Aschman, Inc. The alignments were based upon several factors including consistency with the
city's comprehensive plan and Morrish studies, an analysis of existing and proposed land uses,
' environmental constraints and opportunities including wetlands, topography, significant
vegetation, and upon traffic engineering criteria. Two routes were developed which are basically
in the northern and southern alignments. The southern route closely approximates a typical
' frontage road in location, while the northern route offers the opportunity for having development
occur along both sides of the street. The Highway 5 Task Force determined that in terms of
design characteristics, the roadway was to use a narrow 32' paved, two -lane roadway. The street
is to be equipped with a grade separated 10' trail. Its alignment is curvilinear and generally
follows the terrain of the land to minimize environmental impact and maximize the views that
Much of the supporting data of this document was used to arrive at the recommendation for the ,
land use and the development and design guideline elements. The portions of the study that
address Landscape and Urban Design and Parks and Open Space are being implemented through
different means within the city departments . This includes the Park and Recreation Department t
updating the Comprehensive Plan, the Vision 2000 study, Tree Board and the drafting of
preservations ordinances, HGA gateway design, etc.
On July 14, 1993, the Task Force recommended adoption of the Highway 5 Corridor Land Use '
Design Study with the land use recommendations and Development and Design Standards
recommended in the document. ,
Corridor Land Use Design Study and Development Standards
The Plannin g Commission recommended the following changes to the Corridor Study Land
Uses:
7
'
Planning Commission
February 2, 1994
Page 6
would occur along its route. It is anticipated that there would be an extensive landscaping along
with the roadway construction.
The Hwy. 5 Task Force attempted to refine these alternatives on two occasions. Although there
are essentially two routes, the total number of alternatives is complicated by the fact that there
'
are two cross -over points located on either side of Galpin Boulevard in the vicinity of Bluff
Creek. Thus, there are actually a fairly significant number of alignments that could result. The
Hwy. 5 Task Force held some rather lengthy and arduous discussions on attempting to eliminate
'
some of the alternatives and thereby facilitated the completion of the Environmental Assessment
document. What we ultimately found was that they were unable to restrict the number of
alternatives at this time since the full analysis of the ultimate land uses and urban design issues
'
of the corridor has not yet been completed. The Task Force held a public hearing and on June
23, 1993, and recommended adoption of access boulevard Alternative 1 with the cross over A/C
at Galpin Boulevard. The Planning Commission recommended the northern access boulevard
'
(Alternative 1) with no cross overs.
Corridor Study
'
The Highway 5 Corridor Land Use Design Study was prepared for the City by Barton Aschman
Associates, in association by Camiros, working with an appointed Task Force. The intent of the
,
study as stated in the document is to guide design and development of the corridor that reflects
the corridor's role as the heart of the City of Chanhassen." The planning effort has focused on
land use, urban design, landscape and pedestrian elements. Adoption of this plan as a
'
development guide and, more specifically land use recommendations, will result in zoning
changes and guide plan amendments and a Highway Corridor Development and Design
Ordinance.
'
Much of the supporting data of this document was used to arrive at the recommendation for the ,
land use and the development and design guideline elements. The portions of the study that
address Landscape and Urban Design and Parks and Open Space are being implemented through
different means within the city departments . This includes the Park and Recreation Department t
updating the Comprehensive Plan, the Vision 2000 study, Tree Board and the drafting of
preservations ordinances, HGA gateway design, etc.
On July 14, 1993, the Task Force recommended adoption of the Highway 5 Corridor Land Use '
Design Study with the land use recommendations and Development and Design Standards
recommended in the document. ,
Corridor Land Use Design Study and Development Standards
The Plannin g Commission recommended the following changes to the Corridor Study Land
Uses:
7
1
Planning Commission
February 2, 1994
' Page 7
The Ward property should be zoned Office/Institutional. Commercial would be
allowed under a PUD where it would not exceed 25 percent of the development.
Commercial zoning was an alternative on the Vandeveire property and the
recommended elimination of the easterly commercial area adjacent to the access
' road.
The Opus site plan should be left IOP except the far most northerly. portion west
' of Highway 41 which should be left medium family residential. The PUD that
will be developed for the site will guide the development of the individual parcels.
' Eckankar property, in addition to the multi- family, institutional be listed as a
permitted use.
' J.P. Links, which is 15 -20 acres may considered as a park site.
Heritage Development, west of Bluff Creek south of the frontage road multi-
' family should be considered as an option with industrial.
Possible location of a 15 -20 acre park of the easterly portion of the Fleet Farm
' property and a portion of the Dolejsi.
I
The following are recommendations for the Development and Design Standards:
Application of these standards should be in two subdistricts. The central business
district (HC -1) shall go from Dell Road on the east and Powers Boulevard on the
' west.
There should be flexibility from these standards for public transit use.
Better definition of pitched roof elements, graphics will be added.
' Definition of accent color possibly amended to exclude corporate logo colors.
' Height of parking lot lighting possibly amended to state they are limited to one
story (or no higher than the building) and shall be neutral in color.
' Additional recommendation of the plan includes adding additional information about the Bluff
Creek Corridor in the Parks, Open Space and Trail chapter.
Planning Commission
February 2, 1994
Page 8
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following:
1. Affirm the preferred Alternative #1 alignment access road alignment and review of the
Arboretum Boulevard Environmental Assessment document prepared by Barton- Aschman.
2. Approval of the Highway 5 Corridor Land Use Study and the land use recommendations
as modified.
3. Approval of the ordinance establishing Highway Corridor Districts with modifications.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Development and design standards ordinance.
2. Letter from Paul Paulson date February 1, 1994.
3. Letter from Opus Corporation dated January 18, 1994.
4. Letter from DataSery dated January 19, 1994.
2. January 19, 1994 Planning Commission minutes.
ARTICLE XXIX.HIGHWAY CORRIDOR DISTRICTS
DIVISION 1, HC -1 DISTRICT
Sec. 20 -1450. Purpose.
The Highway 5 Corridor and the development within it will be major factors
influencing the visual and environmental quality of the community as a whole. Due to the
intensity of land uses, the Highway 5 Corridor represents the heart of Chanhassen as well as
' its dominating image of those passing through the community. Development in the corridor
must be designed with greater sensitivity to the environment and of generally higher quality
than might have occurred in the absence of specific standards. The purpose of the District is
to:
' (a) Protect creek corridors, wetlands, and significant stands of mature trees through
use of careful site design, protective easements, sensitive alignment and design of roadways
and utilities, incorporation of natural features, landscaping and massing of trees that enhance
' existing natural features and views, and the practices delineated in the City's Best
Management Practices Handbook.
' (b) Promote high - quality architectural and site design through improvement
development standards within the corridor. these standards, which govern site planning,
placement of building masses, use of materials, and the like enable the City to enhance what
' otherwise might result in low quality strip development.
(c) Create a unified, harmonious, and high - quality visual environment throughout the
corridor, thereby identifying it as a special place with a unique identity within both the City
and the Twin Cities region as a whole.
(d) Foster a distinctive and positive community image, for the City as a whole and
especially for the Highway 5 Corridor, which functions as the City's main entrance.
' Sec. 20 -1451. Intent.
The City intends that all development within the district should strive toward the
' highest level of quality in both design and construction. The criteria by which new
development in this district shall be judged are as follows:
(a) Consistency with all provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, as amended from time
to time; the Surface Water Protection Program; all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Ordinance not specifically overridden by the provisions of this district; and all
other applicable land use regulations.
7
3
,
(b) Preservation of the natural conditions found on each site to the greatest extent
possible, through minimized removal of trees and other vegetation and soil, minimi site
grading, and application of the practices found in the City's Best Management Practices
Handbook.
(c) Establishment throughout the district of harmonious physical and visual
relationships among existing, new, and proposed buildings, open spaces, natural terrain, and
plant materials and placement with the intent of creating a unique and unified appearance for
the entire corridor.
(d) Use of appropriate materials, lighting, textures, colors, and architectural and
landscape forms to create a unified, high- quality design concept for each site that is
compatible with adjacent and neighboring structures and functions, including but not limited ,
to natural areas, City -owned property, and vacant land subject to future development in
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. _
(e) Creation of unified site designs, each with a sense of internal order, that
■
provide desirable environments for site users and visitors and the community as a whole and
that consider all site elements including: the relationship of buildings to surrounding
'
landforms; grading; architectural design; building, parking and loading dock orientation;
building height; use of man -made materials, including paving; site furnishings (lighting,
outdoor seating, signage, etc.); landscaping (retention of natural vegetation, plant selection and
placement, retention and incorporation of water features, etc.); and other visible outdoor site
elements.
(f) Creation of a suitable balance between the amount and arrangement of open space,
landscaping, "and view protection and the design and function of man -made features on the
other. Achieving this balance shall take into account screening, buffering, size and
orientation of open spaces, personal and property security, localized wind and solar effects,
and protection of important public ways.
,
(g) Provision of safe and adequate access to and from sites giving ample
consideration to the location and number of access points from public streets, the safety and
convenience of merging and turning movements, and traffic management and mitigation.
'
(h) Provision of .on -site vehicular, bicycling, and pedestrian circulation by way of ,
interior drives, parking areas, pathways, and walkways adequate to handle anticipated needs
and to safety buffer pedestrians and cyclists from motor vehicles. Ample consideration shall
be given to the width of interior drives, internal traffic movement and flow, separation of
pedestrian, cycling, automobile, and delivery traffic, and the safe convenient, and practical '
arrangement of parking spaces.
(i) Adequate separation and protection of each site from adjacent properties, access
boulevards, and Highway 5 and vice - versa, through reasonable provisions for surface water
4
drainage, sound and sight buffers, view protection, privacy, and other aspects of design that
may not be specifically covered by these or other regulations but are found to have
' significant effect on any or all of the properties and roadways.
Sec. 20 -1452. District Application.
' The "HC -1" district shall be applied and superimposed (overlaid) upon all zoning
districts as contained herein as existing or amended by the text and map of this ordinance.
' The regulations and requirements imposed by the "HC -1" district shall be in addition to those
established for districts which jointly apply. Under the joint application of the districts, the
more restrictive requirements shall apply.
' Sec. 20 -1453. Building and Parldng Orientation.
' (a) For the purpose of determining front, rear, and side yards, the following shall
control:
' 1. In any lot that abuts Highway 5 directly, other than a single family
residential lot, the lot line abutting the highway shall be considered the
front lot line.
' 2. In any lot that abuts either of the access boulevards parallel to Highway
5, including any existing single family residential lot, but excluding any
' new single family residential lot, the lot line abutting the boulevard
shall be considered the font lot line.
'
3. In any lot that abuts both Highway 5 and one of the access boulevards;
other than a single family residential lot, the lot shall be regarded as
'
having two front lot lines. The lot line abutting the boulevard shall take
design precedence. Such a lot shall be regarded as having no rear lot
line or yard.
'
4. No new single family residential lot may have a front yard that faces
Highway 5, nor a front yard that faces either of the access boulevards.
No new or existing single family residential lot shall provide driveway
'
access directly from Highway 5, nor shall any new single family
residential lot provide driveway access directly from Highway 5 or
'
either of the access boulevards.
0
r' om=um
(b) Parking areas shall not be located within the required minimum front (primary or
secondary) yard setback of any lot. i
! 4A 10FAKOWINFROWYAW °
Sec. 20 -1454. Architect�nal Design Standards.
Standards governing architectural design shall apply to all new and renovated '
buildings within the district with the exception of single- family residences on individual lots.
(a) Architectural style shall not be restricted Evaluation of the appearance of a '
project shall be based on the quality of its design and on its relationship to its surroundings,
guided by the provisions of this section. Site characteristics to be evaluated for this purpose
include building and plant materials, colors, textures, shapes, massing, rhythms of building '
components and details, height, roof -line and setback. Designs that are incompatible with
their surroundings or intentionally bizarre or exotice prohibited.
MW
MUM 1
#WCftM
sere cxniucrausncs '
(b) Monotony of design, both within projects and between any project and its
surroundings is prohibited. Variation in detail, form, and siting shall provide visual interest.
Site characteristics that may be used for this purpose include building and plant materials, '
sizes, colors, textures, shapes, massing, rhythms of building components and details, height,
roof -line, and setback.
6
$ W ?AWJW
�+a.a.oKew�n
sca,anac sUMCK
'
Sec. 20 -1454. Architect�nal Design Standards.
Standards governing architectural design shall apply to all new and renovated '
buildings within the district with the exception of single- family residences on individual lots.
(a) Architectural style shall not be restricted Evaluation of the appearance of a '
project shall be based on the quality of its design and on its relationship to its surroundings,
guided by the provisions of this section. Site characteristics to be evaluated for this purpose
include building and plant materials, colors, textures, shapes, massing, rhythms of building '
components and details, height, roof -line and setback. Designs that are incompatible with
their surroundings or intentionally bizarre or exotice prohibited.
MW
MUM 1
#WCftM
sere cxniucrausncs '
(b) Monotony of design, both within projects and between any project and its
surroundings is prohibited. Variation in detail, form, and siting shall provide visual interest.
Site characteristics that may be used for this purpose include building and plant materials, '
sizes, colors, textures, shapes, massing, rhythms of building components and details, height,
roof -line, and setback.
6
-1
0
sons- ovr%o
romc. an"
AVOIDING MONOTOW
(c) Within the district, particular attention shall be paid to architectural compatibility
with the existing environment.
(1) Each building shall contain one or more pitched roof elements.
To to ClAcw
(2) All new construction and redevelopment shall conform to the
established building scale, range of building materials, pedestrian
orientation, and relationship between buildings and the streetscape.
(d) Building heights shall be limited to three (3) stories or forty (40) feet.
Measurement of the highest point shall exclude antennas for television and radio reception,
but shall include architectural details (e.g., parapet walls), transmission antennas, satellite
dishes and transmission equipment, microwave - transmission equipment, and other non-
structural building elements.
(e) All man-made architectural, landscape, and paving materials shall reflect the
highest quality possible and should be used in a manner suitable to the nature of the material,
its role in the design, general durability, expected level of use or abuse, weathering
7
characteristics, and ease and frequency of maintenance. The following may not be used in
any visible exterior application except when specifically permitted by the City in areas with
limited public view:
♦ Exposed cement ( "cinder ") blocks.
♦ Fabricate metal or pole construction structures, including mobile homes, sheds, '
warehouses, and industrial buildings constructed either on or off -site of
corrugated metal panels.
♦ Exterior brick that is painted over. '
♦ Experimental materials with no proven record of durability or ease of '
maintenance in the intended application.
♦ A solid wall unrelieved by architectural detailing, such as a change in '
materials, change in color, fenestrations, or other significant visual relief
provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping with the size, mass, and scale
of the wall and its views from public ways. A change in texture alone is not '
sufficient to meet this requirement
♦ Materials or construction methods used for one aspect or portion of a project ,
that are significantly lower in quality than those used for the balance of that
project, such that this one aspect or portion is or rapidly becomes an eyesore or
detriment to the project as a whole. ,
♦ A distinct and different material or combination of materials for each exposed '
exterior wall. Nor more than two (2) principal materials or two (2) principal
combinations of materials should be used to construct any one building.
Addition of other materials for accent use is permissible. ,
♦ As building element, combination of elements, or another site structure that
acts as a conspicuous building emblem or signature. Examples include single '
garish elements (e.g., orange roofs); use of bricks, blocks, or tiles to turn a wall
into an outsized sign or logo; and other attempts to use a building or wall as an
advertisement. '
(f) Site designs and configurations that tend to catch and accumulate trash, leaves,
and dirt shall be avoided. In addition, provisions for washing and cleaning buildings, other '
structures, and building grounds shall be considered and included in the design.
(g) all building components, such as windows, doors, eaves, soffits, and parapets, '
shall have good proportions that relate to the facade of the building and shall relate well with
one another.
1
8
1
Iw5ivlt DO
., . r1a . 1' . 3 ,P mc
■ (h) Colors shall be harmonious. Bright or brilliant colors and sharply contracting
colors may be used only for accept purposes.
■
(i) Mechanical equipment, satellite dishes, and other utility hardware, whether located
on the roof or exterior of the building or on the ground adjacent to it, shall be screened from
' the public view and with materials identical to or strongly similar to building materials or by
heavy landscaping that will be effective in winter or they shall be locate so as not to be
visible from any public way. Use of parapet walls or pitched roof elements to screen
' equipment is encouraged. In no case shall wooden fencing be used as a rooftop equipment
screen.
0) Screening of service yards, refuse, and waste - removal areas, loading docks, truck
parking areas, and other place which tend to be unsightly shall be accomplished by use of
walls, fencing, dense planting, or any combination of these elements. Screening shall block
' views from public was and shall be equally effective in winter and summer.
■
.
�7
0
=wG COLOR
iCREEN FENCE OR WALL
r6FRUbS
REFUSE
CONTAINER
HORIZONTAL
MOD WELL
VENTED SCREEN WALL /
EQVP.
FLAT ROOF
r MECHANM EQUPMENT ,
SULP"
TLEROOF
SCREENING
-Cft
l
6CREEN FENCE
OR WALL
1
1
J
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sec. 20 -1455. Landscape Design and Site Furnishings.
' The following standards governing design and placement of landscaping and site
furnishings shall apply to all new and renovated buildings within the district, with the
' exception of single family residences on individual lots.
(a) Where natural or existing topographic patterns contribute to the beauty or utility
' of a development, they shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible. Modification to
topography will be permitted where and to the extent that it contributes to good design. All
topographic modifications shall adhere to the practices delineated in the City's Best
Management Practices Handbook.
L
,1 fl7
' MESERVING TOPOGRAM
(b) The grades of all walks, parking spaces, terraces, and other paved areas shall
' conform with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, they .shall
provide an inviting and stable appearance from walking. Stairs and ramps may be substituted
' for slanted pavement when necessary.
(c) All landscape shall preserve and enhance natural features (such as wetlands,
' drainageways, mature stands of trees, and the like), enhance architectural features, strengthen
vistas and important axes, and provide shade.
(d) Landscaping shall emphasize massing of plant materials over isolated or scattered
' placement of individual specimens. Reforestation as prescribed by the City's Tree
Preservation and Reforestation Ordinance is encouraged.
LANDSCAPE MASSING
vs 11
sm"s
I
(e) Unity of design shall be achieved by repetition of certain plant varieties and other
materials, and by correlation with natural existing materials and adjacent developments where
appropriate.
�;; jz
L%MY OF DMGN
(f) Plant material shall be selected for interest in its structure, texture and color, and
for its ultimate growth size. Plants that are indigenous to the area and others that will be
hardy, harmonious to the design of good appearance, and of relatively easy maintenance shall
be used. In particular, plants recommended by the University of Minnesota Landscape
Arboretum for use in this area should be given strong consideration.
(g) In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor
traffic, they shall be protected by appropriate curbs, tree guards, or similar devices.
(h) Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees in parkways, gardens,
or paved areas is encouraged. Trees should be clustered whenever possible, and consideration
shall be given to the special needs of plants surrounded by impervious surfaces.
I
wlw�
TREEPLACEMENT
12
I
d
0
I
LI
TREE PROTECTION
' (i) In areas where general planting will not prosper, _ other solutions --such as fences,
walls, rock gardens, raised planters, or pavings of wood, brick stone, gravel, or cobbles - -shall
' be used. Carefully selected plants shall be included.
' ALTRRNATM LvANcAn mmATmecr
(j) Exterior lighting shall enhance the building design and adjoining landscape.
' Lighting standards and fixtures shall be of a design and size compatible with the building and
adjacent areas. Lighting shall be arranged and focused so that minimal light falls on adjacent
property and no light shines directly at or into any adjacent building. Excessive brightness
' and glare shall be avoided. _.
' UGIMNG CONTROL
(k) Site furnishings located on private property shall be designed as part of the site's
architectural concept and landscape. Materials and colors shall be in harmony with buildings,
surroundings, and other furnishings; scale shall be appropriate to the site and the design; and
' proportions shall be attractive.
(1) Site furnishings and landscaping located in any public way or 'on other public
property shall be harmonious with the design of adjacent buildings, with the appearance of the
highway in the vicinity, and with the generally character of the City.
' (m) Lighting in connection with site furnishings (e.g., to highlight a ground sign)
shall meet the criteria applicable to site, landscape, buildings, and signs.
(n) All provisions of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, to the extent that they
directly affect the appearance, design and utility of a particular site, and to the extent that
' they do no conflict directly with the standards delineated hear, shall be a part of the criteria
of this subsection.
1
13
DIVISION 2. HC -2 DISTRICT
Sec. 20 -1460. Purpose and Intent. ,
The purpose and intent of the HC -2 district is the same as the HC -1 district with
certain modifications to the district standards reflecting that the area within the HC -2 district
is not part of the City's central business district.
Sec. 20 -1461. District Application. ,
The "HC -1" district shall be applied to and super imposed (overlaid) upon all zoning '
districts as contained herein as existing or amended by the text and map of this ordinance.
The regulations and requirements imposed by the "HC -1" district shall be in addition to these
established for districts which jointly apply. Under the joint application of districts, the more ,
restrictive requirements shall apply.
Sec. 20 -1462. Building and Parking Orientation. '
The building and parking orientation standards for the HC -1 district shall apply,
together with the following additional requirements: '
(a) On building lots that abut Highway 5 directly, the minimum building setback from
the highway right -of -way shall be seventy (70) feet. The maximum building setback from the '
highway right -of -way for all buildings except single family residences shall be one hundred
fifty (150) feet. No maximum building setback shall apply to single family residences.
() g b On building lots that abut either of the access boulevards parallel to Highway 5, '
the minimum building setback from the boulevard right-of-way shall be fifty (5) feet. The
maximum building setback from the boulevard right -of -way shall be one hundred (100) feet. '
Sec. 20 -1463. Architectural Design Standards.
1 '
The architectural design standards for the HC -1 district shall a ct pp y, with the exception
p on
of Section 20- 1456(c) which shall not apply. '
Sec. 20 -1464. Landscape Design and Site Furnishings.
The landscape design and site furnishings standards for the HC -1 district shall apply. '
SECTION 9. The boundaries of the districts established by this chapter are delineated ,
on the zoning map; the map and all notations, references, and date shown thereon are hereby
adopted and made part of this chapter and will be on permanent file for public inspection at
the Chanhassen City Hall '
14 '
February 1, 1994
r Mr. Paul Kraus
Planning Director
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MM 55317
Re: Planning Commission Meeting, January 19, 1994
Dear Mr. Kraus:
RECEIVED
FEB 0 2 1994
CITY OF GHAPAr-iASSEN
' This letter is prompted by several questions and concerns that I have regarding
the Highway 5 Corridor Study and the proposed Gateway West Business Park.
Based on the Planning Commission meeting of January 19, 1994, it is.my
' understanding that the final form of the land use recommendations proposed
by the Highway 5 Task Force will become an overlay on the City of Chanhassen
Comprehensive Plan. Please tell me what the timeline is for:
' 1) finalizing the Comprehensive Plan overlay,
2) rezoning any property proposed for the Gateway West Business Park,
3) approval for any project or development that will occur west of
Highway 41.
Also, based on this same meeting and a subsequent telephone conversation
with Kate Aanenson on January 20, it appears that no consideration is being
' given to including my property in the Gateway project. Please be informed
that I do not intend that my property be made an island in the midst of
development, or to be used as a convenient buffer between the Gateway West
Business Park and the Landscape Arboretum. I made this position known at
both Planning Commission and City Council meetings last year, and this is
still my position.
I have reviewed the letter sent by Opus Corporation to the Planning
' Commission dated January 18, 1994. I also strongly object to the
land use plan reflected in figure 4.1 of the Highway 5 Corridor Study.
My objection is that it further produces an island effect for my property.
' Unless consideration of my property as an integral part of the project is
given, I cannot accept the recommendation on page 28.
Last year I requested of the City Council that my property be included in
' the PUD for Gateway West. on January 20, Kate Aanenson informed me that the
city is not acting on this request. At that point I told her that I still
want that to take place and she responded that she would bring this up at
a future City Council meeting. Please be informed that this letter is a
written request that my property be incorporated into the PUD for the
Gateway West Business Park. If there is a formal application or joinder to
an existing application required, please advise me immediately.
The current use of my property is single family residential, however, any
plan for future development which does not consider the future use.pf my
property will have a significant negative impact on the value of my property.
' I want to make sure that serious consideration is being given to my request
by the Planning Staff and the City Council. I also want to be copied with and
kept informed of any pertinent information regarding the proposed development
to the extent that it impacts me.
Thank you for your consideration.
SECTION 10. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and
publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1994, by the City
Council of the City of Chanhassen.
ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, City Manager
Donald J. Chmiel,.Mayor
15
LC'n
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Paul D. Paulson
3160 West 82nd Street
Chaska, MN 55318
cc: Rate Aanenson
Senior Planner,
Mike Mason
Councilman,
Gordon Jensen
Attorney at Law
sincerely,
G� a4s ( � xlllj
Paul D. Paulson
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive '
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
On behalf of Gateway Partners, the owners of the land in the southeast quadrant of Highways 5 '
and 41 in the City of Chanhassen, we would like to present our comments and recommendations
regarding the Highway 5 Corridor Land Use Design Study dated August, 1993. Opus '
Corporation and Gateway Partners support the overall objectives for the study. We understand the
importance of the Highway 5 Corridor to the City of Chanhassen as well as the importance of this
particular piece of property as a gateway to the city of Chanhassen. Our planning goals for this
property are: '
1. To create a quality mixed -use business park.
2. To preserve and protect the special features of this site including the existing wetlands and '
wooded areas.
3. To minimize grading of the existing topography both to preserve the natural features as well '
as minimize grading costs.
4. To enhance the character of the area through the use of landscaping and design standards. '
Since the approval of the concept plan for Gateway West Business Park by the City Council, the
owner has worked extensively with staff to refine the concept plan within the context of a proposed '
grading plan and the Highway 5 study. As a result, a number of adjustments are being made to the
plan. They include the following:
1. Revision to the south access road alignment to outlet at Peavy Road at West 82nd Street. '
2. Revision to the south access road alignment at the east property line.'
3. Relocation of commercial users from the west side of Highway 41 to the east side of '
Highway 41.
4. Adjustment of the water tower location. I
5. Proposed industrial land uses on the west side of Highway 41 (to replace commercial
uses). '
6. Preparation of a terraced grading plan to preserve underlying topography.
With these adjustments, we feel the City's goals can be met and implemented in a manner which
results in an economically feasible project for the land owner and enhances the tax base for the City
of Chanhassen.
40
YEARS OF
CREAM E 1992 NAIOP National Developer of the Year
SOU TIO \S '
Opus Corporation is an affiliate of the Opus group of companies — Architects, Contractors, Developers
1953- Austin, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Pensacola, Phoenix, Seattle, Tampa
Opus Corporation
'
Z OPUS
800 Opus Center
9900 Bren Road East
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 -9600
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 150
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 -0150
January 18, 1994
612 - 936-4444
Fax 612 - 936 -4529
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive '
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
On behalf of Gateway Partners, the owners of the land in the southeast quadrant of Highways 5 '
and 41 in the City of Chanhassen, we would like to present our comments and recommendations
regarding the Highway 5 Corridor Land Use Design Study dated August, 1993. Opus '
Corporation and Gateway Partners support the overall objectives for the study. We understand the
importance of the Highway 5 Corridor to the City of Chanhassen as well as the importance of this
particular piece of property as a gateway to the city of Chanhassen. Our planning goals for this
property are: '
1. To create a quality mixed -use business park.
2. To preserve and protect the special features of this site including the existing wetlands and '
wooded areas.
3. To minimize grading of the existing topography both to preserve the natural features as well '
as minimize grading costs.
4. To enhance the character of the area through the use of landscaping and design standards. '
Since the approval of the concept plan for Gateway West Business Park by the City Council, the
owner has worked extensively with staff to refine the concept plan within the context of a proposed '
grading plan and the Highway 5 study. As a result, a number of adjustments are being made to the
plan. They include the following:
1. Revision to the south access road alignment to outlet at Peavy Road at West 82nd Street. '
2. Revision to the south access road alignment at the east property line.'
3. Relocation of commercial users from the west side of Highway 41 to the east side of '
Highway 41.
4. Adjustment of the water tower location. I
5. Proposed industrial land uses on the west side of Highway 41 (to replace commercial
uses). '
6. Preparation of a terraced grading plan to preserve underlying topography.
With these adjustments, we feel the City's goals can be met and implemented in a manner which
results in an economically feasible project for the land owner and enhances the tax base for the City
of Chanhassen.
40
YEARS OF
CREAM E 1992 NAIOP National Developer of the Year
SOU TIO \S '
Opus Corporation is an affiliate of the Opus group of companies — Architects, Contractors, Developers
1953- Austin, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Pensacola, Phoenix, Seattle, Tampa
OPUS®
.1
Chanhassen Planning Commission
January 18, 1994
Page 2
In this context, our specific comments on the design study are as follows:
1. Road Alignment
' The road pattern shown for the Gateway West Business Park property reflects a north -
south road and an east -west road which meet at a T intersection. We feel strongly that this
road alignment is not consistent with the objectives for the Highway 5 study which are to
' present a "boulevard character" and "also evoke a visual and environmental sensitivity
consistent with the adjacent landscape setting." We feel that the curvilinear road alignment,
as proposed in the original Gateway West Business Park Concept Plan, best meets these
' objectives while encouraging the free flow of traffic along the south access road and
minimizing points of conflict.
In addition, we feel that the funding for the south access boulevard should be treated
' comparably with the north access boulevard. Property owners along the north access road
should not avoid financial responsibility with the property owners along the south access
road funding the majority of the construction cost.
' 2. Land Use Plan
' The owners of Gateway West Business Park express strong objection to the Land Use Plan
as reflected in Figure 4.1. This plan differs substantially from the plan proposed by Opus
and Gateway Partners. Significant portions of the property are shown as office only. The
retail service component on the west side of Highway 41 is shown as office. The high
' density residential has been moved from one site on the west side of Highway 41 to a site
on West 82nd Street. We support the written recommendation on Page 28 that the land
uses for the Gateway West Business Park be the "industrial park as proposed by Opus
' Corporation." This statement is not consistent with Figure 4.1.
3. Parks, Open Space, and Trails
' It is our understanding that the position of the Park and Recreation Commission for the
City is for the park proposed adjacent to Gateway West Business Park to be primarily a
passive park. The report reflects the discussions from several months ago that the park
I should have a major active component.
4. Parcel Development and Design Standards
We feel the minimum building setback from the highway right -of -way proposed at 70 feet
is excessive and severely limits the developability of sites along Highway 5, particularly
when those sites may also be impacted by wetland or slope considerations. In addition, we
' feel that the requirements affecting solid walls unrelieved by architectural detailing may be
very difficult to achieve for industrial buildings. The objective of providing certain kinds
of visual relief is an appropriate one, but the ability to dictate "significant visual relief' is a
' very subjective standard and may be very difficult to achieve a combination of landscaping
and architectural detailing to accomplish "significant visual relief."
0% OPUS®
Chanhassen Planning Commission
January 18, 1994
Page 3 '
5. Parcel Site Analysis and Concept Plans
We express strong objections to the Site Development Concept illustrated in Figure 8.21 ,
for the Gateway West Business Park site. As discussed earlier, this concept reflects a
street pattern which is significantly divergent from that proposed in the original Concept ,
Plan for the park. In addition, the numerous objectives that are delineated in this plan
dramatically reduce the developability of this site if all such objectives are to be met. The
creation of resource corridors, new tree massings, view preservation, wetland preservation ,
which has already been provided for, protection of the ridge line, and augmentation of
wetlands significantly reduces the developability of this site to an uneconomic status. We
feel the original Concept Plan for Gateway West Business Park by preserving the major
wetland features, providing well - landscaped boulevards throughout the park, creating '
additional ponding areas as retention areas and amenities all support the basic objectives of
the Highway 5 study. The Site Development Concept, as reflected in Figure 8.21, is
excessive and unfeasible. '
With these comments in mind, we request the following from the City of Chanhassen:
1.
Road Alignment
'
- that the City explore all possible sources of state and federal funding for the south access
road.
,
2.
Land Use Plan
- that the Land Use Plan, as now proposed by the developer for Gateway West Business
'
Park, be approved and incorporated into the final study.
3.
Parks, Open Space, and Trails
'
- that the City support a primarily passive park adjacent to Gateway West Business Park.
4.
Design Standards
'
- that the setback required from Highways 5 and 41 be set at 50 feet, and the objection of
providing visual relief be accomplished through a combination of architectural detailing and
'
landscape design.
5.
Parcel Site Analysis
'
- that the City acknowledge that the objectives reflected in Figure 8.21 must be moderated
by the need to create an economically feasible development.
I�
ON. OPUS®
Chanhassen Planning Commission
January 18, 1994
Page 4
We acknowledge and respect the efforts of the Highway 5 Task Force and City Staff in their
efforts to create a framework for development in the Highway 5 Corridor. We feel these efforts
have contributed to a better understanding of the development objectives for the City. We look
forward to proceeding with development approvals for Gateway West Business Park.
Sincerely,
Michele Foster
Director
Real Estate Development
ITI .:
lery w
1 RELLSOUTH Company x'
WAN
.�..
.. - 12125 Technology Drive
0� `1`den Prairie Ninnesota
55344 -7399
€:'. x
632/829.6000 t
January 19, 1994
y �
0 1- s 3x11. Paul , KrIlLLsS, t AIC A ' - x ,+'� re3' kgr "'' S5tt44 1` r r- ON" $
Planning Director f " ' ' II
yf x� yy. �s'iG¢g" x
Pity of Chanhassen
Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317 µ L ,
'+ s yv r �x
"W _
Dear Mr. Krauss:
As we mentioned in our r�eetmg �q sterday, Dataserv;!ncACqu $the Sun1m'k Corporation
property at 19011 Lake Drive East as of January 1, 1994
Y
Yesterday, January 18, 1994, we received, for the first time, a copy of your memorandum
dated January 13 to the Planning Commission recommending the adoption of the Highway ,
Corridor Land Use and Design Plan and the Environmental Assessment document.
After reviewing the document and having had the opportunity to meet with you and Mr. Todd
Gerhardt, Datasery must go on record as- opposing the recommendation to approve the
Highway 3 land use and design study. M
Aside from some serious questions -and concerns including, but not limited to, setback - =
restrictions and building design restrictions, we feel that we cannot support any plan until we '
have had the opportunity to complete an independent land use and design study for the
Datasery site.
Respectfully, -
DATASERV, INC.
A ,
ames Paulet
Manager of Facilities _
/ctw
I CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
' JANUARY 5, 1994
Prior to the regular meeting, the Planning Commission held a work session on the Highway 5
Corridor.
Acting Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 8:45 p.m.
' MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Diane Harberts, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Nancy
Mancino and Jeff Farmakes
' STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
' PUBLIC HEARING:
CHASKA SCHOOL DISTRICT AND CITY OF CHANHASSEN PROPOSE TO REZONE
' APPROXIMATELY 42 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2 AGRICULTURAL ESTATE
TO OI OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AND CONCEPTUAL PRELIMINARY
PLAT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 107.690 SQUARE FOOT ELEMENTARY
' SCHOOL AND RECREATION/PARK COMPLEX AND WETLAND ALTERATION
PERMIT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD.
1 Public Present:
Name Address
' Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item.
Farmakes: Paul, can I ask you a question? Can you give me a quick synopsis? I didn't pick
this up from the report. What is the positioning of this school overall in the 112 school
system? Is this seen as a long term replacement with our elementary school over here? I
know that's 30 -40 years old now, isn't it?
David Leschek
Hammel- Green - Abrahamson
Bob Rothman
Hammel- Green - Abrahamson
John Gockel
Chaska School District #112
'
Wallace & Maxine Otto
Craig Harrington
Waconia
8140 Maplewood Terrace
Patrick Minger
8221 Galpin Blvd.
'
James Dornholt
8251 West Lake Court
8301 Galpin Blvd.
Roger Schmidt
' Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item.
Farmakes: Paul, can I ask you a question? Can you give me a quick synopsis? I didn't pick
this up from the report. What is the positioning of this school overall in the 112 school
system? Is this seen as a long term replacement with our elementary school over here? I
know that's 30 -40 years old now, isn't it?
le
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 1
Krauss: It's not a replacement at all. It's supplemental to it. I
Farmakes: I realize that but I'm talking maybe 20 years down the line. How is this
positioned to serve for instance, is it an expansion situation on the landscaping, what we're
looking at now, is this something that's envisioned? Does this solve current problems and
does it take into consideration future growth? These are the type of things that I did not pick '
up in the report so.
Krauss: Well, I'm working off of memory here because this goes back to this committee that
we served on with the School District and they had Barbara Luckerman from ... Metro
Council ... This should handle the growth, as I understand it, that they expect to be
experiencing in this part of the school district. Ultimately they need another middle school in ,
this area someplace but this should handle the elementary level growth into the foreseeable
future. Now when they did their projection, we gave them what we felt to be the ultimate
development of Chanhassen and there in fact parts of southern Chanhassen they may still use '
the Chaska Elementary School because they may be closer.
Farmakes: That's the figure in about the low 30's somewhere? '
Krauss: Which one? I
Farmakes: That's the figure in the low 30's somewhere that you're talking about the ultimate
development? I
Krauss: Right. Right. Long term the school district may well need another school out in
Victoria. Victoria would prefer that this school be built in their community anyway but as ,
long as they can project, it's my understanding, this would satisfy their elementary needs.
Harberts: What is elementary? Grades what? K thru 5? ,
Krauss: It's up to 5.
Harberts: Middle school is 6 thru 8?
Krauss: Yeah, except for kindergarten. 1
Scott: Yeah, BCC. Yeah, 1 thru 5. With the City of Chanhassen getting involved in
basically getting another school sited in our community, do you see the same process ,
happening obviously if the middle school is needed? Have we gone through the same process
and saying, well here's a good spot for a middle school and continue this process for that?
2
r
I
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994
Krauss: Well, as I said earlier, initially we thought that this was going to be the middle
school because that was what they thought they needed at the time. We later found out that
in the State of Minnesota, it gets pretty bizarre. If you're going to locate a middle school,
you almost need 70 acres because it takes so many football fields and baseball fields to
accommodate it that we just couldn't fit it in here if we wanted to. They still have a long
term need for a middle school site. We've shown them, they've sat down with us a couple of
times to see what exactly is available but the words available and land in Chanhassen don't go
together anymore and I'm not at all convinced that they're going to find a place for it in this
community. We haven't identified one.
Scott: Okay. Any other questions for Paul?
Harberts: I have one. I don't know if this is to you or the applicant or the architects or
whoever. How do they see the public transit buses integrating into this plan given the high
degree of rides that are provided each and every day to the school site currently?
' Krauss: Well, maybe I can let them answer that. There are separate bus,pull offs for this.
It's a pretty ideal type of a site. I'd leave it up to Southwest Metro to figure whether or not
we need a separate bus loading area.
I 7- I
I
Harberts: I don't know if we're asking about separate. I'm asking really was that a factor into
the decision making process that it's an element that's there.
Krauss: I don't know. To the extent that you're working with the school district now, I've
got to believe it was because...
Harberts: Okay. Maybe the applicant can address that.
Scott: Yep. Any other questions? I'd like to hear from the applicants if we could. Just for
your notes. I know Paul mentioned that you folks would be talking about more specifically
about the building design. Roof unit detail and information on grading. So if you can just
cover those as briefly as you can and then we'll fire some questions at you.
David Leschek: Good evening. Is this working okay? My name is David Leschek and I'm
an architect with Hammel - Green - Abrahamson. With me tonight is Bob Rothman, also with
HGA and John Gockel who is a representative for the School District #112. Paul has covered
fairly well the background information for the project as well as significant portions of the
site. This plan that you have in front of you, as we refer to it in our submission to the
Planning Commission, is a master plan for this site. Much as is the building at this time. We
are at the design development portion in the phase of the project and we have just received
tie
k.
Planning Commission Meeting - January S, 1994
back our first design development level estimate. And as we receive that estimate, we then t
go back, what we do to go back and value engineer portions of the building or site, whether it
be vegetation or some of the building materials or the amount of case work that's in the
building so that that budget then is eventually in line with the original project budget. What
we have done here is taken an educational concept from the District #112 as well as a
recreational program from the city of Chanhassen and developed those programs to their full
potential and as we get into the design development and we begin to get the estimates back,
we begin to value engineer those programs if you will, keeping the spirit as well as the intent
of those programs intact but maybe in a smaller. ,
Mancino: The execution might be different?
David Leschek: Not different. The concept is there. For instance an example would be the '
plantings that we have indicated on our drawings were of a 4 inch caliper which is in excess
of what the minimum standards would be for the city of Chanhassen which would only ,
require 2 1/2 inch. So at that point then we would go back to a 2 1/2 inch for instance rather
than a 4 inch, which would still be in keeping with the requirements of the city but yet less
than what we have originally shown on our documents. As Paul mentioned, we have a bus ,
drop to the south of the site. Staff parking as well as a service entrance off of Galpin to the
west of the building. We have provided for, and this may answer part of your question
Diane. We have provided for a looped drive at the front of the ISD portion of the building as '
well as a drop off area, for whether it be cars or buses.
Harberts: Oh good. '
David Leschek: Whether it be for the youngsters or even the physically handicapped. As
Bob gets up here and goes through the portion of the building, you will note that the Early ,
Childhood Family Education portion of the building is located in close. proximity to this drop
off on the west side of the building. '
Harberts: Can you tell what the distance that is? From the drop off for the children as well
as you said from an accessible perspective. And is this covered? ,
David Leschek: I'll get that scale and then I'll answer your question. To the south of the
building we have this bus drop off which we envision is the bus drop that will receive the '
vast majority of the students. The individual houses which contain all of the classrooms are
oriented to the south and off of that bus drop. So you will have students basically entering
the building from the south. Staff from the west and you will have a community entrance
back on the east side. We wanted to obtain that separation for security reasons as well as that
was a requirement of the educational program established by District 4112. This is about,
4
I Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994
well excuse me. This is about 90 feet from this drop off point here to the front doors.
Closest to the.
L Harberts: The main entrance?
David Leschek: Yes, that's correct. And we have approximately 180 feet from the bus drop
up to the student entrances at the houses. One of the reasons for that was that as a part of the
educational program for this building, exterior spaces wanted to be included in the educational
' program for the building. So for instance in this portion, this lightly colored area here that
you can see has concrete lines extending into it, this is an area of prairie grasses which would
be incorporated into the site plan and used as a teaching station for instance. Where a science
' class could go out, you know see the prairie grasses and develop some educational curriculum
that would accent this space and incorporate it into that curriculum. Again, back on the east
side of the building is the major entrance for the community portion of the building and again
the separation was desirable from all clients, or parties involved in the project. Again another
drop off area to access not only the community entrance to the building but also just to allow
parents and what not to drop off maybe their children who are participating in activities that
are going on and allowing them to drop them off. Get them going and then going to park
their vehicle. Either side of the building contains, at this point we have developed again
some exterior educational type classrooms, or courtyards. And again I remind you that what
' we have here is our master plan for this portion of the project. A cafeteria located on the
north side of the building. Again, a playground area that can both service not only the park
' but also services ISD #112. This is the ISD #112 athletic fields. As Paul has mentioned,
their need for athletic fields is not nearly as great at an elementary school as it would be for
instance at a middle school and that's how the city has become involved in developing
' additional soccer, softball fields. An ice rink in this area. Two ice rinks in this area and four
additional tennis courts.
Harberts: Could you just go through that lump again with regard to `the public transit. I see
' where it would enter in.
' David Leschek: It would enter in at this point here. There's a, you can see how it was sort
of recessed back at this point indicating the drop area. And then you would loop back out.
Harberts: What's the radius turn on that loop?
David Leschek: I can't be certain at this time Diane. You know, I'm sure that our civil
' engineers have sized that not for a full sized school bus for instance but maybe one that
would.
1
5
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting - January S, 1994
Harberts: 30 feet? 30 to 40 feet? That's what we're looking at.
David Leschek: I do not think that it would be 30 or 40 feet.
Harberts: Then it's not a public transit access point. So someone may want to talk to us or
we talk to you about that. The only other thing is, is there the opportunity of using that turn
around loop?
David Leschek: There is the opportunity of using it which allows you to gain access. But
again this turn around loop here has the same purpose as this one, because after hours when
we require the vast majority of the recreational facilities being used, this staff parking lot
would then become available to the community to use the park. Or to drop off their children
'
and allow them access into the recreational area.
Harberts: Okay. I'd like just to raise that as something to look at and to have further
discussion with Southwest Metro. Thank you.
David Leschek: Thank you. Any additional questions? Anything that I've missed? I do
believe that we have also cut two sections. This one starring here will be up on that ridge
that Paul spoke of by Timberwood Estates. The grade begins to drop down and you have that
large buffer of existing trees. The boulevard area that you will see in this location, the bus
drop off, our area of prairie restoration, which is this area in front of the plan.
Harberts: Excuse me, where's the access boulevard?
David Leschek: The access boulevard, well the access boulevard is actually here. '
Farmakes: Is this is an east/west angle that we're looking at the building?
David Leschek: This is a north /south. ,
Farmakes: North/south? i
David Leschek: That's correct.
Scott: No,
no. It's cut north /south but we're looking west.
David Leschek: Yes, you're looking west. That's correct. The prairie restoration area. The '
building itself, we refer to it as a diamond terrace but that is this portion just off of the
cafeteria for the building and the playground which is off to the north side. And then the
6
t:4 ' ,
I Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994
athletic fields and then eventually Highway 5.
Farmakes: Can I ask you a question about the prairie grass? My only familiarity with using
this and the treatment that you're using down below has been with corporate, and to be
honest, over a period, a short period of time they converted it to, they got rid of it essentially.
Is there precedent for this where this has been used successfully for this type of use?
Intensive children and so on.
David Leschek: We have an ongoing project with IBM at Rochester.
Farmakes: I'm familiar with the building.
David Leschek: A corporate client and they have asked us to develop this sort of prairie
restoration at their facility and we have found that it works quite well for them and see no
reason why it would not work very well for the school as an educational tool.
' Farmakes: Is that location in front of the building? Or it would be facing Highway 53 then?
That you're talking about IBM.
' David Leschek: I believe it faces Highway 53 as well as, you'll probably forgive me. I'm not
that familiar with the project, although I do know that we are involved in it. I believe it- is
that portion that faces Highway 53 as well as I believe some of their courtyards are now
being done.
Farmakes: To the north?
David Leschek: Right, exactly.
Farmakes: Has it been used again in a school situation with elementary children accessing a
point?
' David Leschek: I can't tell you that we have done that, no.
Farmakes: Okay. Does this have to be burned every so many years?
David Leschek: It would have to be burned every so many years. I believe it's every 3 years
and we have in fact discussed that with the buildings and grounds people with the District
' and they see no adverse affect doing that as far as from a facilities standpoint.
7
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 t
Farmakes: How does that affect the other trees. J ust curious being that _ trees aren't normally
in a prairie situation? '
David Leschek: Well I think what you find is that this lighted portion here is the prairie and
we do have.
Farmakes: I don't think we can see you over the podium there.
David Leschek: I think the site section that you see here is a little misleading with the trees
that I'm showing. You may be seeing, I believe you would be looking from this direction this
way and you would be seeing this back drop of the trees but for the most part ... sort of on the
perimeter of those prairie grasses.
Farmakes: Actually I was more concerned about the trees in the front. The primary one here
is from the northwest and I'm just curious if you're going to torch that, how that would affect
the other trees. We do have, I think a couple of cases. I think DataSery at one time when it
was CPT did prairie grasses and burned it off. I'm not sure that that's still the purpose of '
DataSery but I think Eckankar also does a prairie grass. It's an attempt in the early stages of
prairie grass restoration in front of their place.
Mancino: Well there are red oaks right in the middle of the prairie grass. There are quite a
few of them according to your enlarged plan of the bus drop off sheet. That these all are red
oaks in through the prairie grass so we'd have to make sure they're shielded.
Farmakes: That was my concern. Because about once every 10 years we get very dry
around here and just, I believe these types of maintenance issues have been problems in the
past with other sites. And that's why I was asking if we have any precedence on this type of
thing.
John Gockel.
We have not at an educational building.
Farmakes: Okay. '
David Leschek: This concept has been developed along with the District at this point. That's
as much as I can tell you. Any other questions? I want to get back to, I have one additional
site section that takes us east and west through the site looking to the north. Galpin Boulevard
in this area and we begin to slope down to the staff parking and drop off that we had
discussed with Diane. The front entry more or less to the school. The school itself, the '
entrance to the community portion of the building and then the site begins to drop away to
Bluff Creek. So we have tried to maintain that natural slope of the site as it goes and works
1
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994
it's way east towards Bluff Creek. And you can see the background, Highway 5 remains
above our site and the trees that we would, that were proposed in the master plan along
Highway 5 in keeping with the development plan for the Highway 5 corridor and again this
area back here is where Paul had mentioned he would eventually have access underneath
Highway 5 along the corridor which would run north and south along Bluff Creek.
Mancino: I have a question about the landscaping and that's, it looks like on my enlarged
plan, between the, let's see it's facing the south access boulevard is mostly sugar maples,
correct?
David Leschek: Yes.
Mancino: They are very sensitive to salty soils so what's going to happen in a few years
when there's a lot of salt that's been snowplowed up into that area? This is a University piece
that I have about the salt injury to landscape plants and the one that they list as very sensitive
is the sugar maple and also the red maple, which you have on Galpin.
David Leschek: I am not able to speak for the landscape architects that have developed our
landscaping plan, other than to say that I'm sure they've taken that into consideration. I can
address that to Paul along with addressing Diane's concerns. In letter form. Any additional
questions? If not, I'll turn the presentation over to Bob Rothman of our office who will take
you through the building as well as the elevations.
Bob Rothman: Thank you. As Dave mentioned, there are three primary entrances to the
building. For the school district, for the students and for the community. I'll briefly run you
through the building. The school is designed for 625 students and that is 125 students per
family cluster. Family cluster is first grade through fifth grade in an integrated program so
they would be mixed within their cluster. So that occurs down south in. pioximity to the bus
drop off. Because the feeling is the students spend a majority of their day down in that area
of the building. In the central portion of the building, that be the INC which is the media
center which, when I was growing up was the library. Across the corridor from that is the art
and music. We've designed this, we felt that the art, music, is all kind of brought together in
this one common area with some display cases and an open library so its open and accessible
to all students. Behind that, with close proximity to the front entry is the administration for
obvious reasons. For general supervision of the school. Who's coming and going and that
sort of thing. Also by the front entry we've located the ECFE, which is the Early Childhood
and Family Education which is a 7 day a week, morning, night time sort of program. So
again that desires to be close to the main entry. Also behind that we have some of the back
of the house. The boiler room. The electrical room. Smaller seating area. And located onto
the main access of the building is the cafeteria with, as Dave described, playground and fields
U�a
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 1
to the north of that which the students, you know gobble down their sandwiches and get out
*'
and hit the playground. To the east of that we've got the gymnasium which is a shared
gymnasium. Half of it is during the day, half of it, the southern most half would be used by
�
the school district with the northerly most half being used by the community of Chanhassen.
Also in this area we've got a series of four meeting rooms which are expandable into, can be
paired or used singularly or as one large meeting room. We also have a fitness room and
aerobics room and corresponding locker rooms and some storage areas for both meetings
areas and the gymnasium. One of the challenges of this building was, due to the educational
,
program, we were left with what seemed to be the best opportunity to be a one story building.
As I said, one of the challenges is with the large building of this 112,000 square foot facility,
is trying to break it up in mass and form. To give it some interest so it doesn't feel quite
frankly like a pancake. And so how we've chosen to do that, this is the south elevation.
r
We're looking at developing each cluster as it's own mass who each has it's own identity so
there's the four, or the five rather are all fine and it gives us a nice sense of rythym and shade
and shadow as well as using these spaces for defining the entries to each of those houses.
The primary material of the building is kind of a molded brick which is very traditional in
feel. If you're familiar with Jonathan Elementary, this is the brick that's used on that. It was
,
the District's desire, as well as our's, to try and provide a family of buildings within the
District. This is also brick that we're looking at using on the new Chaska High School so that
it can be identified as a community building. Primarily we've got a flat roof. I can turn the
model here. Primarily we've got basically a flat roof building but a few areas where we've
chosen, would it be better if I.
Can
Scott: Apparently if the stand, I don't know if our camera can get down low enough.
PP Y
you, should he put it on the easel?
Bob Rothman primarily This is rimaril a flat roof building. Where we've chosen at the family
cluster centers to raise that.
,
Mancmo: Where are we supp osed to be looking?
Scott: It doesn't work in the monitor so I guess the folks at home are going to have to pass
,
then.
Bob Rothman: So mainly we've got each of the clusters defined by a half vaulted room form,
which will help give it a little bit of mass and a little bit of rythym.
Farmakes: And we're seeing it from the view now where we would be on Highway 5.
i
,o
�
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994
Bob Rothman: Right. You're coming off of Highway 5. And keep in mind that Highway 5
is about the same elevation. It's slightly higher at Galpin and then you'd be dropping down to
actually below the floor level. Or below the floor level of the building as it's coming up.
Some of the other roof forms. The gymnasium is just an extruded form with of course a
higher building mass. Cafeteria again, because of the larger volume of the room, we've
i brought the roof up slightly. Within the INC, again we're going to use some bow ...trusses in
there and make it kind of a nice, interesting space as again one of the harder programs being
the INC. And Paul mentioned the.
Mancino: Is that a glass dome?
Bob Rothman: No, it's not. It'd be a metal roof.
Farmakes: You're showing lighter colors there. What would that.
Bob Rothman: It would be a metal roof with some clear story lighting.
Farmakes: Okay. The tan areas that you're showing next to the brick, what would that
material be?
Bob Rothman: Those are the circulation areas. That would be a burnish masonry material.
Again, to help define the circulation.
Farmakes: Like Target? That's the description of that.
Krauss: The burnish block?
Farmakes: Yeah.
Krauss: There is some burnish block.
1 Bob Rothman: I'm not sure what Target is. We have got some samples. Some samples here.
And again, that's keeping in the concept of the site with defining these lines. We've carried
that through conceptually within the building also. Paul addressed the issue of these
t penthouses. We're looking at trying to bring those down. Those would be developed in
probably a synthetic stucco material. These two and some of these other ones and this will
be brick.
Mancino: What's a sy nthetic stucco?
11
E
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 . I
Bob Rothman: It's called ethos. It's a plastic material. I
Mancino: You put it outside and it's impregnated with color or something?
Bob Rothman: Right. So actually from where, you wouldn't see that much of it anyway but
where you would, it would probably sippear to be brick.
Mancino: Okay. But from what I see right here, this elevation. I mean it's almost as tall,
proportionally as tall as your one level.
Bob Rothman: The one thing that's a little bit misleading about elevations is the fact that
you're never going to see the building in that angle. Again, you're seeing everything straight
on. As you approach the building from this way, you're going to be down and plus, unless
you're 16 feet tall, you don't really see those things straight on. So they'll be recessed back in
bring
the background. And again we are looking, working with our mechanical engineers to
that down. Are there any other questions?
Farmakes: With the elevation of this building, to TH 5, you actually even with trees in there
filled out, you will be able to see down into that a bit.
Krauss: Highway 5 is pretty much at the building elevation. It's not too different...
Bob Rothman: You can see right here.
David Leschek: As the site goes to the east, it begins to drop below Highway 5.
Bob Rothman: You see Highway 5 is approximately the same elevation of the.
David Leschek: The building elevation itself is at 958 and I believe that Highway 5 at the
west end of the site is approximately 960. So it's approximately only 2 feet higher than the
main floor elevation of the building. But then as the site begins to go towards Bluff Creek, it
begins to drop. It begins actually to step and we terraced the athletic fields to be in keeping
with the Lake Ann complex which has been developed by the city of Chanhassen and that
concept there was to try to get a little additional interest in the landform by terracing the land
that the fields sit on. So we have done that same thing as something that the Parks
Department wants to make as their signature, if you will, of their parks. To accomplish a
terraced feel to that.
Mancino: What about from Galpin? Galpin is lower?
i
12
I Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994
David Leschek: No. Galpin is actually higher. I think if you refer back to the site section
here, you will see that Galpin is actually right here and it is actually higher. As the road.
Bob Rothman: It starts to come down at this point. Again, as Paul mentioned, this being the
high point of the site and it starts to drop down at that point.
I Mancino: Where that southwest wall is?
Bob Rothman: Right. Correct. So when you're down here, directly south of the building,
you're actually what, a good 8 feet below.
David Leschek: Well you're about 6 to 8 feet below the building.
Bob Rothman: First floor elevation. _
Mancino: So when you stand by McGlynn's Bakery, you're going to be looking down onto
the top of this building?
Krauss: I don't recall...McGlynn's Bakery...
Mancino: I'm just trying to get perspective.
David Leschek: One of the concerns that Paul listed in his staff report was the idea of the
rooftop mechanical equipment and one of the reasons why we're now having to go, back and
adjust some of our mechanical penthouses is because we have put all of the mechanical
equipment into these penthouses. So the roof is devoid of any sort of equipment that's up
' there. It is all self contained within the penthouses of the building.
Mancino: Equipment in a penthouse.
Scott: Peanut butter and jelly on the dining terrace. One of the things that, I know that a
number of the buildings in the school district is currently studying is the concept of what's
called multi -age grouping. And what I wanted to hear from you is how the potential of that
concept being used at the elementary level, district wide, was utilized to design this particular
building.
John Gockel: What it is is that the houses consist of 5 classrooms. What we have here is.
Bob Rothman: Grades 1 thru 5 are all in each of the clusters.
1
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 I
Scott. So you have five groups or 1 thru 5.
Bob Rothman: Exactly. So instead of one of these clusters being out here as here's one all
grade 2, they're all integrated with each and the school district will then develop their
programs on using that notion.
David Leschek: i have to apologize for not having a larger scaled plan. However if I could
lay this here, and again we'll let the folks at home use their imagination. You asked the
question about the multi-age groupings that this facility could occur, or could occur in this
facility. This is an enlarged plan of two of the houses within the building and the houses
themselves consist of 5 classrooms with a teacher planning area and one larger classroom in
this location here which is designed to be, or could function as a kindergarten classroom in
the future if they were to ever have kindergarten here at this facility. This building is
currently proposed to handle only 1 thru 5.
Mancino: Where does kindergarten go?
David Leschek: They use the Early Childhood Center in Chaska currently. Which you know
they've just done an addition to which houses first graders now but may in the future
eventually contain additional kindergartners. In the center of the house then is a team center,
,
as we refer to it, which is used by any one or all five of the classrooms. The classrooms for
instance, I mean they're grouped in five because you have 1 thru 5 grades here. So when
you're talking multi -age, you could have a house could consist of 1 thru 5 or it could consist
of five groups of 3rd graders or they may actually mix or match 1st, 2nd grades and 3 -4
someplace else. The flexibility has been designed into each house, whether it be through the
number of classrooms or the types of spaces. Whether they be larger spaces, such as this, or
the smaller spaces so that they can accommodate large as well as small and function for
grades 1 thru 5 or all fifth grade or a multi-age grouping of 2nd and 3rd graders.
Scott: Also, another modeling you probably 're robabl familiar with is the inclusion model for unique
learners. Where are the, and this is great but usually there's an area, and I think most people
are familiar with special education. Where is that particular area located? I think I may have
missed that.
David Leschek: That particular area is located throughout the facility. So when we talk
about for instance teacher planning areas, this is where the teachers are for this particular
house and included in that staff, if you will for this house, could very well be a special
education teacher. So that what they want to develop here is this interaction between not
only the teachers of that particular school but also that special ed person who may be
responsible for that person so they can better coordinate that curriculum for that person.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994
a " Scott: Okay.
David Leschek: Any additional questions?
Scott: If there are no additional questions.
Mancino: I have a couple more. Was there some stone detailing on the building? Did I read
that somewhere in the staff report?
' A ain going back to the
Bob Rothman: Yeah. Again, g g , as Dave had mentioned. As we get our
budgets in, one of the things we listed was stone as with a.-alternating. So we're looking at
these. Originally we had hoped that these would be stone and now we're looking at burnish
masonry but we are looking at some stone accents. For instance window sills might be a
Mankato stone or something of that nature.
Mancino: Chaska stone.
Bob Rothman: Or Chaska stone.
Mancino: Yeah, that would be really nice to pull that in. Okay. And what's the green that I
saw on the.
Bob Rothman: That's a metal roof. A standing seam metal roof.
Mancino: Do you happen to have a sample of the color of green?
Bob Rothman: No, I'm sorry I don't have one.
' Mancino: Is it a dark? Light? Medium?
Bob Rothman: Probably looking at a dark, kind of a forest type green. Any other questions?
Thank you very much.
Scott: Good, thank you. This is a public hearing and members of the general public are
i encouraged to ask questions, express opinions. These are the applicant, the representatives of
city staff, Planning Commission members. Are there any members in the audience tonight
who would like to address the Planning Commission or any of these other parties? Let the
record show that there are no members of the public who wish to speak. Can I have a
motion please to close public hearing?
15
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 1
Farmakes moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
;
motion caned. The public hearing was closed.
brought
Farmakes: I'll go back to the landscaping, to begin with. I'm concerned, as you up
some points here on some of the trees that are adjacent to road salt areas of the, I believe it's
Galpin and the entryway for the buses to the south to the structure. And I think that that
should be looked at. The Arboretum here, the report that she has here and I went to the same
conference she did. There are established trees that are tolerant to salt and I realize that
you're not here to talk about that tonight or you don't have representatives of that, but we did
have several landscape people there and the Arboretum of course is a well known authority
with that kind of stuff. And you may want to look at the survivability of those trees. The
other issue, the prairie grass area. I think that that sounds good. The teaching things also
may sound good on paper. I'm wondering how translatable that is to practicality and I would
advise the school to look closely at that. It is, it has been used and it is being used in some
locations here in Chanhassen. They haven't been terribly successful as of yet. As I
understand it, and the prairie grass area that I visited in Illinois. They have a park there that
they're trying to redo prairie in Illinois where they had bison and it's a lot more rolling acres
and so on. As I understood the.educational part of that, for prairie grass to truly be prairie
grass, there is a lot of different species and there is a total ecosystem that goes with that.
Failing that, there is a lot of artificial maintenance that has to be done to maintain it and I'm
be better served with a wetland or a pond. Or
wondering if the educational value of that may
something of that nature that's more indicative of what's here. I also understand that for true
prairie grass to thrive, it needs little human contact and as I understand it, all of the kids will
be dropped off right in front of the prairie grass so there are some practical aspects to that
that you may want to review. The second issue, and the city report touched on this a little
bit, is how the movement of people translates to some of the park areas adjacent to the creek.
Bluff Creek. And how that works up into some of the recreational facilities on the school
property. And I'm not sure that I'm seeing anything there but did the.Park Commission look
at this?
,
Krauss: Oh, yes.
is integrated
Farmakes: So they looked at this closely and they're satisfied that what they see
well?
Krauss: Yes.
Farmakes: Okay. These fields, these are K thru Little League? Is that the type of fields that
they're going to be?
16
i
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994
Krauss: The ballfields are, you're right. They're not adult size.
Farmakes: They're 60 footers for baseball. The one thing that I was concerned about is the
view of the facility from Highway 5. I like the view that they've done from what would be
the front of the building facing south and from the east. Or excuse me, from the west. And I
like what they've done with the different forms. Making up for some nice shadowing and
things that you often don't see on schools. Basically they're, particularly it seems like all the
ones in the suburbs here built in the 60's, are these big blocks.
you see from TH 5.
that's what
Mancino: And y
Farmakes: Well, this happens to be what was being built back then. I like this much better.
Maybe 50 years from now they'll be complaining about it. I am somewhat concerned looking
at it from the north and from the east, as you come. When you look at it there's sort of flat
expanse on the roof line and when you look at it from the north, it looks like the back of the
school. And if there is something that possibly could be done behind the gym area where
those windows are to take that facade and break it up a little bit. That would be on this side.
Mancino: Now, isn't there a planting there though?
Farmakes: Well there's several plantings inbetween it.
David Leschek: And a vine of sorts too. To sort of help break up.
Farmakes: A veining situation coming up the side of the school, yeah.
' David Leschek: Yes. And you realize too that that space being a gymnasium space requires
that mass. So we tried to address that.
w something to break u the roof line. The tangent line that runs
Farmakes: Even if it as g p
across that large scale box. I know that from the stuff they did at the U of M works nice to
' that effect. The other issues I think I'll leave for some of the stuff that you talked about and
I'd just be repeating it and I don't want to take it all. So I'll let you take over.
f Mancino: Oh thanks. I just wanted to add one more tree for you to check please on the salt
sensitivity. And that would be the red oaks are very sensitive to aerial salt spray and you
have the red oaks on the, let's see east side of Galpin in that northeastern area. So if you
could check with your architect about that. Paul, a couple questions for you. How does this
process work? I mean has the School Board of District #112 approved this site plan? I mean
as it comes to City Council. City Council. Does it go to the School Board?
17
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994
Krauss: It's not a sequential process. It's not very neat.
John Gockel: The School Board is not, they've approved the schematic design. What you're
looking at now is about 90% of design development. That will go before the School Board
approximately the end of January.
Mancino: And what if we have things, if the City Council has suggestions that they want
changed in what they see, does the School Board recognize those changes? I mean what
happens?
John Gockel: The School Board recognizes that it's an ongoing process. One of the things to
be aware of is that the, what you're looking at is two separate ownerships also. - There's
District ownership and there is the city ownership. For example, the gymnasium form that
you were talking about is not the District's property. It would be the city's property so there's
a blending here. In order for the school to be open in the fall of 1 95, it has to be under
construction this spring so we're going down several parallel paths at the same time. One
with the District. One with the City. One with the Planning Commission and various other
bodies. Another parallel path that we're going down is the purchase of the land. That should
take place by the end of January. The joint use agreement and joint powers agreement and
development agreement, all these things are taking place simultaneously.
Mancino: Now when the City sells the land to the School District, is it obligatory of the
School District to build an elementary school there by 1995, and that's the only use it can use
it for? Is the whole contract and the whole... predicated on that? And if it doesn't happen, if
there's not a school being built on it, it's null and void?
John Gockel: The District is purchasing the land. That's an agreement. The City and the
District will have a joint developers agreement to develop the site. To put buildings out there
and ballfields and roads and so forth. That's a second agreement. Not *dependent upon the
first. The third agreement would be the long, the agreement with a long life and that is how
the two governmental entities jointly use the property. Maintain it. Mow the grass. Plow the
snow and so forth. '
Krauss: You're raising an interesting point. I don't know exactly how that will be ... I've got
enough to deal with ... but you raise an interesting point. From what I understand about the
process, there's relatively little chance of that happening ... I mean there's a $45 million bond '
issue that was approved... What I'd be a little more concerned about, and I'm not even too
concerned about that is, what if the School Board comes back and says gee, this is much too
expensive. We've got to go cinder block.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994
Mancino: Yep.
' Krauss: At that point, I mean the School Board is a free agent, same as a developer is. I
mean you can come up with conditions that you impose on a developer and they can decide
to walk. If the School Board, you're approving a project here. It's like any other project you
approve. If radical changes come about, for whatever reason, between now and the time it's
built, then we have to make a call whether or not this is consistent with what you approved
and if it's not, it's got to come back. I think that's always the bottom line and nobody's really
' talking radical changes. I mean it's a massive project. There's going to be a lot of fine
tuning. But if something really went out of kilter, you still have the site plan approval. It
still has to be consistent with that. It's being zoned office institutional so there's not a whole
' lot else that can go here, which is why we picked that district.
I Ll-
Farmakes: Well if there's joint ownership, isn't also the City part of this applicant process
right now?
Krauss: Exactly and we will continue to own 20 acres of it.
Farmakes: But also structure as well, correct?
Krauss: A portion of the structure.
Mancino: I can't remember, I lost it. Thanks. Oh I know what it is. If we do rezone to IO ;
it limits that to schools, public buildings, offices and related uses. What are the related uses?
Krauss: Whatever we construe them to be. It's the ordinance gives me the authority to make
some interpretations. Failing agreement on that, my call can be expanded by the City
Council. It's never been a question. I mean it's a pretty restrictive district.
Mancino: I just want to know worst case.
Krauss: Well I suppose worst case would be an office building. I mean if you had an office
building go on this site, you could say that a daycare center is ... It wouldn't be a truck transfer
terminal.
Mancino: Going to wetlands. On the grading sheet here, there were some wetlands
designated and I assume that those wetlands that were put on the grading sheet are those that
are drained. They're not operational. But they are on here and I just wanted to make sure.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 1
Krauss: Yeah, Y Y
g
it's kind of confusing. The really don't belong on there and that's what we've
done over the last two months, three months of clarifying. It's a very confusing subject. It's,
by State law you're supposed to use the 1989 Army Corps Handbook. I've been told by ,
people ... that they can go into your back yard and find there's a wetland using that Handbook.
So you've got everybody and their mother out there selling services now. There's long
standing firms that have been in the wetland identification business and now every surveyor,
every engineer is all of a sudden a wetland expert and you're getting a lot of conflicting
information. We went the extra mile on this and sent our experts out. We went back and
consulted Frank Svoboda who helped us write our ordinance. We've bounced it off the Army
Corps and obviously they're comfortable with what we're doing.
Conrad: But these were not mapped on our official wetland map? '
Krauss: We had notes, survey notes of the thing. Of at least one of them on our map and we .
identified it as a drained wetland. And when we went back in there, the State log, the
historical definition of how long had it been drained. The State law is worded so that there's
a disincentive for example for authority to drain a wetland and turn around a year later and
sell it as developable. But these have been drained as long as anybody can recall. We even
checked the Soil Conservation Service and they said, they've been supporting farm measures
on this for decades. I
Mancino: The south, let's see. The widening of Galpin. When I read your report it said that
Galpin was going to be, there's four lanes from the south access boulevard up to Highway 5.
When I read the Barton - Aschman report that we got, it's from Timberline Drive up to Galpin.
Krauss: I think what's happening is the road, you don't just go to 4 lanes. You've got to
taper it. And the taper does start about that point.
Mancino: Okay. I didn't see anywhere in that Barton - Aschman report ... I didn't see anything
in the discussion for berming and landscaping.
Krauss: There isn't and that was a point that was raised by ... City Engineer and it's going to ,
be taken care of.
Mancino: Okay. The other, I thought I read it in the Barton - Aschman was that there was no '
mitigation wetlands for that south access boulevard where in your report there is a 5110 of a
mitigation that needs to happen where it crosses the creek.
d the jur we don't have a final... g rading ,
Krauss: Yeah...there may be some an � ry g g lan. How P
much is going to be impacted. You know, as I say, we've been trying to figure out ... exactly
20
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994
where the wetlands are. By and large the wetlands cease to exist at the property line between
I Timberwood and the farm fields ... So the road may in fact not. What, the road does not cross
any standing any wetlands but it does cross Bluff Creek and Bluff Creek at that point ceases
to be a very channelized creek as far as ... what is a wetland. So I think there is some and
we'll clarify that.
Mancino: And it will be a 2 to 1 mitigation, starting in '94?
Krauss: We've got to figure out. It's supposed to be as of last Friday or whatever. Yeah,
January 1. This is a project that's been in the hopper for 6 months. We've heard of a lot of
' communities that willy nilly kind of pre - approved all kinds of project before the deadline.
We haven't done that. But in this case we're comfortable with the fact that we've worked... It
was a project that was submitted to us in October. For a number of reasons we pushed it
' back and we'll have to see.
Mancino: Well I'd like to compliment staff on two concerns that I had that you brought up
' and were very well written in the report about the penthouses and how big they are. I would
like to see those scaled down also. And also the reclamation of the corridor creek. I think
that's wonderful and I hope we do it north of Highway S also. That if there is going to be
' development, that we do have that 100 foot buffer of get it back to the original native
whatever that is. So I commend you on that. My last thing has to do with bees. I don't
know where the bees came up but I don't know. That was very interesting. I looked at some
i of the trees and said, you know crab apples, yeah. They have flowers and they're going to
have bees. Lindens. American lindens have flowers. They're flowering. Washington
hawthoms are. Clover. I mean we're going to have bees around this area. I don't know. It
just doesn't seem to me to be that important. So I like the crab apples and I like the lindens
and I like the hawthorns. I like the use of them. I wouldn't want anybody who's allergic to
' get stung. There's no question about that. But I don't have a big problem' with the flowering
plants and the trees. And that's it.
' Scott: Alright. Ladd.
Conrad: Not too many questions. I like what I see. The parking seems to be a long way
away from ballfields and stuff like that. I assume we've checked it out for ambulance access
and it's there. It can get, we just don't have a problem. Okay. Picking up on the last point
in the staff report, or just the point we just covered. Restoring Bluff Creek. Paul, your staff
report says, in the recommendations it says per the staff report but basically you are saying
per DNR standards. Or whatever DNR says. So that's really what we're saying is talk to the
DNR. Restore.
' 21
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 1
1 Krauss: Right. If I knew the answer to that ahead of time, we would be more specific. We
don't but we're working with people who I think will tell us. ,
Conrad: Okay. I think that's a neat piece. The only other thing I've got is Bluff Creek
access. I'm not a real, I really don't understand the whole corridor but I know you need
access to utilize it. For real people to get there and, is this going to me? ,
Scott: News flash.
Conrad: It's a news flash. I can't talk and read at the same time. But anyway, here we have
an education site that connects to Bluff Creek which is, in my mind, just a perfect place for a '
real access to Bluff Creek. Now maybe there are other accesses with parking lots and what
have you so you can really utilize the corridor. Maybe there are. I don't know that but here
we have one. It connects. It's at a school. It should really be integrated into Bluff Creek. ,
Right here. So again, I love what I see. My only comment is, if we want to make use of, if
we really believe in Bluff Creek and you want to put a lot of attention to it and restoring, let's
make sure people have a way of getting there and a place to park their car. This looks like to ,
me the place to do it. That's all I have.
Scott: Good, Matt.
Ledvina: Just a couple more things to add. I think, I'm very concerned with the construction
of this south access boulevard as it relates to the trees along the south property boundary.
Now as I read the engineering plans, there's more than a 10 foot fill in the lowest spot where
that quasi wetland area is. And if the roadway is going right up within the dirt line of the
trees and you've got a 10 foot fill, that's not going to work. So without damaging those trees '
and I don't know the extent of that tree line and what significance that would have to the
folks associated with Timbercreek but I guess what I want, and I know'that's not at issue here
today and I know that that will all be revisited but again, I just want to raise my concern as it ,
relates to the grade of that road and potentially the alignment. I know perhaps it could be
shifted just slightly to the north to accommodate retaining walls or fill slopes or whatever is
necessary there. But again. '
Krauss: The City Engineer and I have looked at that and we had the same question and we're
pretty certain that if need be, and we need to get the details on that, that the road could be
routed 15 -20 feet north in most places and not really compromise anything on the school site
and just going to provide that separation in the roof lines. ■
Ledvina: There's also some grade changes that can be done to reduce that fill down. I don't
know how much but you know maybe 2, 4 feet. Every little bit helps when you're in that '
22
Ll
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994
1
situation. Let's see. I guess the only other thing I have to add, and we've touched on this as
it relates to Bluff Creek and I see the plan calls for grading within 20 feet of the center line
and I wouldn't want to see the plan move forward. The grading plan in this fashion. I think
that may be too close to the center line and if we are looking at essentially an all dirt
drainageway here, we are trying to restore it, well then that has merit and there would be
grading right, all the way into the center line if that's the case. But when I looked at this,
these plans I assumed that the channel was in it's natural condition and maybe the s not the
case so, through filling, you know erosion and sedimentation of the agricultural areas here. I
could see that. I would definitely support the restoration to the original conditions for the
corridor.
Scott: Diane.
i
1
Harberts: I guess I look at it from a public safety perspective. I know schools are very in
tune to the whole public safety liability. Has our Public Safety Department, committee taken
a look at this? Do they need to?
Krauss: I don't know if the Public Safety Committee has. We've circulated copies of the
plans to the Public Safety Department.
Harberts: That might be redundant because I'm certainly aware of how much it's scrutinized
by school districts or schools. The only other comment I made earlier was that I'd like to see
a recommendation number 8 added with regard to working with Southwest Metro in the
designing of the drop- off /pick -up turn around elements for public transit because it is so
heavily used by the elementary kids.
Scott: What's the status of the trail system? And I'm thinking from the standpoint of having
kids from adjacent neighborhoods who will be walking or will any child in this, you might
now know this right now but will every child who goes to that elementary be taking the bus?
Krauss: I think basically, well I don't know ... In terms of the trails, with the upgrading of
Galpin ... the County does their piece and the County by the way is using city money ... Turn
back of TIF dollars so we can finance the upgrade of Galpin ... If that happens, we'll have a
trail down Galpin. Basically from Highway 5 to Lyman Blvd. We've already had Hans
Hagen build a portion of it. With the east/west collector, which is also .... by the time the
school opens, we could well have the trail I hope basically over to Audubon. There's a
chance, or shortly thereafter when the school opens. And with what's happening on the
Centex property and the Opus property, we may have it over to TH 41 on the other side.
What we won't have in the near term is a way to get across Highway 5. But you will have a
signalized intersection at Galpin.
23
1
s
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 1
Harberts: I have a question for Paul. Or maybe John. You know I've been working with
some of the school districts with regard to the shortings that they have in school bus funds ,
and when you put a location like this out in the sticks a little bit, has the school looked at the
access by kids walking? By kids riding their bikes. You know have they looked at it from
how practical will that be? Is there a safety issue that they have to address with that? Has
that been part of the discussion in terms of the design like this? You know what's the current
track? Is it to have the kids ride bikes or whatever, and if we're going to have community
facilities like this, you know what's that element like too in terms of that kind of access
because with what we're seeing for growth, with what we're seeing you know earlier tonight
in terms of land use. You know some single family, multi- family even adjacent to that.
What's the trail system going to be like to like I said, make that more pedestrian friendly ,
access like that? Has that been integrated into the discussion at all?
John Gockel: Yes. One of the attractive aspects of this particular site was it's proximity to
,
anticipated trail systems. As far as, you know obviously safety is very important to the
district. We, I think we almost came to blows over who was more concerned about caring for
the kids and the school. Whether it was the parks commission or the principal. They both
claimed to be the end all of being concerned about that. You know as far as kids riding
bicycles to schools like many of us probably did. We don't live in those kinds of
communities any more. We're all out in the suburbs with people spread all over the place and
roads separating. So most of the kids will come by bus. Like I said, one of the attractive
aspects of this site was it's proximity to the trail systems. Many sites didn't even offer that
at.
potential. So this building, this facility is not in the sticks ... as some of the sites we looked
Harberts: Are there going to be bike racks put into this facility?
John Gockel: There will be some bike racks. _
Harberts: But it's not the feeling that there's going to be a lot of access, at least for school
,
class time by bike but maybe Paul by, for the community or the city rec.
Krauss: Oh yeah. I think when you look, when this place opens up, by the way, we may
,
also have the link completed if this Chan Corporate Center develops and comes in, we might
have the link down to Bluff Creek railway crossing which would mean that ... and all the
industrial, the people working there will be able to hop on that trail and go up to the
ballfields and yeah. That kind of thing will occur...
Harberts: You know recalling my younger days which weren't so long ago, right? You know
'
with that pedestrian bridge that's going over on Highway 5, I can see people from the north
side of town, central city here, crossing over and riding, walking, Rollerblading, or whatever
z� 24
'
a
i�
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994
even down to that location. It's not really that far if you're out on a Sunday afternoon or
whatever. And if there's activities like that in the summer, that's the kind of thing and that's
why I see that pedestrian bridge being real key too in terms of that kind of trail system. I
mean that's not that much of a hike. It's probably going to be a nice walk or however they
want to use it. So I guess that's, and I guess part of that public safety, you know like I said,
I'm very well aware of it and how well .school district's scrutinize that but it's just a question.
That's it. `
Scott: Okay. Can I have a motion?
Scott: Okay.
Harberts: I'll make a motion.
Harberts: Let me look at my page 13. I'll recommend that the Planning Commission approve
Site Plan Review #93 -6, Rezoning from A2 to OI and Preliminary Plat for the School District
#112 /City of Chanhassen Recreational Complex, subject to the following conditions. Number
2 we would add letter (e). To revise the landscaping plan as follows. To address the salt
spray with some of the landscaping elements suggested in earlier comments. Number 8. That
the applicant work with Southwest Metro in the designing of the drop off, pick -up, turn
around element that will accommodate public transit. I just have one question for Matt before
I close. Did you want to have anything with regard to supporting that it's restored to the
original conditions of the corridor that you talked about?
Ledvina: Sure.
Mancino: Isn't that in here?
Harberts: I'm not sure if that's fully covered.
Scott: Well number 4 doesn't quite address, because it just says stay out of the flood plain
but that has nothing to do with the restoration.
Ledvina: No, that'd be appropriate.
Harberts: Yep, and how would you like to see that worded?
Ledvina: I would think that.
Harberts: This would be added to number 4.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - January S, 1994
Ledvina: I would think that we could state that the applicant shall investigate the feasibility
of restoring the Bluff Creek corridor to it's original alignment and.
Krauss: I'm sorry but does 2(b) get to that?
Harberts: It's hard to say.
Ledvina: Provide plans that respond to the goal, I would think so. I'm sorry. I didn't see
that.
Harberts: Okay, so you're comfortable.
Mancino: You could put it on page 7.
Harberts: Okay, as described in the staff report on page 7?
Ledvina: Sure.
Scott: Is that strong enough? Okay.
Harberts: Okay. So basically we want to amend 2(b) to add that in the staff report as
outlined in page 7. And I'll move that recommendation.
Scott: Okay. Is there a second?
Mancino: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Farmakes: What about the roof line on that gym?
Harberts: On the west side? No, it wasn't on the west side.
Farmakes: It'd be on the northeast corner. The gym and the city portion of the building.
Harberts: Yeah, is that covered in number 1 or not? I wasn't sure.
Farmakes: I'm not sure it does.
Mancino: ... a little bit better specifically?
26
t
Planning Commission Meeting - January S, 1994
Farmakes: We could maybe word it, the city should look at alternatives to dealing with the
tangent massing roof line created by the gym and the support areas.
Harberts: Considered as number 9.
Farmakes: We could add it as a separate motion.
Scott: We'll skip the friendly amendment stuff. I think you're.
Harberts: That would be added number 9. What Jeff had just stated.
Scott: Are we all comfortable voting on that motion? Do we all understand what the intent
is and so forth?
Farmakes: The reason I bring it up as an intent is I'm wondering from that particular corner
of the building, based on what we've been reviewing with other applicants, whether or not we
would approve that. I look at it as say Target. I don't think we would approve that and why
is the city any different?
Harberts: Are you clarifying the intent of number 1 then? Or are we.
Farmakes: Well I didn't see that as, I saw that as more towards the issue of penthouse but if
you want to interrupt massiveness.
Krauss: You're spanning the scope of 1. I think the...came up with and just tack it on to.
Farmakes: Tack it on?
Harberts: Okay, as number 9?
Krauss: Or rather as expand 1...
Harberts: Oh, just expand 1, okay. I understand that intent.
Scott: Okay, so basically expand item number 1 to include reviewing the external treatment
of the gymnasium section so that it appears.
Farmakes: Break up the roof line.
Scott: Break up the roof line.
t-4
27
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 1
Farmakes: Alternatives for breaking up the roof line. ,
Scott: Okay. We've moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? I think we just had t
discussion.
Harberts moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City ,
Council approve Site Plan Review #93 -6, Rezoning from A2 to Ol and Preliminary Plat for
the School District #112 /City of Chanhassen Recreational Complex, subject to the following '
conditions:
1. Revise architectural plans to verify that all rooftop HVAC equipment is concealed from ,
Highway 5 and other views by enclosed penthouses, respond to staffs proposals for
minimizing the massiveness of the penthouses and make provisions for a concealed trash
enclosure as outlined in the staff report. Also, that the applicant look at alternatives to the ,
external treatment of the gymnasium section to minimize it's massiveness.
2. Revise the landscaping plan as follows: ,
a. Provide reforestation for the knoll located in the southwest comer of the site.
b. Provide plans that respond to the goal of restoring Bluff Creek Corridor as described '
in the staff report on page 7.
c. Provide a chain link safety fence between the roadways and ballfields.
d. Revise parking lot landscaping as required to meet current ordinance requirements for
tree species and green space.
e. To address some of the landscaping concerns as related to tolerance to salt spray.
3. Provide a trail connection between the terminus of the creek trail at soccer field 42 and ,
extend it to the access boulevard. Provide a sign indicating the presence of a temporary
dead end for the trail component running north from soccer field #2. '
4. Provide final grading, utility, erosion and ponding plans for City approval. No building or
grading is to occur until final plans have been provided. Grading plans are to be revised '
to protect the Bluff Creek Corridor and stay out of the flood plain.
5. Project approval by the Riley/Purgatory/Bluff Creek Watershed District. '
6. Revise the plat to describe the right -of -way for Galpin, the access boulevard, to the outlot
and the future right -of -way needed for Highway 5 widening. Revise plans as necessary to '
stay clear of the future Highway 5 right -of -way and Galpin Boulevard right -of -way and
maintain a minimum 35 foot setback from Galpin Boulevard.
28 ,
r]
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994
' 7 Relocate the staff parking lot as required to maintain 50 foot setback.
. P g q _
8. Worm with Southwest Metro Transit in designing the drop -off, pick-up and turn around
elements to accommodate public transit.
' All voted in favor and the motion canied unanimously.
' Scott: And this will be going to the City Council?
Krauss: On January 24th.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
' Farmakes moved, Mancino seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission
meetings dated December 1, 1993 and December 4, 1993 as presented. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS.
j ' Mancino: You know this packet, the two letters you wrote to Brad and to Mr. Hiscox.
You're talking about our schedule for the next two months or, my life is planned now. On
February 2nd my question is Paul, we're going to look at a Chanhassen Corporate Center
concept PUD. Will that have some conflict of again Highway 5? And having the Highway 5
draft approved and everything?
' Krauss: Well it puts you in the same ballpark that you were in when you reviewed Opus and
you reviewed Centex. That you're being asked to do something and ... a concept and anything
you do would be contingent upon adoption...
' Mancino: Okay. Just so close to Highway 5, I was wondering if we'd want to wait and do
anything on Highway 5 until after City Council is done. Okay.
An other administrative Scott: Okay. y approvals or open discussion?
Ledvina: I had a question on the Industrial Performance Standards. Why was this review
initiated?
Krauss: ...regarding documents that need ... We read a book ... so I asked Bob to check it
against our standards to see if we were still current.
29
t
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 I
Ledvina: Okay, so this was regulating city planning type stuff? I
Krauss: Yeah...
,
Farmakes: Are we still in open discussion?
,
Scott: Yes. Open discussion.
Farmakes: I have a question of Paul. At the end of our meeting here, or work session, we
'
saw a couple of developments. I'm surprised we haven't seen something from the Mill's
property. Has there been any further bringing forward of what their development would be or
are we expecting to see several possible developments from the future either taking into
regard the work that was done on TH 5 or totally disregarding it? Is that the, is there
anything else out there in the closet?
Krauss: Nothing that I've been made aware of. You know I think I reported to you that...
where they thought the road should be with MnDot and ... talk to us.
'
Interestin . Well we'll et a very disjointed road I think by the time we're done.
Farmakes: Interesting. g
It will be quite a patchwork. I was I guess surprised by the developments that were brought
forward. I don't know if anyone else was expecting to see a golf course. I had heard rumors
'
about that. I'm just wondering if we're looking, it hasn't been altered as I understand for the
last couple of years.
'
Mancino: It was never brought in front of the Highway 5 Task Force.
Farmakes: Well he said it was a possibility I believe. He did get up and mention it ... or at
'
least as we know it.
Scott: Well, and like I kind of shared with some of the other people. I'm the first one to say
'
that I'm not a golf course designer but I do play a fair amount of golf and I'm very familiar
with what the USGA specifies as far as tee to green minimums and maximums for different
par lengths and just from what I know as a golfer, that golf course layout would not, he
'
would not be able to get that approved by the USGA. And it looked like it was pretty maxed
out as far as tee to greens but.
'
Krauss: Well also when you look at that, I mean Mike needed, he has 11 homes on a private
driveway. I mean he's got an existing driveway curb cut now for his home and he's entitled
'
to have one access to the highway but nobody's going to be very desirous of having him
expand that so that you serve a golf course, club house and family homes. Then he had a
30
;
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994
multi family senior building with another driveway. The fact is, you need a road to serve that
someplace.
Farmakes: The park commission, once I saw that drawing, is the park commission, a little
bell went off in my head. Have they looked into the long term connectiveness of that leg to
Lake Ann, going around to the trail system that the city already has?
Krauss: I know that they have. I know they've talked about it ... and I believe it's in their
current comprehensive plan update. But in the past, you know there were some links in there,
it's been showed ... links that got knocked out around the north side of Prince where there's
kind of the isthmus between the two lakes.
Farmakes: I'm very familiar with that property.
Krauss: ...and I think that was knocked out 5 -6 years ago.
' Farmakes: Well, there's no reason to knock it out. There are current trails there following,
even before Prince was there. There is a natural trail already that follows the lake and goes
out to right in front of his, in fact it connects with the existing park and beach. And none of
' that area is developed and it goes all the way around to the creek on the north side that
divides Prince's property from the park that the city owns. And there is a natural trail there.
In fact there is a natural trail that goes around Lake Lucy also and connects on the other side.
t I assume that these were deer trails at one time and they're probably expanded by the previous
owners and I know.
' Mancino: Horses.
Farmakes: Well Larson owned the property before Prince. I believe. he hired a caretaker
' couple and their job in the winter time was to cut out the dead fall and keep those trails open.
And it is, it's an enormous asset and I know that a future asset but I know that by the
topography of the land, and the setbacks that the State currently requires, much of that land
' would be difficult to develop. And if we do have some leeway with trails, I know that there's
some difficulty putting trails in the back of people's homes. But based on what we've already
invested in Lake Ann, it would seem to me that at least in the long term scope, that maybe
they should start thinking about that a little more seriously.
' Krauss: I'll raise it again to Todd. I know it's something he's discussing...
Farmakes: Because Prince owns the majority of, owns all of that property around - the lake
' and I don't know what any pieces missing would be.
' 31
J
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994
Krauss: Yeah interestingly we've, I think I mentioned this, we've had some fairly serious ,
sounding interest in developing Prince's property. I mean beyond somebody just making a
wild call and saying, what would you let me do on this property. It sounded like some ,
people...
Farmakes: But the division between Lake Lucy and Lake Ann, the strip that goes up there ,
and then as it gets to the west there's sort of a rise of the land and down on each side there's
quite a slope that comes out. If you take the setbacks required and any roads that would have
to access that property, it's undevelopable. You cannot develop it. And if you put a road ,
plus the setbacks, that's all you're going to get because there isn't going to be any room for a
house. And at least that's really, if you take that into consideration, you've got 3/4 of the lake
there already. And except for that west side that connects and that little bit of the south '
where, I don't believe he's developed a beach area there. It's essentially wild.
Krauss: If you go on our beach and walk to the end of our... ,
Farmakes: Right. And there is a little trail there because I've walked it many times over the
years and it goes back through there. Connects back to Prince's property and then you go up
a hill and then you go down and basically there's an existing trail that people have driven cars
on. That goes around the lake. So it is a, it'd be a real future resource I think when
something like Lake Harriet comes to mind.
Scott: Yep. Yeah. Yeah. I concur with that 100 %.
Ledvina: I have a question regarding Highway S. Now to kind of change the subject but we
talked about an ordinance that is going to be ready for us to review. What's the schedule on
that?
Krauss: Well basically the standards are in the back of the plan.
Ledvina: They're in Chapter 7, is that correct?
Krauss: Yeah.
Ledvina: Okay. So that's going to provide the framework for the ordinance?
Krauss: Right. We're having the attorney just take that and put it into ordinance form so that
he can review that...
Ledvina: So that's two meetings...
32
�I
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994
I Harberts: Do you think the public hearing will go two meetings?
' Krauss: I hope not.
Harberts: That's full meetings. Or one full meeting.
Ledvina: The reason that I ask is we didn't even scratch that in terms of
Krauss: Oh well the next work session next Wednesday, is devoted to that.
Mancino: And nothing else?
' Krauss: Well we've P
of to finish u a couple of these land use things.
g
' Scott: I've got a quick question too on a work session. My personal opinion is that a work
session is for the Planning Commission and staff to work things out and it's nice to have
people talk but personally I don't think there's any place to have outside input, unless it's
' something that we ask somebody to do ahead of time. But I'm not familiar with what we can
and can't do at a work session. But my guess is.
Conrad: We have control.
Scott: Yeah. Then I would rather not see any of that kind of stuff unless it's been requested
by city staff.
' Krauss: ...when Mike Gorra says he's been talking about this for 2 years. I don't want to
argue with him but two years ago the city was talking about a golf course and I believe he
met with Don and said well, I might like to do that someday.
' Scott: Weren't they talking about potentially buying Bluff Creek Golf Course?
' Krauss: Yeah. Right, and Mike ... said you can't do that because I'm going to plan a ... golf
course and every time we said, well you know if you're really serious, show us ... I didn't think
you could squeeze one in on 140 acres. I talked to Fred Hoisington and he said you could
but you've got to use up all the land. Well, he's taking 10 acres of it for those houses and
then he's got that senior so I don't know.
' Scott: I have a feeling we're going to see a big residential development on that property and
not a golf course.
33
is
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994
Krauss: Yeah, well it's...
Harberts: Do we have a time on that meeting next Wednesday? Is that at 6:00?
Krauss: Was it on the schedule for 6:00?
Harberts: Yeah. Would you like send out a reminder or something or have someone call us.
Conrad: When do we elect a new Chairman?
Scott: When do we adjourn?
Krauss: You can do that right now actually if you feel like it, before you adjourn.
Conrad: Brian's gone? Brian's gone.
Krauss: We did not send Brian a packet, I'm assuming that he's formally off and Brian wasn't
planning on coming I gather.
Conrad: Oh I thought he was.
Mancino: I thought we were going to wait until we got the new person to elect...
Farmakes: Well the seat's been taken so I don't think that Brian's going to show up anyway.
Scott: I think we should wait to do anything formal until we have our new person on board.
Or do you care?
Conrad: No. That doesn't mean anything.
Scott: Okay. I just figured out courtesy.
Conrad: No. We don't care. They don't know how to vote. They'll be invalid to vote.
Scott: That's kind of like when the 3 of us were voting.
Krauss: Whatever you want to do...
Harberts: Let's just do it. I nominate Joe for Chair.
34
t
t
I
1
1
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994
Ledvina: I second that nomination.
Harberis moved, Ledvina seconded to appoint Joe Scott as Chairman of the Planning
Commission for 1994. All voted in favor and the motion carved
Conrad: For Vice Chairman, Chairperson, I nominate Nancy.
Scott: I'll second that.
Conrad moved, Scott seconded to appoint Nancy Mancino as Vice Chairman of the Planning
Commission for 1994. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mancino moved, Fazmakes seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried The meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m.
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
35
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 19 1994
Chairman order at 7:30 .m. man Scott called the meeting p
MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Mancino, Jeff Farmakes, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Joe
Scott and Diane Harberts
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director and Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner I
PUBLIC HEARING: ,
HIGHWAY 5 CORRIDOR STUDY AND EAW FOR THE NORTH ACCESS
BOULEVARD ALIGNMENT ANALYSIS. THE PROPOSED HIGHWAY 5 OVERLAY
ORDINANCE WILL ALSO BE REVIEWED AT THE HEARING. THE ORDINANCE '
ESTABLISHES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DESIGNED TO IMPLEMENT THE
GOALS OF THE PLAN. THESE RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS WILL BE
FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR FINAL DECISION. '
Public Present:
'
Name
Address
Arboretum
,
Peter Olin
Mn Landscape
Frank Clemmens
Camiros, Chicago, IL
Joyce Levine
Camiros, Minneapolis
'
Roger Schmidt
8301 Galpin Blvd.
Paul Paulson
3160 West 92nd Street, Chaska
Steve Schwauke
RLK Associates, 922 Mainstreet, Hopkins
,
John Dobbs
Heritage Development, 450 East Co. Rd D,
Little Canada
James Unruh
Barton - Aschman Assoc
'
Barry Warner
Barton - Aschman Assoc
Deborah Porter
Barton- Aschman Assoc
Lee & Pat Kerber
Chanhassen
'
Charles & Susan Markert
Chanhassen
Caroline Watson
DataServ, Inc.
Don Honeck
DataServ, Inc.
'
Jim Paulet
DataServ, Inc.
Lisa & Ray Notermann
Chanhassen
Colleen Dockendorf
2061 Oakwood Ridge
Mike Mason
829 Woodhill
Betty & Larry VanDeVeire
4980 Co. Rd 10E, Chaska
,
1
�
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19,:1994
Name Address
Terry Forbord
Lundgren Bros.
Jay Dolejsi
6961 Chaparral Lane
Michele Foster
Opus Corp, P.O. Box 150, Mpls.
John Uban
DSU /Gateway
Brad Johnson
7425 Frontier Trail
Robert L. Hoffman
Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren
1500 NW Financial Center, Bloomington
Peter Beck
1500 NW Financial Center, Bloomington
Paul Krauss and Kate Aanenson presented the staff report along with the planning consultants,
Barry Warner, John Unruh and Deborah Porter from Barton- Aschman to outline the work that
has been done on the Highway 5 Corridor Study, Environmental Assessment for North
Highway 5 Access Boulevard and the Highway 5 Corridor Overlay Zone. Chairman Scott
then called the public hearing to order and opened up the floor for public comment.
Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Terry Forbord.
I'm with Lundgren Bros, 935 East Wayzata Blvd, Wayzata, Minnesota. If it's okay, I'll use
the visuals that are provided to you from the consultants. Some of you may know that
Lundgren Bros has approximately a 200 acre neighborhood community not very far north of
Highway 5, located between Galpin Blvd and Highway 41. It's been commonly referred to,
through the preliminary plat process as the Johnson/Dolejsi/Tumer and Song property. Now
as a part of that land holding, Lundgren Bros has an interest in a piece of property that comes
down to and abuts and is contiguous to Highway 5. And that property is the property that
I'm depicting with my pointer here.
Scott: Could you do that again please?
Terry Forbord: It's commonly known as the Jay Dolejsi property, which you probably will
recognize the name Dolejsi as it was a part of our preliminary plat approval. One of them
anyway. Lundgren Bros obviously has an interest in what you're all talking about in regards
to this property. I'm going to talk to you specifically about the road and the land use. We
have volunteered to participate in this process and unfortunately our participation was not
accepted. But being now that the formal public hearings have started before the Planning
Commission, I'm here to share our feelings with you. I know, I'm a little confused in that
the land use that's described in this document and on the exhibits and the color are a little
different than what I hear people talk about. It's our understanding from looking on the
colored map here that the land use in this general area was to be medium and high density.
FA
1
planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 f ,
,
However Commissioner ' i ner Mancino I believe was talking about some of this area being single
family. I'd like to tell you as a provider of housing, I would love to be able to share with
I do. But from
you that that should be residential single family housing, because that's what
a planning perspective, these would be horrendous parcels of property to locate detached
single family, private ownership housing in this particular area. And the reason is because
the topography in that area is generally high where Alternative #1 is and it lowers down to
Highway 5 approximately I'm guessing 60 to 65 feet. And I don't know very many people
that are going to buy homes at the price that homes go for in Chanhassen and have them
abutting Highway 5. At least for detached single family type of homes. And because of the
elevation, it's going to be very difficult to berm that and even if you ... on top of that berm,
you're not going to be able to screen the impact of either the view or certainly providing
the... for the sound of the highway traffic in general. So from purely a planning standpoint, I
'
believe that these areas that would be just north of the highway should be either multi- family
ownership or rental or apartment buildings or something along that line. Now, let me just
Before task force was commenced with
'
editorialize a little bit about why I believe that. the
it's undertaking on the project, I think that it was clear that the City Council mentioned where
they were concerned about what it would look like, not only when it was built but 20 years
from now. If you put low priced, and that's what would be there. I mean I don't know how
i
you achieve that with the land prices in Chanhassen but if they were less expensive homes,
you're not going to end up seeing what I believe that the city hopes to see in that corridor...
within the highway. So I think you should just think about that before you make any
whether it is given to medium density or high
decisions. Now again I'm a little confused
density or single family because I've got some conflicting information. As it relates to the
roadway alternatives, I believe that Alternative #1 generally is the appropriate location. I'm
just talking from a layout and if you're familiar with the site and you've spent any time out
there. However I do believe that probably, and I know this is general and it's not cast in
concrete. At least that's my understanding. I believe that it's probably a little more
appropriate to move that road maybe 100 yards south. I don't understand why it needs to go
through the trees. I think you could bring that out into the open a little bit. The way I look
at that, when I look at a transition zone from highway to higher density to lower density, I
use that road as part of the buffer. That road actually becomes a transition zone in itself
between lower density housing and higher density housing so, and given that there's a stand
'
of trees that's kind of goes in this general area, I believe this road could be actually coming
down to the south here and it creates an area of an upland area, kind of like a peninsula, that
protrudes out into that wetland area. So for the record I wanted to enter those comments and
,
if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer those either today or at a later date. Thank
you.
,
Scott: Terry, let me just ask you a quick question. From my recollection you're the first
land owner or land owner representative that has preferred Alternative #1 even though it
3
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19;•.1994=
pretty much cuts your property in half. And could you give us some comments on that Is it
because it's a buffering? Is it because you'd have to build one through there anyway to
service the parcel?
Terry Forbord: No. I don't like collector roads ever going through our property because they
create problems but they also can be a necessity. I look at it like I say from a land use. I
always give every piece of property that I'm developing the would I live there test. Or if I
did live there, how would I want it to be. I run it through that test myself. So I mean
whether I was living in a townhome or an apartment or single family dwelling, how would I
put them on this property given the physical constraints that exist around and on the property,
' how would I do it? So when I look at this, I realized that it would probably make some
sense to have that collector road there. So where would you put it where it would have the
least impact on the site. It will provide for a reasonable layout of the land to accommodate
t the various uses. Now again from my perspective I think there should be more than one use
on that site because I don't think this portion is good for single family detached private
ownership housing. Who'd want to live there? One of us have to do that test when you
' make that decision. But I think it's a great site for apartments or rental housing, and that's
not a bad thing. Just because they're rental or apartments doesn't mean it's bad. They
certainly do a very good job with those types of housing products.
Scott: Paul that's, I mean according to this, that's medium density south of, okay.
' Terry Forbord: In the exhibit I see, I believe it's medium and I'm not sure if it's high
because these two colors are so close.
' Scott: There's really only one high density area, as far as I understand it and that is the area
that is just to the east of Powers Boulevard. Correct? Are there any other high density
areas? That's the only one that I, okay. So basically what we have is we have medium
density south of Alternative #1 and then we have low density or RSF, residential single
family up above, so. So you concur with, okay.
Farmakes: I think some of the confusion came from what Nancy mentioned. Rather than list
it as residential, it said single family.
Aanenson: Right. If you read the supporting text that follows it, it mentions that that was
one of...summary of the recommendations...
' Terry Forbord: As it relates to that text, under potential uses in the second paragraph, should
that be west instead of east? I was a little confused. Multi- family residential appropriate for
' along Highway 5, blah, blah, blah, uses east of Galpin. Should that be west?
4
t
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 1
Farmakes: It's both. I
Terry Forbord: Or both, east and west. That's what I was.
Aanenson: Yeah. It's both.
Te rry Forbord: Thank you. Thank you very much.
Scott: Okay, thanks Terry. Anyone else?
,
Jim Paulet: Planning Commission. My name is Jim Paulet. I'm the facility's manager at
DataServ. We're located at 19011 Lake Drive East which is the far east end of the project.
'
We're not even on the map here. Southeast corner of the far east of the project. We are the
new owners of that site. We recently purchased that site from Sunlink, which is the real
estate arm of our parent company. And our plan at this time, we currently have 315
employees there. We've been there since 1988. And our plan at this time is to move an
additional 350 employees from Eden Prairie to Chanhassen in 1996. And at this time, I have
a letter with me that I guess is addressed to Paul Krauss. We met with Paul yesterday and
'
Todd Gerhardt and at this time we'd like to express our opposition to the approval of the
Highway 5 corridor use study until we have had a chance to conduct our own land use study.
We believe that it's possible that some of the restrictions, the setback restrictions, the design
,
restrictions, could greatly impact the developability or salability of our land. And until we
have a chance to do our own study, we just don't feel we're in a position to approve this
plan, or we would like to see this plan approved. So we're just asking for time to conduct
,
our own land use study. We are brand new owners of the land and we intend to commence
our study as soon as possible, which they're looking already for architectural engineering firm
'
to do that for us. Thank you. Any questions?
Mancino: What property?
Jim Paulet: This would be the former CPT site.
5?
Scott: Is that the Sunlink that was right on the comer of Dell Road and Highway
Harberts: East side?
Krauss: This entire site right here.
'
Jun Paulet: Appro y 55 acres of land.
Approximately
5
�I
'J
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
Farmakes: Are you opposed necessarily to a particular or you're not sure at this time whether
you are or aren't? So you can study the issue.
Jim Paulet: ...until we've had a chance to do our own study.
Scott: And of the 350 employees, are you going to be moving out of, you have a facility in
Eden Prairie? You'll be moving out of that and closing that facility or whatever and
relocating all of your employees?
Jim Paulet: Our current lease terminates in 1996. The intention at this time is to move those
individuals or those employees to the Chanhassen site.
Scott: Okay. Any questions or comments for Jim? Okay, thank you.
Michele Foster: Members of the Planning Commission, my name is Michele Foster. I'm
Director of Real Estate Development for Opus Corporation. I'll be brief this evening. I
know that we had talked about the Opus Corporation property at Highway 5 and 41 many
times before. This month celebrates the 2 year anniversary of our getting involved with this
property and we hope we're starting to make some progress on developing...in what happens
to this property. I know that at one of your last meetings John Uban of the firm of DSU
presented to you some of the land use changes that are now considering and actually are now
proposing for the property which are summarized both in a previous meeting and by Kate
Aanenson of your staff. I will not go into details. Those are summarized here in this letter
and in order to respect your agenda this evening I won't go into those in great detail. What
I'd like to direct your attention to specifically is on page 3 which is our specific request
regarding the...some of which may be more appropriate for the City Council but several of
which are obviously appropriate this evening. Our first request, probably one of those is
more appropriately directed to the City Council but we are asking that the City explore all
possible sources of State and Federal funding for this south access road which as I
understand, would also benefit the north access road and we only ask to be treated equally as
far as that road. Our second request is with respect to the land use plan. We have obviously
a number of objections to the land use plan as it's currently proposed in the task force study
but the task force study did prompt us and our consultants to make a number of modifications
to our land use plan, which as I mentioned before have been summarized for you. That
would basically result in the IOP class if being retained for all of the property with the
exception of the one multi- family site on the west side of TH 41. We think that that
addresses a number of concerns that were addressed by the Highway 5 task force, by the
Arboretum, by a number of the interest groups that have looked at our property and we would
strongly request that the land use plan, as we are now proposing it, be incorporated into the
final recommendations in the study. Our third request has to do with the parks and open
N
s
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 1
'
' n
space issue and I can maybe clarify a tittle bit the question th at was raised about that. We
had originally proposed in our concept plan for the park a significant passive park area that
would be dedicated as a part of the planning process. A good part of that property is wetland
area but another significant area is also upland and wooded and would provide for a very nice
passive park. As we understand it, the Park and Recreation Commission is now in
concurrence with that proposal and again that is something that evolved throughout this
,
process and we would request that the final recommendation by the Planning Commission
incorporate the passive park element of the Gateway Business Park. The fourth item that we
would draw your attention to are a couple of the design standards that are included within the
'
overlay district. The setback in the task force report is recommending to use 70 feet and we
would request that that be reduced to 50 feet. We feel that a 50 foot setback is more than
adequate in combination with the variety of other components of the overlay district that are
'
also being incorporated such as no parking on the Highway 5 side. The request and the
desire for high design standards. We think a 70 foot setback is excessive and we would
request that it be recommended to be 50. And the other objective that we have, and is really
,
a more subjective standard is the requirement for significant visual relief being provided for
industrial buildings. We understand what the objective of the design standard is but we also
'
need to respect the fact that industrial programs have certain functional requirements that may
not always be able to be met through steps in the building or architectural components of the
building and we think that this needs to be at least modified or tailored so that we can
'
provide architectural relief through a variety of different components but not necessarily
through stepping of the building or major elements of the building being ... The fifth item is, I
believe a little bit of reservation because it isn't perfectly clear to us what importance this
'
particular element of the task force study has but our fifth recommendation or request has to
do with Figure 8.21 in the task force study which is referred to as the parcel site analysis.
There are numerous architectural, design objectives stated for the property that we are
,
involved in and we feel very strongly that should all of these be required . of this development,
there will be a significant taking of the property. There are requests and I go into this earlier
in the letter but we are providing a number of or meeting a number of those objectives
,
already in the plan that we've proposed for the park but if we need to provide new ... provide
major view corridors, resource corridors, wetland preservation, there's just so many objectives
that if you actually look at that particular figure in the task force report, you get dramatic
'
impacts on the developability of this property. So all we ask is that there be some
clarification that these objectives for the property have to take into consideration the
economic viability of being able to develop this property in a reasonable manner, and that
'
perhaps not all of the multitude objectives that are being stated for this property can be met
simultaneously. So with that I'll conclude my comments. I'm prepared to answer any
questions that you may have. John Uban is also here this evening from DSU. Certainly our
'
most important objective have to do with the land use component for this property and we
hope you'll take our request under consideration. Thank you.
7
L'A
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
r Mancino: A question I guess I have of Paul. Number one ... is the city at this time exploring
possible State and Federal funding for the south access road?
Krauss: No, we have not. When we originally entered into discussions with MnDot on this,
they expressed a desire to work with us on the north side. Not only because of the continuity
' between Highway 41 and 101. The south side road we think is important and necessary but
it's discontinuous because it's broken into 5 or 6 segments. So MnDot initially expressed on
behalf of themselves and ... the desire to work with us on the north side. Now in fact that
' north side in cooperation needs to become problematic because they're pushing they're
construction horizons so far away that it's inevitable that we're going to need parts of the
road prior to their ability to...There are some things that we've been discussing with Opus and
' Michele and I and that has more to do with establishment of a tax increment district and
devoting some of those funds to offsetting some of the development costs.. We need to
further those discussions. It's not clear exactly yet what would be funded by those tax
' increment proceeds. But that's probably the only source of revenue...
Scott: Any other questions or comments? Okay, thank you.
' Conrad: A quick one Paul. The sketch from Opus that we saw last week and the road
alignments there. Because you worked with Opus, or they responded to some of our concerns
' in the previous meeting. I'm not sure if the concern with the road is a response to a previous
plan or is concerned as we kind of saw it last week and as our plan states. Maybe that's
confusing what I just said.
' Aanenson: No, I think they're two separate issues. I think they're just concerned about the
cost of putting that whole segment of road project and participation on the north segment.
' 1 five to the other design issues?
Krauss: Rea S
' Conrad: Yeah.
Krauss: These things don't, I mean we're not working in vacuums. These are kind of
ongoing processes. The plans, the, concept plans that are in the Highway 5 plans are just that.
I mean they are not hard and fast. Thou shalt design your project this way. Their goals,
' design goals that we wanted to adhere to, we could take a look to see if, in light of the most
recent proposal which we have, they're uncomfortable with, that we should go back and
tinker with that. But again it's a concept and I think we decided at our last meeting when
' John Uban gave his presentation that we believe that we went into this process about a year
ago now with 14 -15 outstanding design items on this project and we seem to have resolved
the wide share of them with their revised plan.
8
1
J
t.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
Conrad: I came out of that meeting last week thinking that the north/south road alignment
seemed to start fitting together much better. I didn't hear any concerns from Opus about how
that was fitting. I didn't hear any concern with the east/west at that point in time so I'm
really kind of, I'm not sure. I hear one, or I read something that you're very concerned about
it and I hear Paul saying that we can tinker with it a little bit. Now I don't know what the
issue is. Obviously it's a plan and things are going to change but based on the sketch that we
saw a week ago, I didn't go away from that meeting thinking things were out of whack.
Michele Foster: What we think we are here this evening talking about though is the official
document that's in front of you that is at divergence with where the process has evolved
to ... and all that we are asking is that we have a problem with what is in the official study that
is being considered this evening and we would like to have incorporated in the most recent
processes that we have gone through because you're right. Today we're in a much different
place even than when the task force report was done. So we're just asking that it be brought
to you.
Conrad: I understand.
Krauss: You know it may be beneficial but I think this is a concern that's going to occur
whenever we did one of these things and we did 7 or 8 of them, that when we look on ... well
where Chapter 8 starts where we go into a description of what the development concepts are,
that we make clear that these are just that. Conceptual studies not meant for construction
purposes and ... express concerns and issues that we have ... is one way of dealing with that.
Relative to Opus' speck concerns, we could go back and tinker with those. We said that
the 100 % ... everybody's in agreement with it, I suppose you could... For example, the road
that they proposed is kind of an amalgamum of what we're proposing here and what they had
originally proposed and I think it works better than either one of those two original
suggestions so, I think that's a normal process.
Scott: What kind of dialogue? It was interesting I think when Mr. Uban showed the eastern
side of their project and moved the boulevard and said, oh by the way the people from
Centex can just move their buildings over here. I was taken aback by that but I assume that
there has been some dialogue inbetween city staff, Centex and Opus or is this just another
example of well we don't really care too much about our neighbor over here. We're just
going to stick it here. What's the process?
Krauss: Part of our job is to make sure that the pieces fit together.
Scott: Okay, because that didn't' fit.
N
1
1
0
1
n
1
Lam'
I �
J
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
Krauss: Well, we raised the, but it didn't fit but in our conversations with Opus, we thought
that it was a better proposal for everybody and Centex would have seen ... but a point in fact,
we received notice last week that Centex is not going forward with that project anyway.
Scott: So it doesn't matter.
Aanenson: So the next person we can then communicate that.
Scott: Okay. So then basically that road is going to be set by the Opus development. Okay.
Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission?
Lee Kerber: Members of the Planning Commission, my name is Lee Kerber and I have
several questions. One of them is, why don't we get our map upgraded here so it's proper?
You're about 45 feet off and it goes right back to the creek line back here. I brought it to
someone's attention a few years ago—well, if it takes as long to change the map, it takes that
long to run me out of town, I'll be happy. By that time I'll probably be dead anyway. I'm
one of the few original natives of Chanhassen. I don't know if there's anyone else in the
room here that was born in this area or not. I'm quite concerned about why you're staying
this far away from Highway 5 and then all of a sudden you get right back next to it here with
that frontage road. You've got 145 feet between the highway right -of -way and my gardens
and then you've got 20 -30 feet of garden. You've got another 20 -30 feet of house, and then
you plan to -come right on the north edge of my house. I particularly don't see any reason
why that's necessary. Also, at the present time if you brought a frontage road up to your
park property, your park driveway, that would make a lot of sense. There's a lot of traffic
having problems getting in and out of the park every day throughout the summer. If you put
your frontage road up to the park property, you would eliminate a lot of the possibility that
they could take the frontage road and go up to CR 17. They'd have no problems getting
across. It'd make a lot more sense in my opinion to do it that way. Then another question.
What's the time frame when they think about going all the way out to Highway 41? Does
anyone know? Does anyone have any kind of an idea what I'm supposed to prepare for?
Krauss: Yeah, that's a real valid concern and any time you're looking at buying somebody's
house for something like this, it's obviously where the road ... is a big issue. Two years ago
when we started this, MnDot was telling us that they had the money to go ahead with this
thing in 2 -3 years. They now tell us it's 6 years and what's leading, what this is leading us
to believe is that certainly between Powers and Galpin this is going to, it has to be a project
that is done by the city in conjunction with whoever develops property. So I can't give you a
definitive date. Probably until, what we've been talking about in -house is the road needs to
be built up to the park entrance 2 years ago. That needs to be done right away. Other
stretches of it are going to be contingent upon when development occurs. I think at your last
to 10
1
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
meeting you heard that there's one development proposal in the near offing on the Conway
property that is coming into this area from the west. And potentially a golf course or
something else, a golf course with something else inbetween. We're doing the same thing on
the south side. The road's being built in pieces as development occurs. One of the issues
that's going to have to be brought up to the City Council, and I don't have an answer for this
but it is a concern. We're having the same question on Highway 101 where the ultimate
alignment for improving Highway 101 south of Highway 5 seems to need to take 2 houses.
Is that we need to go to the City Council and say these people have legitimate concerns here.
You can't hold somebody hostage for some unlimited period of time without knowledge of
how this is going to come about. If the city's going to define a roadway corridor, then we
have some kind of an obligation to work with the property owner to try to say if you're
looking for an early buyout, maybe we can arrange something. If the road's going to be built
on a delayed timeframe, they need to know what it is. I don't have a good answer for that
right now but it is something we need to carry forward . to the City Council.
Lee Kerber: Well, as far as I'm concerned, I could live with being between the highway
property and my house. It could be bermed. It could go next to the highway along here
instead of taking the old house where I was born. You're not just taking my home. You're
not just taking a place I built to live in for a little while. I was born on that property.
You're taking my whole life away as far as a place, it's not just a house. It's home. If you
can come back next to the highway here, why can't you do it here.
Mancino: Mr. Kerber, can I see your solution?
Lee Kerber: Pardon?
Mancino: I couldn't see you. I couldn't see what you were pointing to. Could you show me
what you are suggesting?
Lee Kerber: This piece right here, the red property is mine. And you could come down
here through your tree farm. Those trees are going to be replanted anyway. All along here
you're talking about all kinds of trees. Save the trees. I've got trees that are 25 -30 feet in
tall and there's some of them this big in diameter. You're going to have to cut them down if
you go through my house. The tree farm over here, those are little trees that are an inch and
a half, two inches in diameter. They're going to be moved anyway. I think that's something
that could be considered.
Krauss: There is a design reason for that but there's also potentially an issue that needs to be
looked at. This was raised with the task force. The reason the road has to bump up over
there is if there's going to be an intersection of Audubon Road, for safety sake you need to
11
1
u
1
1
L r
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
offset it from Highway 5. We've done the same thing with 78th Street which is where we
just kinked it up and moved it back away from Highway 5. There are those on the task force
' who question whether or not you need the north leg of that intersection of Audubon. If in
fact this connection is necessary at all. That if Audubon Road stays the way it is today as a
3 way intersection, there would not be the need from a design standpoint to bump that road
' up to the north. This was the recommendation of the task force I think was to keep it like
this but that was certainly an issue that I recall being discussed and something the Planning
Commission members counted on. Now James, is there anything ... that you wanted to add to
' that?
James Unruh: You said it. You said it just right Paul. The only other comment Paul that
you'd want to make is that the new lanes of Highway 5 are going to be north of the existing
lanes as well. So you'd be squeezing 2 more lanes of Highway 5 on the north side of the
lanes and then a frontage road. So it would still gets awfully tight but what you just said
Paul about Audubon Road is right. It needs to be determined whether we really do need an
intersection there or not.
' Lee Kerber: Well, if you delay it for about 10 years I might be gone anyway.
iJ
�I
Scott: I kind of wonder too then if we have development, I think that the Gorra property and
some other property, how would, with no access onto Highway 5, because I know MnDot is...
to add any more access points so we'd still end up in a situation where you'd have to get out
somehow.
Krauss: You're going to have intersections onto Galpin and Powers which will be the
signalized intersections on Highway 5. That's probably sufficient to handle what's going to
happen. Then after all, I mean we also questioned on the south side. When MnDot first laid
out this highway 20 years ago it all went through corn and soybean fields and they said okay,
you can have intersections inbetween every major street that have in Chanhassen. In today's
world, looking at a town of 35,000 people at some point in time, we didn't think that that was
all that good an idea. That we wanted to eliminate some of those and there's been concerns
raised by any number, by the City Council on down about the number of traffic signals that
would result. As an outcome of that, this entire area. Here's the school site over here and
here's McGlynn. This entire area basically is going to be served off of that access boulevard
down here. This is going to be a right-in/right-out only. If that. Onto Highway 5. And that
serves, I would suspect, as much if not more development than would occur between the park
and Galpin.
Scott: And isn't the intersection of Galpin and Highway 5 planned to be signalized in '94?
In advance of the school opening?
12
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 . I
vane of the school.
Krauss: Yeah, m ad
Mancino: They could use it now. ,
Scott: Okay. ,
Conrad: Let me, I want to track something for Mr. Kerber here. Paul, basically what you
just said was, there's a reason to put a road through to the park. The rest of this property
will, the roadway will go in when developed. '
Krauss: When development occurs, yes. But development is occurring so fast that.
'
Conrad: Well I think, I m trying to relate that to Mr. Kerber. The re's not a p lan to come in
and put this road in that we're doing other than maybe to the park. Where you live, '
somebody's going to have to come in and buy the, not the city.
Lee Kerber: You mean I can negotiate with them? I'd prefer that ,
Krauss: You know, I agree with you and I hope it would turn out that way but there may be
a need. If everything occurs west of Mr. Kerber's property, there may be a public need to '
finish that road and make the connection through there. And if that's the case, then the city
would have to become involved. Otherwise we'd prefer to wait for development to do it as
well. ,
Farmakes: Irregardless, this is still the blueprint.
Krauss: Yes. '
Conrad: I guess for you to know what we're saying is, we're going to, we have some ,
preferences so when something happens there, whether you develop it or somebody buys the
land from you or to the west, they're going to have to have a road and we're going to say
where we'd like that road to go. We're saying that right now so people can anticipate that '
but we're not putting that in at the current time.
Lee Kerber: Well I've developed the way I want it. I spent 35 years doing it. I just '
completed about a year and a half ago putting heat in my shop. The reason I didn't do it
sooner, I spend the money after I get it and I've got it the way I want it now. Where do I go
from here? Then I'm sitting on the fence, don't know which way I'm going to fall off. If ,
you're my age, I don't have time to develop another place. It took me 35 years to get where
I am after I had the house built and I don't know if I've got 35 weeks or 35 months. It's
�I
13
z�
fJ�
1
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
kind of a touchy situation as far as I'm concerned.
Scott: Would anyone else like to address the Planning Commission?
Mike Gorra: My name is Mike Gorra. I've got the 140 acres to the south and southwest of
Lake Ann.
Harberts: Could you show us please on the map?
Mike Gorra: This piece here. I think most of you have heard what I've had to say before so
I'll keep I brief. Just keep this for the record. I look at that plan of that road there and to
me it just doesn't look right. You've got two roads. One you've already got there. It's
either 4 lanes now or it will be 4 lanes in the near future and that's Highway 5. And a very
short distance to the north, not a half a mile, not two miles you've got this frontage road
They're both going to the same place. The frontage road, it's going to be expensive. I can't
see where it's going to serve any useful purpose except maybe to collect more stop signs.
It's going to be, you're going to have to put two bridges down there because you've got two
creeks to cross. They're not going to be cheap. And it's going to be destructive. You're
going to go through people's homes and you're going to go through undeveloped property
and you're going to go through businesses. For what purpose? What's that road going to do
that Highway 5 can't do and Highway 5 can do it better. There's not going to be as many
stop signs on Highway 5. It's going to be 55 mph. With that frontage road, it's going to be
even without stop signs, it's not going to be 55 mph. And if Chanhassen follows through to
the true to course, they're going to have a stop sign every 200 -300 feet anyway. You're
going to have about 28 to 35 stop signs on that mile and a half road. And who's going to
take that road? Wouldn't they just rather drop down to Highway 5 and coast into Chanhassen
on a 55 mph road than go 15 or average 15 -20 mph? Not only that but you're going to, by
putting that road through there, you're going to pre - determine what kind of development
you're going to have there. It's a classic example of putting the cart before the horse. Any
intelligent developer or development would want to take into consideration what you're going
to do there first and then decide where the roads are going to go. I don't know if anybody
here has ever built a home, but maybe someone has bought a lot to build a home on. Is the
first thing that you did was to put your driveway through the center of the lot and then go to
the architect and say hey, design me a home for this lot? Or did you go to him and say, put
the home in the best place and then decide where the driveway's going to be? Well that's
what you're doing here only a much bigger, more destructive scale. I kind of agree with
what Mr. Kerber says that if you want a road to your park, that's fine. That's not going to
disturb any of the property to the west. I know it will probably take a lot of traffic off of
Highway 5 of people going to and from the park. As far as the rest of the property to the
west, they have access to CR 117. That's why CR 117 was put there years ago. The State
14
E
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 1
puts roads every so often for Y let the development decide where
r collector streets and then the
the rest of the roads will go. If they wanted roads through there, they would put roads every
State
half a block or every half a mile. As far as I'm concerned, I already talked with the a
'
year ago and their representative, I think it was Evan Green said that they had already
planned to stub access from Audubon Road into my property so I wouldn't have to worry
2 1/2
about access to Highway 5. I have been working on a development for my property for
,
to 3 years now and I think you saw the plan last time I was up here. It was a golf course and
I don't think I have to tell you what a road through the center of a golf course could do. You
even if I
just wouldn't be able to build a golf course with something like that there. And
'
didn't build a golf course, and I decided to put other types of development in there, I am a
developer. I did purchase most of this property 20 years ago just for that purpose but I held
it out of construction just because I thought it was a pretty nice, unique piece of property
'
being that it's on the lake and it has a little creek running through it and has access to
Highway 5. I thought it deserved a little more than a boiler plate type development that you
can find in Richfield or even Fridley. Multiply next to the highway and then maybe a
'
couple ... and then getting single family farther away from the highway closer to the lake. I
be done with this that would best serve the developer and
think something else could property
the city both. And I think that would most likely be a golf course at this time. I know you
'
talked about mapping this road through so future developers would have an idea of where you
want this road but I don't think that's going to do any good in my case because .I can't
imagine any development that I would put on this 140 acres that would utilize the road going
,
right through the center of it. And the only reason why is because if I develop this property,
I want it to be a success. I guess that's about all I have to say.
,
Mancino: Mike, might I add a comment on land use. You said that you could see it as a
golf course. What other land use designation were you thinking about? For instance, single
'
family north of the access boulevard and multi- family south?
Mike Gorra: Well that's the land use I didn't want to see.
'
Mancino: Okay, what did you want to see?
'
Mike Gorra: I wan property without a road running through it so
t to see it one chunk of
whatever I decided I could determine where the access, where the roads would be after I
decided what would go in there. For example, even a higher end single family development,
'
an estate type single family development, you wouldn't want a road running right through
that. That's just one example. But no matter what, like I said before, I've been a developer
I've away from a piece of property that had a heavily traveled
for 30 years and always stayed
road on both sides of it because it's been my experience that anything that's been developed
inbetween two heavily traveled streets or roads or highways, has always been somewhat of a
15
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
second rate type development. The land usually sells cheaper. It's usually a commercial or
an industrial type development and that would take away the flexibility if anybody, myself or
if I did sell the property, take away the flexibility of determining what would go on that piece
of property and Chanhassen would ultimately suffer too. If you don't have the flexibility on
' a piece that big. Especially when it's right on Highway 5. Everybody leaving the town or
coming into the town will see what's on that property. What would you rather have them see
a nice green golf course or a road running through it with multiple dwellings and industrial
on one side and low end single family housing on the other side. That's the choice we have
to make. It's as simple as that. Once you put a road through a piece of property, the
flexibility's gone.
' Scott: Any questions for Mr. Gorra? Thank you. Yes sir.
' Morris Conway. Morris Conway, 4952 Frernont...I wasn't going to talk this morning, or this
evening but I just agree with everything Mike has to say. And just on the point of view of
roads. I think that there was a vision, as I went to some of the early meetings, about the road
coming in and maintaining a sense of what Chanhassen, or I remember seeing photos of
German villages you know and coming into a village and the gateway concept. And I think
that's a noble position. When. I, you know in looking at, just taking a step back and looking
' at other visions. You know I remember going after some trips to Italy let's say and you
come to these beautiful towns and you think what a wonderful city. You know you take your
bikes right in and you have this beautiful city. And then I go to Minneapolis and I cross this
' moat of Interstate 94 and it's like it chops the city right in half. You know there's no
walking sense that we've got a city here. Well you're putting a road, as I see it, you're going
to create little islands here. You know you're going to create these medium and high density
' islands between Highway 5 and this other road. And I just don't, I think you're going to be
creating the types of things that I was asking Brad Johnson there, what is that like Cedar
Riverside. You know in Minneapolis there you've got these areas where you've got these
' intersecting highway areas. You're isolating people into these high fragmented, urbanized
areas and then it's not a, I think that you can create bad situations and I think having people,
creating a situation where you're going to force people to live within this band between these
two roads, is going to be a mistake. And I don't see any really good reason for it. I just
wanted to speak to that. And I think it's a very important time for you guys to really sit here
' too and say, does it make sense. To step back and really decide, for you to decide, does it
make sense as opposed to just go along with the process.
Farmakes: Excuse me. Can you point out where you live?
Morris Conway: Yeah, I'm right next to Mike. Oh, on this map as far as where I live. I do
own a piece of property, let's see. I'm Morris Conway right here. But I didn't intend to
1
to
16
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
speak, as I say. And I've talked with different people as far as what would work out better in
terms of development or not and I don't know what will sell better or worse in terms of
development. Whether high density will sell better or worse, but I do think some things
strike me as being dumb and part of this strikes me as being dumb. I just don't like to see
dumb things done.
John Pryzmus: I just want, my name is John Pryzmus and I have the property here on Galpin
Boulevard that's the driving range and miniature golf course. And I guess I don't understand,
I mentioned it at the task force meeting that this property all can be developed without these
roads. You've got a major intersection that's going to come in here that can service this and
thus. My parcel and Larry VanDeVeire's can both be serviced from CR 117. As Mike said,
he don't need this road for his development here and so what you're creating is really, an
expensive, expensive road that we're all going to have to pay for as taxpayers. And besides
that, the City of Chan just spent like $2 1/2 million to put in a park right over here on this
comer. Now you want to take and tear out my park that I put in and paid for myself with no
qualms. Don't worry about the money it's going to cost you. Just put a road through there.
Design it and I don't know that anybody ever came to my property and took soil tests. I
don't remember ever shutting it down. Down through here you'll find a.. that comes down
into a low area. If you're saving my parcel, would do if you ever did put a road in. But
there's really no need other than coming to Lake Ann to, for any of this road to ever be done
to develop the north side. Like Mike said, when I do sell that property some day, it can be
serviced from CR 117. There's no problem. The same with Larry VanDeVeire's. You're
cutting his property right in half and making it practically useless. It just don't make sense at
all. Thank you.
Brad Johnson: I'm Brad Johnson. I represent Morris Conway as a developer for his parcel
and as I've mentioned in the past, I live at 7245 Frontier Trail. We are in the process of
developing his parcel and taking both your input relative to this plan and also in our feelings
as to what should go there and then taking it to, I guess one step farther than the fellow over
on the east side of town. We've taken it to professional engineers that have advised us as to
how to develop the site, which I have with me. But before I go into that, I have two other
concerns as a resident of Chanhassen. I know that in your proposed plan of the Ward
property and at least the, what I'll call the triangle area, it's not recommended to be 100%
retail. We would be concerned about that as a retail developer in town because we feel that
to have successful retail you need additional massing to attract more people so that our
businesses are successful and we certainly object—Ward's but object to that as a developer of
other parcels in town. We feel we're short on retail land. Secondly, I concur that we do
need a way to get to the park, because we have a baseball program that I sponsor here.
There probably is a reason Paul and I'm not going to, but like Park Drive was not the major
interchange as I always thought it was going to be and probably the distances, we should
17
i
r]
1 1
L7
a
F_
L
1
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
have ... which would solve the problem for Mr. Kerber. We do need access to that. I doubt
very much that people are going to enjoy driving over to CR 117, which is a fairly significant
turn now to stop there and try to turn. Or all the way out to Galpin to get into the park. So
maybe Audubon is the best choice but you're going to make it significantly difficult to get
there but I do agree that that interchange today should be closed because it is dangerous.
Relative to Mr. Conway's property, we hope to be in, and that is located as I guess he
pointed out, right here. We hope to be back to you soon with the development for that parcel
and as we mentioned last meeting, we're trying to deal with sort of a moving target with a
time line that says we'd like to come in and get this all done with this year. Recognizing that
you will be in the process and the City Council will be in the process of trying to determine
exactly what you're going to do. We perceive there probably is a need for a collector road,
certainly out of our property and over to Galpin. Inevitably we need a collector road
someplace. We have a golf course proposed currently, or at least in the planning stages
according to our neighbor, to the east and so that limits our site as far as road systems within
there. Mike has assured me that he's very serious about developing the golf course and at the
minimum, I know if that would not work, he is oriented towards an executive kind of home,
which we do not have -in Chanhassen other than on the lakes, and that would be I would
guess in the $400,000.00 to $600,000.00, sort of estate type of house. I think that's how he
perceives that, as I listen to you, that's how he perceives that development to proceed. Given
the fact that that is not there and we can ... thinking about doing, we presented that to the
planners and we have come up with basically a system of handling that and the only reason
this affects you is that we do not want to have to deal with the Hennessy property at this time
in our own plan because that would require the city taking it. In other words, if you came in
and said we had to put a road in and the road went nowhere, then you'd have to purchase the
Hennessy property, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me at this time because he's quite
happy with that. By the way, we have checked with all the landowners in our area. The
Hennessy's, the VanDeVeire's, and Gorra and they all kind of agree that this plan would be
acceptable to them. I'm sure it's acceptable to Rottlund who's to the north because it
happens to connect directly and looks just like what they're doing to the north of us. Now
the issues then are what? Well ... alternate #1 which is coming through about right here and
require that, it's very defundling how today, or at least until you take the Hennessy property
and agree that Gorra can't build his golf course, we should put a main road through the center
of this property. Mainly because it's just difficult to develop. Secondly I'm talking, I won't
say it's going to look like Cedar Riverside over here if we do it that way but in talking to
developers, there's a very big concern about splitting communities and types of housing by a
road. And by using the Alternate #2 up here, that would be sort of devastating. Secondly, I
have heard that you are trying to seek government, or State assistance for the development of
the service road, and if I recall correctly the reason that they were willing to give you
assistance is that that road, for a year or two, would be Highway 5. Right? And they were
going to close Highway 5 and then use this road.
18
I
planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 . I
Krauss: Let's be clear on this Brad. The reason they were willing to participate in this is it
eliminated a series of access points onto Highway 5. That's their long range purpose. It also
supported local trips without going onto Highway 5. They also thought yes. If they could
put mainline traffic onto it say for a period of a year, year and a half, they could substantially
cut, I think cut in half the time it took to build the highway. And for all of those of you who
have lived through Highway 5 construction and it drags on for year after year after year, that
may be worth a short term disruption.
Brad Johnson: Yes, and that was proposed to the HRA I don't know who funded your study
'
but they approved that based upon that was going to take and construction was going to start
this year. We're now being told that's, and I had no problem with that at the time because
that seemed logical. There was nothing there. We're not being told that that particular
,
situation will not happen for 6 years, maybe the year 2000 or so but as highways go, at that
time I think they will have fairly, at least I know Lundgren's will be developed. You're just
going to have development over there and basically it's a fairly good threat to say to
somebody that we're going to put a road through the middle of all these properties and that,
by the way, in order for us to fund it so maybe ... and I understood the reason that the
Highway 5, the State was willing to fund that was for that purpose and I was at a number of
the meetings when Mr. Ashworth, when he prepared the statements like that and it was
presented in that way and that was the idea and I think we all went along with that. So I'm
going to say that I don't think this road will ever be used as an alternate for Highway 5' if
there's any development here in the next 5 to 10 years, because the neighbors will be in here
you know, then we'll have neighbors. Right now we don't. What we have done on our
proposal is recommend if you're going to have a corridor, and if you're going to map this
corridor, we'll go along with it if it's on the south side. And with our current plan we would
use Alternate C to cross, our planners have said this is the proper place to cross it. To cross
through VanDeVeire's property and ultimately as our
'
Bluff Creek and they've used the road
access point for ... road on the south portion of the property. So the only major changes that
we need to see, then we'd be willing to dedicate the normal amount of roadway that we
would be required to if you mapped it so it would cost you nothing. If we just stayed down
'
in this area. We have gone north a little bit so that we can cross at this point which is the
same point I think that they were crossing. What happens is we don't necessarily represent
VanDeVeire's but this is one way that that could be accomplished. And we end up with
'
then, zoning or a proposed use as you have recommended. We have high density here but a
minimum of high density. There's only been about, of rental property, maybe 2.2 acres
developed in the city of Chanhassen since I've lived here. We currently have under
,
development another 8 acres of high density. It's just not a high absorption kind of thing. I
don't think you need a lot of it but we'd be comfortable with about 4 acres here and we'd
anticipate that would be developed over the next 5 to 10 years. But that is about as soon as
that could be done, and about the time the road would go through. And then the rest would
19
'.
!I
s
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
be medium density and then homes here that would go onto the proposed golf course. If
there's no proposed golf course, we're very comfortable if Mr. Gorra was-to develop a high
class development over there. So our recommendation to you is that you amend the
recommendation of the task force., Select if possible Alternate #2. Stay with crossing at C
with a minor deviation at that point because we have an adequate buffer. And we too agree
with the folks from Lundgren. That is you cannot put single family homes on a highway.
With this type of road coming through here, this is a two family home developer. Medium
density and the prices are $1504200,000.00 per unit. He would feel comfortable but he
would not build up against the highway ...and that's where we're at. We're willing to
cooperate. We're willing to work with the process. Come back with a road that you know
that would fit whatever you, and dedicate our normal required width for your use. All we're
asking is a minor modification of the plan for Alternate #2 and thus the elimination of your
recommendation or to vote against the recommendation of the other people on Alternate #1.
I think that works much better with Mr. Gorra because that leaves him to have the ability to
develop his site that he wants. In the case of Mr. Kerber, you're going to have to deal with-
Audubon sometime I guess down the line. But certainly not until Mr. Gorra gets around to
developing or there's a real problem with Lake Ann. Any questions? As I said, we'll be in
with this plan sometime in February. We're more than happy to work with it and we don't
have a cost evaluation...
Robert Hoffman: Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. Robert Hoffman, 1500
Northwestern Financial Center. I'm here this evening on behalf of two property owners.
One, Dr. Conway who was up here a couple minutes ago and then Fleet Farm. Mills Fleet
Farm. And I'm going to just review briefly some of the issues as it relates to both the
Conway and the Mills Fleet Farm properties. And then specifically discuss a couple of
aspects with Fleet Farm, because you've already heard from Brad and the doctor as to the
specifics on his piece of property. When Paul Krauss made his introduction, he categorized
the plan as a forward thinking concept. And I would certainly agree with him. The
consultants you've had working on it, whether it's Bill Morrish or Joyce Levine or Barry
Warner, all certainly have reputations of forward thinking in this metropolitan area and other
parts of the country and I've worked with most of them over the years on a number of
projects. With most forward thinking concepts, at least it's been my experience that you can
achieve most of your objectives but probably have to do some modifications as to what may
come from the initial concept that the forward thinkers come up with. And in the two cases
of the property owners that we represent, they're really asking for some modifications. And
you've heard discussions on Dr. Conway and that is a preference for the south line in order to
better develop that particular piece of property. As I listen this evening, I know you certainly
were aware of the considerably restraints that a planner must deal with. But those are also
the considerable restraints the property owner must deal with. And whether they are
landscaping or topography or wetlands or tree cover, or colors of buildings or use of materials
20
F
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 1
or setbacks or traffic considerations, they all start to impact the ability to develop a piece of
property in the way the city would like to have it developed, or the way the property owners
would like to have it developed. And neither of us are free today to do just what we'd like to
do. That's the system. And as I listen to the significant list of constraints over the past year
that have been addressed, I'd ask you to then think of the property owner also with those
similar constraints and then at least in the case of the two that I'm talking about, asking for
some modifications in order to assist them on the development. I noted that in, I think it was
James' presentation, in suggesting the location of the access boulevard as it related to the
park. It was pushed as close to TH 5 as possible to preserve the park. I didn't hear that
was a
same comment as it related to several of the private property owners. And that perhaps
serious consideration but I've heard several property owners suggest a movement of that to
preserve their property uses and I heard that being a very significant factor for a public use.
'
But I didn't hear that, at least as yet, as to a private use. As you proceed with the prospect
of actually building a road, which has been described by Barry as the most difficult task of
locating it and Paul indicating that the funds are not readily available, and then looking at
piecemeal development because that's what you will get as you work with individual property
owners. You're certainly going to be faced with what has been described, the economic
the suggestion
aspects of that particular forward thinking concept. And as you proceed with
that perhaps now, that perhaps maybe Federal and State funding may not be available, for as
available as you would like them, that the property owners will then bear the cost of that
be faced what has been described as access for
development. You're certainly going to with
sub - regional and regional trips on the access boulevards. As compared to just serving the
_
abutting property owners and therefore again I would suggest that if you can look at some
compromise, if you can find the property owners who will say yes. I will preserve the
wetlands. Yes, I will preserve the trees. Yes, I'll work within that topography. Yes, I will
it in a way that I
dedicate land for this right -of -way. In fact maybe pay for it. If you move
in to afford those, that that is something at least I would
can now develop my property order
suggest the city look at. Because as you're talking about access boulevards, or sub - regional
trips, you're not talking about, at least in Minnesota as yet, facilities that the property owner
has to pay for. Those are community wide or region wide issues. That the community or the
region pays for. But not the immediate property owners. The immediate property owner is
required, at least currently under law, to pay for that part of the roadway that the current
property owner causes in the capacity to be needed. Not boulevards or trails or landscaping,
that is not absolutely needed. Those are all desired from the standpoint that you get the
economics of it. I think you're going to be faced with that so again I'm suggesting that, if at
all possible, if you can work out this system which is definitely forward thinking, and you
don't have a ready source of funds to do it in one fell swoop, then perhaps working with
some of these property owners, and in particular the two that we represent, would help
facilitate that. Specifically then as to the Mills Fleet Farm piece of property, which is on
State Highways 41 and 5. As you know they acquired that several years ago. They first of
21
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
will continue to ask for a land use different than is proposed. The land ro
all have asked and P P
uses proposed is neighborhood commercial, medium or higher density and then single family
density as you go to the north. Obviously Mills Fleet Farm would like to build a Mills Fleet
Farm facility at that particular intersection. I think earlier the discussion of big box uses was
discussed and as big box uses like to be near higher arterials, and TH 5 and TH 41 are two of
the higher use arterials that you have at least in the city. Therefore, as to a use, land use, we
have in the past where we continue to request that the land use be considered for a Mills
Fleet Farm facility. And the previous, not previous but the two studies, the Highway 5
corridor land use study on page 33, Figure 5.1 and the Environmental Assessment boulevard
document on Figure 6.1 appeared to put this roadway either on or very close to the northern
edge of Fleet Farm. And when we asked then for the legal description of that right-of-way, it
showed this configuration which was basically through the middle. Therefore the preliminary
study documents suggested that roadway be on the north edge of the ... and so apart from the
land use, Mills Fleet Farm would certainly accept a northerly designation or location of that
particular roadway. Or a southerly designation of that roadway. But the problem it's going
virtually right through the middle. And as I listen to Terry Forbord discussing with you the
' inability from a marketing sense, to have single family next to high density arterial, then
again I wonder from a land use when you have an existing high use arterial with TH 41 and
the suggestion is that single family be the land use next to that. So our request is, from these
two property owners. One is to consider the modification of the location of the roadways.
You haven't either of them say they're opposed to the roadway. I think both of them have
indicated that they would, certainly Mills Fleet Farm is interested in preserving the wetlands.
Is interested in preserving the wetlands if it can develop the property in a reasonable way and
is interested in paying it's fair share for such a facility. I think Dr. Conway has indicated the
same. If it's located so they can develop their property. If you have any questions I'd be
pleased to answer them.
Mancino: I just have a real quick on. I want to make sure I'm tracking with you Mr.
' Hoffman. You said that Mills Fleet Farm was fine with the northern route.
Robert Hoffman: The northern route that was shown on the previous two studies. Not the
northern route that is now Alternative #1.
Mancino: Okay.
Robert Hoffman: That's why I made reference to the three, at least I'll call them conceptual
designs of the roadway, seem to hug the northern edge of the property.
Mancino: Even more than the one that we are seeing right now as Alternative #1?
1 22
f
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
Robert Hoffman: Yes, that's correct. Okay, thank you.
n
Scott: Okay, we're going to take about a 5 minute break. We can a ll probably use it and
we'll reconvene, well let's reconvene at 10:00 sharp.
(There was a short break at this point in the meeting.)
Scott: We'll reconvene the Planning Commission.
' Director of th Arboretum and also a member of the team that
Peter Olin: Peter Olin. I m
lot about the plan and I would like to say
worked - on this plan. There's been a of comments
we think it's pretty good, as coming from the team and I think there's some good
saw when we looked
recommendations. I think one of the things a the we
to away from old standard of putting the
that there was an opportunity get
there's a need for a frontage road right along the side of Highway 5, on either side,
and
creating a huge swath of pavement. The idea was to move it back a ways so that you've seen
of land which aren't really very buildable. So the
in some places that creates some pieces
it over further to make parcels is of d I think
t o
'
city stgott500
idea again then was to move
700 feet of land between the frontage road or what hope would
of rather than just a frontage road and create
been main, c EXactly types of land _ land uset I think
C hanhassen.
So there's buildable p ould be a higher
and we agreed with th em that it c
the planners were in some agreement
density use but single family would probably be the best use in that. I think that we did try
instead of cutting these
to look at all the uses there and in fact if you looked at that road,
and it makes those parcels
parcels in half that is serving them, it is a different point of view
of land very developable. Perhaps a golf course obviously would not work but then we don't
know whether that's going to happen or not. But I think we asked the same question. Is a that
be a, better location for
golf course going in there, and since you don't know, this would
roadway. I think my only concern I would have with the plan is that some question came up
about the Arboretum as being a buffer and I would like to say that we feel that the buffer is a
It's a buffer but perhaps does need a bit of
cultural, education and research institution. not
buffering. We have a national and perhaps international reputation and we are very
concerned about development in our city at this point in time. As I've expressed at various
reputation of the 30 acres on the west side of
points throughout this process. I think the
5 that we suggested be a residential use, is a little easier on us than the industrial
Highway
commercial use. But I did want to get up and say that a lot of time went in. A lot of
thinking. We did listen to all the folks that are here tonight and tried to make some
as the developers as they came through.
judgments that we felt would fit the town as well
23
i
f
P
t
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
Scott: Any comments for Peter? Okay, thank you very much. Are there any other members
of the public that would like to address the Planning Commission?
Susan Markert: Mr. Chair and members of the Planning Commission. I would like to really
question.
Scott: Excuse me, could you identify yourself for the record please?
Susan Markert: Oh, Susan Marken 9461 Hazeltine Boulevard. I'm wondering, I heard the
gentlemen speak about the Fleet Farm and how he wished that the city would take into
consideration all the restraints and so on and the placement of the road specifically. But you
know he's saying that for certain things that you know if you could kind of loosen up on but
when we're getting right down to the nitty gritty, when we're talking about the overlay. The
standards. The building standards that were set forth. I'm looking through here piece by
piece and I'm really not seeing very much and I don't see where you can get hardly anything
that the building, that I've seen the Fleet Farm put up, would meet. Okay, I mean they want,
and I'll just go through here as quick as I can. They want you know parking lots along
Highway 5 so people can see parking lots that you know look like there's a nice viable
business there. The architectural style, it's what I would consider, from what I've seen of the
Fleet Farm store so far, it's totally incompatible with what we've set forth for the other
buildings and developments that we have in Chanhassen. And according to this each building
shall contain one or more pitched roof elements. I've never seen, I don't think, a pitched
roof element there. They'd have to change that. And there are not to be any exposed cement
or cinder blocks. I believe they might use that. Fabricated metal or pole construction
structures. I believe that that's something that might pertain to that exterior ... but that's a
possibility. Experimental materials possible. A solid wall relieved by architectural detailing.
That isn't for sure. The materials and construction methods used for one aspect or a
portion... significant lower in quality. You know I can just keep going on:_ Also with the
fencing, that it says screening of service yards and I think it might be like the lumber yards
that... The screening of service yards. You know you can't have a chain linked fence and I
did specifically hear them mention that they would buffer our house from them by you know
volunteering to put the road right at the very, you know where it just abuts our property,
which I believe they already have an 80 foot easement built into that. And they were going
to put up a chain link fence that would buffer us from them.
Mancino: Susan, could you point to where your property is.
Susan Markert: We're right here. And this is you know where the proposed northerly route
would go but from what I could get from the gentleman that was speaking for the Fleet Farm,
he was asking that we would move this road right up here because I've already heard this...
1�s
24
I]
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
before. You know. That way that can give them more room to build and then they might
even want to designate this property tight here as a natural, that wetland or pond or whatever.
Which would move that building you know closer to our property and totally disrupt the look
of, we planned the entire road, which I believe was a good plan. The northerly route because
it's very scenic and I've walked it with Nancy. And we took the time and it was very well
done. It's very beautiful back there and we did not want, you know like a service road. So
according to the plan, it looks nice but then when you get the corner of TH 5 and TH 41, I
think that they're wishing that that road would just kind of like go ri ght up there and just ruin
everything you know basically that we've planned and I would have an absolute total
objection to that That if that's what they would want to do, then we would not wish to live
there or do our home occupation there any longer and that's the whole thing. You know
with ... but I really don't want to see that. As a person that lives there, I enjoy it and we're
there because we like it. We preserve things. We take care of things. People that are
absentee landowners have a totally different view. I like, I've used the word bastardizing the
corner and I just kind of think that that might be what happen, what could happen to it if
Chanhassen doesn't really hold to the design standards that were set forth. Because I believe
that we're you know a very high class community and that we should keep going forward
with the plan that we've developed and I guess that's all I have to say.
Scott: Good. Any questions or comments? Good, thanks. Would anybody else like to
speak? Yes sir.
Larry VanDeVeire: Hi. I'm Larry VanDeVeire and I own the property on the northeast
corner of Highway 5 and Galpin. Right here, and I'd just like to make a comment for the
record that, and correct me if I'm wrong but I think that if all the landowners have been
listened to throughout this process, the only landowner that would be getting what they want
is the city through the Lake Ann parcel. And like I say, correct me if I'm wrong but I think
most of the people that have been here, and have either objected to or suggested changes in
the way the road alignment is planned. And I guess if that's listening to the landowners, then
I don't know. I'm missing something. If there's any type of input because there's quite a
few of us. And like I say, the only landowner that isn't objecting the city themselves I think.
Scott: Well Terry Forbord from Lundgren Bros was the first person who spoke was in favor
of the alignment and asked us some questions about zoning and so forth. He's probably the
only one that I've heard from that was in favor of it.
Larry VanDeVeire: But he still suggested some changes.
Scott: He had a little bit of a, he was a little bit confused as to what the colors meant
because the difference between medium density and low density.
25
1
�J
t
t
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
I L VanDeVeire: Wasn't he suggesting that it be pulled south towards the road though?
Larry 88 g P
Scott: No.
Mancino: No.
Conrad: A little bit.
I Mancino: 100 feet south.
Larry VanDeVeire: Well, 100 feet would be pretty significant on my property. Maybe not
on his but 100 feet is 100 feet.
Harberts: Larry, can you outline how much is your property?
Larry VanDeVeire: Right here. 13 acres.
' Harberts: Okay, thanks.
Larry VanDeVeire: And I guess what I'm getting at is he eluded to, I don't know how
developable some of the properties are, and I'd just like to state for the record that I have my
concerns also as far as how it's going to be developed. What it's going to look like all the
way through. I guess a property that I think of that isn't the same right across from the high
school in Minnetonka. Right across from Minnetonka High School. There's a non - developed
piece of property there that it splits off into a Y and you can call it, it's been for sale from
time to time. I don't know what could be put there. Right now it's natural but I don't know
if that looks, is attractive either.
Mancino: Larry, I don't understand where you're coming from. If I know your property. It
doesn't matter, in fact if we take the preferred route, the recommendation the Highway 5 task
force made, unless the road, access boulevard goes through your property, less roadway goes
through your property if we take the recommendation from the Highway 5 task force.
Larry VanDeVeire: I guess my concern is the supposed inflexibility of the road where Terry
Forbord was ... right now you have it going through the tree line and I'm not so sure that's
good for me or good for the city of Chanhassen.
' Mancino: So how would you change it?
26
E
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
Larry VanDeVeire: I don't know. I'm just suggesting that I'd like some flexibility and that
there should be some flexibility through this according to development rather than stamp the
road in place and then say now, try to make something fit. I just don't know that that's the
way it should be done. And I realize that something has to be done as far as guiding it but I
still think there should be some flexibility allowed and still meeting what you people want
too. And I guess like I say, and I think, I forget who said it but oh, it was Mike I think with
the driveway. No one builds a house around a driveway and that's basically what you're
looking at here. Trying to make stuff fit. with what's. left and that's why I suggested the
property across from Eden Prairie High School. I don't know what they're going to do with
that. It's for sale from time to time but nothing, you know it's a pie shaped lot and it isn't
real wide and not that this is what this will turn into but I do think that you limit what can be
done with it when you all at once you set restrictions. And then again with the wider
setbacks, all of the other restraints that Chanhassen would like to see, it further limits what
can be used. I guess that's it. Thank you.
Scott: Would anybody else like to address the commission?
Peter Beck: Mr. Chairman, Commission, Peter Beck. 7900 Xerxes Avenue South. I'd just
like to briefly reiterate the request I made at the workshop last week. That the Commission
adopt the recommendation of the task force and guide the Eckankar facility portion of the
Eckankar property for institutional uses. As I mentioned,. the Temple is one integrated site.
It will never be subdivided or sold or built into any multiple family residential use so we
request the addition ... And I don't intend to belabor the point any more ... answer any questions
and to address that issue in greater detail.
Scott: Okay. Go ahead Sue.
Susan Markert: Susan Markert speaking again. As I sat down I realized, people, any time
there's a change people get afraid and this is real obscure. You know you see a road coming
through our town. And for 2 years I've dreaded the thought and I've, you know I've actually
gotten sick over it when I'd have to come to these meetings and try to make a conscientious
decision for the city. And it became a process where I kind of became desensitized to it but
I'm still very sensitive. So as a landowner, I can speak from both sides. As a landowner I
would prefer not to have any roads and have the rolling hills and all the beauty forever. As a
person that came up here to plan for the development of Chanhassen, I say that we definitely
need a plan and this is what has been implemented and we're not putting the cart before the
horse. We're not putting the driveway in before the house. We're putting a plan so there can
be good development developed off the plan. If there was no road and we allow people to
put their driveways in and whatever they wanted to do, we'd have a mish mosh and then
we'd have like a can of worms that nobody would know what the heck was going on. It
27 .
L�
1
t
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, ,1994
certainly wouldn't follow any plan whatsoever so what I'm saying is I really do believe we
need the road. I would love to you know go down this road without getting onto Highway 5
because I was one of the biggest complainers of trying to make a left onto Highway 5 out of
TH 41 with people getting very angry before they did have that turn lane. And also, if we
did not have that road in there, I have gone to Galpin Boulevard. I had left something at
ABC Daycare Center, which is I think what is it, Lake Drive or something?
Scott: Yeah.
Susan Markert: It should only be like a minute away but you know like at night when the
traffic was coming, it took me 15 minutes to go down to Galpin Blvd and make a turn to
come back to get to ABC Daycare Center to get what I needed to get so you know.
Somehow if we would have had this road I believe I could have done that quicker and much
more safely. So I do believe that we need the road no matter what a lot of other people
think. It's just, it's progress and that's what you're paying for and it's better to have a plan
than not to have a plan. That's just the way it is.
Scott: Good. Thank you Susan. Would anybody else like to address the Planning
Commission? Yes sir.
John Dobbs: Good evening. My name is John Dobbs. I represent Heritage Development
Company. i would like to speak just briefly to page 7 of the memorandum handed out this
evening, and specifically to the following land use issues still need to be resolved. The fifth
one down, that Heritage Development West.
Harberts: Wait, wait, wait. Where are you?
Scott: We've got to get there.
Conrad: Page 7 of the staff report.
Harberts: Thank you.
John Dobbs: Fifth one down. Heritage Development west of Bluff Creek, south of frontage
road, multi- family should be considered as an option with industrial. I would like to say that
I would like to concur that we would like that as an option very much. We currently, we are
the owners of the residential property south of the frontage road east of Galpin. Next to
Timberwood Estates. We also own, and I believe this comment speaks to a piece of property
that we own on the east side of Bluff Creek. We currently I think McGlynn Bakery is there
and also to the north it's proposed to be industrial. We are proposing and we are very
t4
28
r
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 1
tentatively scheduled on February 2nd to bring in a multi- family and single family detached
concept for your approval and I'd just like to say that we believe that it is a transition zone
between existing industrial and what will be single family detached residential. I recognize
that there are a number of issues associated with this particular piece of property in that
there's the Bluff Creek corridor and industrial on one side and residential on the other and
that transition needs to - be dealt with sensitively and we are in the process of looking at a
variety of options to do that. But as it's slated on this plan and ... we'd like to see that. .
Scott: Good. Any questions or: comments? Good. Thank you very much. Would anybody
else like to address the Planning Commission? Seeing no other members of the public who
are interested in addressing the Planning Commission.
Conrad moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Because of the complex nature of what we have to deal with, I'm certainly open for
suggestions but it appears that the least controversial thing we have to do is to pass the EA
document onto the City Council. Are you? I
Aanenson: Except part of that is to select an alternative of the road.
Scott: Okay. I guess I'd be open for suggestions as to how we can, perhaps instead of
having general comments on everything from the Planning Commission at the same time,
perhaps focus on specific pieces. Now what those specific pieces are and in the order which
it seems like the land use kind of drives the alternative for the access boulevard.
Conrad: What are we recommending for passage here?
Scott: Well, according to the staff report we've got the EA document, which has the. Let's
see the EA document has got the alternative associated with it. And then the corridor study
has got land use and the architectural standards.
Farm going akes: Are we oin to do all three or are we going to separate them?
Scott: I'm just trying to think so we can perhaps focus. I don't know, maybe we can't focus
on one particular aspect. Do you want to go at this as just making general comments?
Harberts: Well I have a question. What's the desire of the commission here to look at some
of these issues in which the commission is not in concurrence with the task force
recommendations as outlined on page 7? Do we need to have some kind of basis? Do we
29
V
Planning Commission Meeting - January 49 19; 1994
I
want to have some kind of basis of concurrence?
1 Scott: In my mind that'd be probably the easiest thing to get started on because it is pretty
concrete.
Mancino: Yeah. And we've had some more input tonight so maybe we will come to some
resolution of some of the areas that we weren't before. Makes you look at those Again.
1 Scott: Because these are basically all land use.
Harberts: Well, except it's going to impact development in the future of Chan.
Scott: Well why don't we start with the first topic with regard to how large should the
commercial zoning extend, which I guess is do we have our central business district, a retail
district cross Highway 5 to the south?
Mancino: Which specifically is the Ward property.
Scott: Ward property, right.
Krauss: Which and Brad was talkie about—not recommended. What the plan showed was
the possibility for commercial along the first, I think about 20 -25 acres.
Aanenson: Predeveloped.
Mancino: Actually that is in Figure in your chapter 8. Figure 8.13 - 8.14 -8.15.
Scott: Perhaps the philosophical question is you know, do we believe'that you need to have
retail across Highway 5 from what is known as our central business district?
I Farmakes: Is this open discussion?
Scott: Yeah. I think we can have open discussion.
' Farmakes: My feelings about it, again I think we discussed this in the study group. I'm open
to extending retail. I don't see a compelling reason. I am told from a marketing standpoint
' that it would help. I think Brad made the comment that more retail development is good for
all retail, although the last retail development that we had in here he wasn't in concurrence
with that. We really are looking at two issues it seems to me. One is do we serve
Chanhassen with retail. Or do we look outside of that to the sub - region issue? And if so,
1 30
%�a
1
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
how much additional space do we look at? I'm not sure that there's a compelling reason
outside the half a million square feet that you said for retail space that we need to expand
that. I think it's important that it would be in the central district. That we don't have a
bunch of malls going off all over in our community. I don't see any compelling reason not
to bring it down below the highway but I'm not sure we need the additional service. I
haven't seen any information in our study group that has compelling, that says that we
definitely need that other than to have a developer come forward and say that we need more
retail property. They happen to be in the business of doing, developing retail property so that
would make sense that they would say that but I'm not sure the community needs that.
Scott: Okay, so your position is, you could go either way but you were not presented with a
compelling reason why.
Farmakes: I'm looking for a compelling reason that would serve the community good.
Scott: Okay. Alright. Personally I don't see that need either, and I've always been a
proponent of a very concentrated central business district. I will continue to oppose, as most
of us would, any sort of major retail development anywhere outside of the central business
district. And I would look very carefully at any sort of strip mall save a neighborhood
business in an area that was fairly heavily developed. So I don't see a need for retail space
south of Highway 5 either. Anybody else like to comment on that?
Conrad: But then you do think that office space is essential?
Scott: Well, having.
Conrad: Which we have a fair amount of so.
Scott: Well, you know having just expanded our business and looking for office space, there
is, you know I haven't and I've checked into the buildings. I don't sense that there's a lot of
vacant office space in town. I don't have any statistics but if it's anything like our rental, we
have about a less than a 5% rental property vacancy right now in Chanhassen from an
apartment standpoint and my sense is that the office space is fairly tight as well. But I
personally don't see the need to go across the highway with retail.
• x '
Conrad: That's not what I've heard but you and I are not in the business. p
Scott: No...
31
1
Planning ommission Meeting - January-19; �19; `1994
g g az'Y
Conrad: So I won't even push that. It's a matter of, it's sort of a gut feel. Right now 1
don't know but I think we need retail space. We're out of it period It's like, it's a decision.
And I'm not sure that you know, I made some points the last time. Or now that we've got
the traffic, should we do something to convert that traffic into retail sales. We don't really
have the land to really do that so the verbiage and the time we spend on this right now is
probably not worth a whole lot. We don't have much and unless we'd be committed to really
getting out of the downtown area, I don't think we have a chance to really tap into the, it's
' really a resource. A traffic resources coming to Byerly's and Target. We really won't utilize
maybe as much as we can. And I think the city of Chanhassen, the residents that I've talked
to, they're comfortable with that. On the other hand, on the flip side of that coin. I see that
' the downtown doesn't have any more area for retail and therefore the Ward property looks to
me to be the right place to put any kind of retail space.
' Mancino: What do you mean there isn't any more retail area? What about behind the .
Frontier? There's that whole vacant land that a huge retail development could go back there.
It could also go where the bowling alley is at this point.
Conrad: I guess a little bit of it, yeah.
Mancino: I think there's a lot of space there for retail.
Conrad: I think you could pick that up but a finite, there's a limited amount. You know how
many people do we have in Chan right now, 12,000? And what are we going to grow to, 35?
I Mancino: 35, yeah.
Conrad: That's triple. And I'm saying as we grow, there's probably different needs that we
' may need in 5 years and really you've got one parcel behind the Dinner Theatre that's owned
by one person. They can develop it the way they want and I guess I'd like to have some
flexibility in town to think that maybe we have some other parcels. Sooner or later it's going
' to, there's a limit. You know we're limiting retail in Chanhassen. Where you see red and
that's it. There ain't going to be no more and I think that's fine. I think that's what I've
been around for is to make sure that we keep it in one place. But I'm just saying, right now
r it appears to me in a gut feel that we need retail space just to satisfy maybe some of the
needs of the residents that could be here the next 20 years. As we sell out in Chanhassen and
I'd like to have that opportunity to do that.
Farmakes: What I question with that kind of thing, and I agree with almost everything that
you said. But what I question is, is how many liquor stores do we need? How many mail
box type operations do we need and how many, when you transcend into soft goods retail and
' 32
t
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 1
you come into stores that are selling clothes, we don't support that type of foot traffic and
destination, the specialty type shops. It's more of a service to a suburban community and
how many duplications do we have?
Conrad: Well let me just throw that back. And they're good questions. How many places
do you have to put a restaurant in Chanhassen? How many restaurants do we have? How
many do we need? Probably more than we do today. Probably is such a nice supporting
feature to a population of 35,000. Where are we going to put them? ,
Mancino: 212?
Farmakes: Actually per capita we probably have the largest restaurant space in the United '
States I would guess, short of Manhattan.
Conrad: But that's just one. You put restaurants in places like what I'm talking about. '
That's where, and where do they go? They could go behind the Dinner Theatre but that's
one spot. '
Farmakes: Two of them over by Target. ,
Conrad: Yeah. My guess would be, and I'm not an expert in the field but if you have
35,000 people, you don't have enough space to put a restaurant. A couple more that might
give us a variety of options other than some fast food you know. And maybe that's what
we're going to get anyway after we program some more space. We may end up getting more
fast food.
Scott: So you're for expanding the retail south of Highway 5?
Conrad: Yep. '
Scott: Okay. '
Conrad: Thanks.
Scott: Should I start down here since you...
Mancino: Well I don't know. I like having, I mean the unique part of Chanhassen to me
right now is that we have a centralized downtown. Centralized retail right there and I like
that. I mean I can go shopping anywhere, but I can't get a sense of community any other
place. And I like it in one area. I can go to malls anyplace, anywhere, anytime and I still ■
33 ,
1�
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
don't get a downtown feel like I get when I go to Chan and I'd like to keep that. So I would
not like to see the retail go over across. I'd like to keep it over here.
Scott: Okay.
Ledvina: I would also be in favor of maintaining it north of Highway 5. I think if it is
located in that area, that that fragments what we call the downtown.
Scott: Diane.
I I
1
Harberts: I think I'm torn. I think you can stand on either side of this issue. I guess looking
at it broadly, I like everything on the north side because it would I guess hopefully induce
more of a higher concentration that pedestrian oriented type of development that everybody in
Chanhassen seems to want. But on the other hand I certainly support competition and when
you have that free enterprise, the competition, it's good for the community. I guess I'm
concerned about are we just envisioning like another strip mall in terms of if something
happens on the Ward property or would there be something of desire for the community in
terms of retail. I guess my biggest concern is, do we have 3 more dry cleaners or something
like that or will we get something in there that actually will benefit the community? I like
you know just myself as a resident, I certainly like to run down to the comer store or
whatever and pick up whatever I need. So I guess I, I have minced feelings in terms of one
way or the other because I think there's issues on both, there's support on both sides. I
don't, you know when you look at the fact that the Ward's is probably the last piece of
opportunity and if staff has the, oh I don't know what you'd call it. It's not really the control
but has the opportunity perhaps to in a sense put something in there or help ensure something
goes in there that's going to benefit the community rather than just be another fourth liquor
store or dry cleaners, I would certainly be in favor of seeing that Ward's property develop in
that way.
Mancino: But we have no control over that. We can't tell you what in 5 years is going, you
know how that's going to change hands.
Harberts: I don't know that, yeah.
Scott: Is that part of the Rosemount TTF district or does that stop at TH 101?
Krauss: It's part of the downtown TTF district. So is Rosemount and...
Harberts: So would you say you have that opportunity to...?
va
34
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
Conrad: The current recommendation though on the map is what? It's. a mix.
Aanenson: It s a g
' mix right. What we're saying is do you want to take commercial that's
already...
Conrad: So you have, really folks you have a choice. You can leave it as is and basically
there's a compromise with what was all said here. Or if you don't want anything. If you
don't want retail, you've got to take it out.
Mancino: So it'd just be officeNinstitutional without retail.
Harberts: I would follow the staff recommendations.
35
F,
,
Krauss: In the next few years you do have th e ability to ... financial support.
Scott: That's until '97?
Krauss: Well, it's until 20011 think. 2000. But the program has been to do 3 years of
on, there's less ability to do
increment and you know it's 1994 right now so as time goes
But in terms of tools, that's the whole purpose of this exercise. The plan you're
something.
looking at, the ordinance is a tool. It's not going to guarantee you that you get a...book store
like that. But then again, you're not going to have ... I think it's inevitable that if
,
or something
you provide a little more opportunity, you're going to get a little better mix. Exactly what
that mix is going to, there's no way I can tell you and we don't operate in an environment...
'
Scott: Well I know we're talking we're going to be building a pede strian bridge across
would want to cross Highway 5, they're probably
Highway 5. If you think about why people
to have as much of a need to do that if, our central business district and the
'
not going
and so forth is the draw to pull people across Highway 5, why would we stick more
services
retail down here which would kind of short circuit the reason that they would use the bridge.
Harberts: Which way are they crossing? North to south or south to north?
Scott: Probably coming from a residential area into the central business district I would
But I don't know. I don't
think. Rather than going from residential to CBD and back again.
know if I could be convinced otherwise like that. But by my scientific calculations here
we've got 2 who are leaning strongly towards adding more retail south of Highway 5 and 4
who are quite strongly leaning the opposite directly so do we need more discussion on this
particular item?
,
Conrad: The current recommendation though on the map is what? It's. a mix.
Aanenson: It s a g
' mix right. What we're saying is do you want to take commercial that's
already...
Conrad: So you have, really folks you have a choice. You can leave it as is and basically
there's a compromise with what was all said here. Or if you don't want anything. If you
don't want retail, you've got to take it out.
Mancino: So it'd just be officeNinstitutional without retail.
Harberts: I would follow the staff recommendations.
35
F,
i
k
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
Farmakes: Now is that office retail or...
Mancino: What's high tech industrial?
Krauss: ...high tech industrial kind of walks like an office building, talks like an office
building but if you go inside it could be warehouse and manufacturing ... high tech buildings,
you know along 494 in Minnetonka that-Pond project on one side and.
t
Scott: There's Baker Industrial Park.
Mancino: Those are high tech buildings?
Krauss: Those are high tech buildings. They're glass fronts. They look like offices from the
street frontage and a lot of them are 70-80% office but the interiors are flexible. And there's
loading docks—in the back.
Mancino: ...and that would come under office, high tech industrial?
Krauss: Yes.
Conrad: Just think Nancy how nice a retail center this could be. Where you have wetlands
and you have x some character that we're striving for in downtown that everybody wants but is
not really there. Here's an area that might just be something with some character.
Farmakes: Well the issue of office, where we say office, use it as a word for a zone. I
always get a little cross eyed at that. The issue of the two developments that we have down
here that are office, the bottom floors are retail. Would that use then be acceptable in this if
it's office?
Krauss: I don't think so but it depends on how you do it. The Comp Plan, the '91 Comp
Plan actually has one area, it's on the Ward property that's shown only for office uses.
Solely for office uses which I suppose means that it would be zoned office institutional is the
only use that can go there. In that district that's all you can do. Then again if somebody
came in as a PUD, which the last 25% of the uses could be something else, it is possible to
get a mix. I agree with you and I know, I remember the conversation very well with Brad
where the line gets real blurry. Are these retail buildings or are they office buildings? I
think you can be more specific than that. But again...
Scott: Well if we, I'm just kind of looking across old Highway 101 from that area. If we're
talking about putting some sort of a hotel, park and ride kind of a complex over there, it is
-:A
36
F�
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 1
conceivable he said we're going to have, it looks like that hotel development will probably be
a little bit more substantial than Country Suites, maybe? Yes? No? Might there be small
retail associated with that project? I suppose anything's possible but I'm just thinking.
Krauss: That's a project that hasn't coalesced yet. We're still working on that. If it did
happen in it's current incarnation, there's already a little strip mall there right now, and it
provides a nice mix. The only other additional retail that was thought of is a restaurant, free
standing or attached in conjunction with the hotellmotel.
Scott: Okay. Well, on this particular issue do we go with the staff recommendation or do we
remove commercial, which I would understand, would we remove retail? If we remove ,
commercial designation from here, that remains retail?
Aanenson: Except as Paul mentioned, if they came forward with a PUD.
Scott: With a PUD it could be 25% but then that would give us the opportunity to look at
the plan in it's entirety and if we felt at that point in time that some small retail would be
appropriate, maybe that's the bottom line. Maybe we remove the commercial segment of this
but if it happens to come in with a PUD and it looks good to whoever happens to be on the
Planning Commission at that point in time, what do you think about that? ,
Mancino: Works for me.
Scott: Works for you.
Ledvina: That's acceptable for me. ,
Scott: Matt. What do you think Diane? '
Harberts: Yeah, it works for me. I think that enables more of an influence by the city and
community.
Scott: Okay. What do you think Ladd?
Conrad: No.
Scott: It stinks. It still stinks.
Conrad: Yeah, you know. My position would be, I'd really like to see some nice retail go in I
there. E
37
it
I
�J
t
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
Scott: What's nice retail?
Conrad: Well we've got to get moving along but we don't have a lot of control on that. I
just, really my bottom line is, I don't think you can afford to take retail out of, we need some
retail space and I'm not convinced we need the other space that you're zoning it for. That's
really my bottom line.
Scott: Alright. Are we.
Farmakes: Is that property in or out of the TIF district?
Krauss: It's in and it was included, at least part of it.
Farmakes: So the odds are we would probably be seeing the PUD no matter what anyway on
this particular piece of property?
Krauss: Again, if something happened...
Harberts: Ladd, are you maybe hedging that you'd rather see most of this retail rather than
the office?
Conrad: I like the mixed use and 1'd like to see a real nice. To tell you the truth, I'd like to
see a real nice retail shopping center there.
Harberts: Versus high tech office?
Conrad: But what are the chances that, the chances are minimal that we'd get it so.
Scott: Yeah, on 7 acres. I mean if we went with a 25% PUD, we would get probably 4 or 5
acres of retail. Let's say 4 acres of retail versus 7 acres, which is obviously about 75% more.
Mancino: Ladd, you could just as easily get a discount store there.
Scott: Can you get big box retail on 7 acres?
Conrad: Can you?
Scott: That's, we don't want. I mean I don't want that. Target's 10?
38
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
Krauss: Target's on 10...we'll have to check.
Scott: Yeah, so I mean so it's conceivable. Personally I don't want to see these big box
retails but.
Mancino: K -Mart, Wal-Mart.
Scott: I don't want it. I don't want that there.
Conrad: Just a clarification though. Based on the current zoning, a discount store could go.
Or based on the map that we looked at, a discount store could go in.
Krauss: You're right.
Conrad: And maybe it's better what you're doing.
Scott: Okay, are you okay?
Mancino: We're all in agreement.
Scott: Anyway, so we're done with the Ward property.
Harberts: What about the Fleet Farm?
Mancino: It's not a very clear recommendation so the City Council knows.
Farmakes: Well, which one are we on right now?
Scott: Still the first item. So anyway. Basically what they're, the zoning that we're going to
recommend is all office. We call it office, IOP.
Mancino: Office institutional.
Scott: Office institutional and that is, in the vernacular of planningese that is what? OI?
Krauss: That would be one of the zones in the appropriate.
Scott: Yeah, and what would you call it? OI, office industrial?
39
1
I Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
Mancino: Office institutional.
Scott: Okay. Office institutional. That's for the whole thing.
Farmakes: How long does that remain in TIF by the way? Is it the end of the decade? Does
' TIF run out, is it 2000?
Conrad: 2001.
Krauss: There's also an industrial.
Mancino: Just office institutional. Not office industrial institutional.
Krauss: Oh, if you consider changing two things.
Mancino: Well there was never office industrial on here.
Scott: Yeah, because we've got office institutional.
Krauss: That's one with the stripes.
Mancino: Oh, I'm looking again at this site plan.
' Scott: Well, because I'm looking at I think maybe the same thing. At least according to this
Figure 8.14. The 7 acre parcel was retail office, high tech industrial and what we want this
' whole thing to be is office institutional. Two different things, right?
Mancino: Yes. Pink and blue.
'
Scott. • So we nailed down our recommendation is that we want to see the entire property, the
' land use office institutional.
Aanenson: You're eliminating the high tech type, smaller footprint industrial? That was one
' of the uses...
Harberts: I think, it was my understanding the only thing we're doing is removing
' commercial out of the staff recommendation. Am I right on that?
Scott: Okay, so we're removing commercial.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
Harberts: Did you get that?
Krauss: You wanted to clarify in the text to say that.
Scott: No commercial zoning on the Ward property.
Harberts: Period.
Krauss: No, that's not what you said though. As a part of a PUD it could possibly have
some.
Mancino: That's true.
Farmakes: ...have to say that is that a PUD allows for...
Aanenson: If you turn to page 21 in the document and it talks about...
Scott: Which document?
Aanenson: It says it's the Ward property.
Scott: Okay.
Aanenson: Potential uses.
Scott: Yep.
Aanenson: We're eliminating retail commercial but we're saying office industrial and add
institutional. And then you say PUD ... may be considered under a PUD.
Scott: Would we agree with that? Why don't you restate that? That was good.
Aanenson: Okay. Under the potential use ... the first one will be retail commercial.
Scott: So we strike that.
Aanenson: Strike that out.
Scott: Okay, that's out of there.
41
r-I
I �
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
Aanenson: Residential... and office industrial/institutional.
Scott: Okay, because it does mention institutional in the text but you want to have it all
office industriaUinstitutional.
Aanenson: Right. And then say commercial may be permitted under the PUD. May be
considered. `
Scott: Yeah, may be considered. Yep, that's important. May be considered. Okay. Is
everybody clear on what we've done?
Farmakes: We're eliminating industrial.
Scott: Ah no. We're eliminating, for a potential use retail and commercial. It's going to be
all office industrial/institutional and commercial may be considered as part of a PUD. Not to
exceed 25% but I guess that's the PUD ordinance so. Okay. Have we finished that item to
everyone's satisfaction? I'll say yes.
Farmakes: Yes.
Mancino: Yes.
Scott: Okay. What about the Opus?
Mancino: I have some notes.
Scott: Oh okay. These issues affect the option for commercial zoning on the Ward property.
Which I understand, and the VanDeVeire. Okay, let's talk about that.'
Mancino: What are we talking about?
Scott: How does this affect the option for VanDeVeire?
Aanenson: These are the other commercial pieces that you're looking at. This portion of
Fleet Farm and the question that we talked about, potentially including in a park. And the
other one is the VanDeVeire piece which ... so that ties back into ... and if there should be some
ancillary to service the neighborhood. And support commercial.
Scott: Let's talk about for VanDeVeire. Right now we have what? Let me see with the
Song/Carlson property and some of the Lundgren developments, if we add all that stuff
42
1
planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
together with the existing people living in that area, we're looking at 400 -500 single family
p g
houses. I'm just trying to get an idea.
,
Mancuso: No. 200 Lundgr en.
Krauss: If you're looking at a service - area for neighborhood commercial, add the 144 homes I
in the Hans Hagen and the 70 homes in ... but they're not turning the same corner.. So I .
think... we think that's where your trade is.
Is that something that, I guess Dian e, '
Scott: So we have the same question on that Property-
how do you see that particular corner? Do you see that as a general commercial or
something like a neighborhood business kind of...? '
Mancino: ...is that what it is? I
Farmakes: Is that the property?
Harberts: Is that what he has and then he has that commercial? What's this commercial '
proposed as neighborhood or ... something else?
Krauss: At this particular time...
Conrad: I think it should stay neighborhood. '
Harberts: Ditto.
Scott: Neighborhood commercial? ,
Conrad: Yes. ,
Scott: What is the zoning classification on that? Neighborhood.
' what that re '
Harberts: That's resents now. p
Krauss: Actually we've shown it as a mix. Neighborhood commercial, medium family '
residential and I believe...
Mancino: ...I don't have a big deal with the way and I like the three suggestions. The
medium density, multi- family, the neighborhood commercial and I think we even said o n the
task force open space. You know it's across from the school. It's surrounded by the Bluff
43
I -
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
' Creek corridor, which I think is an amenity to that whole area, and so I think it's important
where we do have that corridor amenity there, that we do have families living around it that
' can use it and not to put either institutional right up to this wonderful nature trail and corridor
that people don't use it, or to put a lot of commercial around it. Because I think that
homeowners and family members will use it so much more. So that's kind of my concern
' and I know we're just getting started to work on the Bluff Creek corridor so I'm concerned
about that. I'm also a little concerned about having commercial across the street from a
school but it also serves neighborhoods in that area too. So I don't have a big concern either
way.
Farmakes: That's one of the properties that I thought, at least next to the creek there that I
thought that the city should try and acquire some of that. The development that I saw up
here tonight goes right up to the limited borders of that creek and if it is a multi, I don't think
you're going to see much of that creek from the highway. To be honest with you. I'm fine
' with some limited commercial, neighborhood commercial. I guess from a planning
standpoint, I guess any of these other uses that were listed are also fine. I do think though
that that's another one of the areas that does have some wooded areas or it's adjacent to
wooded areas. That we should try and preserve that.
' Scott: So do we have a consensus on neighborhood business, multi- family, open space. So
there would be no change there. Okay. Are we okay with that? No change on the
VanDeVeire? Okay. Okay, how about the westerly piece of the Fleet Farm site adjacent to
the limited access road? I was going to ask, what page is that on? We've got these great
maps here.
' Harberts: It's got to be on TH 41 there where the TH 41 and TH 5.
Aanenson: On page 48 of this.
' Ledvina: Can you point out what's done on the westerly part of that?
' Mancino: Look to your 8.7 and 8.8.
Aanenson: Easterly. Is that the one we're looking at tying with the park? As we stated,
we're not sure that that will be a full intersection at that—We're having Opus doing a traffic
study and stated that that may just be a free right only. It may not be a full intersection.
' Harberts: So, that would make a difference.
Scott: Yeah.
C I
fl
planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 1
Harberts: Well whe n we went out there and drove it, if this is what happens with the road
system. I don't know, I thought I kind of liked it.
Mancino: Which part.
Farmakes: Like it is? ,
Harberts: Yeah. At least from what I've seen.
'
Mancino. You can't have that west city road g o up north?
Harberts: Well with the development or potential development there, with those access. '
Mancino: I think this northern part between Galpin and TH 41, and I said it earlier to Ladd,
absolutely gorgeous land. I mean it's got these wonderful wetlands and you look up north '
there, just beautiful, beautiful land and rolling hills.
Farmakes: I'm fine with the uses being proposed for those two smaller parcels. Obviously '
I'm not for the Mills section.
Conrad: Would you be though if there's not a road there? '
Farmakes: For large scale commercial? '
Aanenson: Look at the development parcels. We're looking at really three 3 to 5 acre
parcels on either side of that road. I think the reason that got raised ... go back and look at the '
site analysis, and in the development design that was done for both parcels, commercial was
never mentioned on the easterly portion or evolved from this plan...
Farmakes: What I see here on the map is 3 acres to the east that says office institutional and '
then 2.5 acres to the west that says alternative land uses. Office institutional, neighborhood
retail. Those are the two parcels that we're discussing right now? Or are you expanding that ,
out to the entire area?
Aanenson: I was looking at... '
Krauss: Well yeah, you've got 3 questions on there. Two of which we raised in here and
one which was raised in the...
Farmakes: Right. I'm just wondering what, you know are we going to discuss them as a
45
t
i Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
group or are we going to discuss them each as a, it seems to me that they're, from my
standpoint anyway, a couple of those uses are fine. And some of the alternative uses that
were being discussed by Mr. Hoffman here ... that's a different animal.
' Scott: Well the size of the parcels obviously could change depending upon if that west city
street actually becomes a full intersection and the street goes up and intersects with the access
boulevard. Because then we'd have what, a fairly large parcel.
Aanenson. • I d � g still be just a free right to get in there and then come back out. And then if
It'd
you wanted to proceed, a free right to get onto the frontage road and then come back out on
TH 41, but that may not be a full intersection is what I'm saying.
Scott: But whether or not that street's there will have a lot to do with what happens on that
property.
' Farmakes: Sure. But that might be 10 years from now.
Scott: So do we have any, do we want to guide that for something else or are we
' comfortable with the?
Ledvina: That's okay.
Harberts: I think generally it was okay. The issue is going to surround with the, what type
of intersection, if any, as I understand it Will the city be able to consider? They won't have
that information at the time this is moved ahead so it's just one of those transition pieces. Is
that correct? Or this goes ahead until that traffic study's completed.
' Krauss: You know the traffic study is going to tell us whether or not Opus needs an access
out onto Highway 5 at that point. Whether or not that should be signalized. It's not going to
tell us whether or not we need the north leg. It's the same kind of a thing I was talking
' about on Audubon. Realistically this road is perfectly adequate to service that entire area
without that intersection on the north side.
1
Scott: Yeah. That's so close to TH 41. I can see where the traffic study of ingress and
egress from the development but not for that other...
Krauss: Whereas Opus needs it from a traffic standpoint... is to their probably benefit by not
having it. You're not chopping up parcels. You're keeping neighborhoods together.
,:a
0
planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 1
Scott: Well maybe
we should consider, at least consider it as a contiguous piece of 7 to 8 '
acres ... and look at it that way. So how does that, does that change anybody's thoughts as to
the applicability of the zone guiding on it?
Harberts: I guess I don't, I'm not against what you're saying Joe. I'd like to, let's just leave
'
the road system in until the traffic study's done.
Krauss: Maybe there should be some language in there because the only reason why there
'
was a commercial use in there is because there may be an intersection. No intersection,
there's no reason for a commercial use there.
'
Mancino: So then having an alternative if there isn't a road, I would go ahead and continue
the multi- family.
'
Aanenson: Or the park option.
Scott: Okay. So okay. So if there's no extension. So if then if there's no extension of the
If is an extension, then it's neighborhood
'
west city street, then it's multi- family park? there
business? What's the second piece here really?
'
Harberts: Well I was under the impression that if there is no road extension, that the
commercial element is just removed as an option.
'
Scott: Which would make sense.
,
Harberts: The other option is park.
Krauss: The ... would be like a church site.
'
Harberts: Right. The other option would be a park and then was there a third option for that
piece? No, guess not.
'
Aanenson: Multi- family.
o
Harberts: Multi - family, so th ere's three options.
Scott: I think we're through now with the firs site except
,
west of
for the most northerly poraon. Get your map out. portion west
10 acre
Highway 41 which shall be left medium family residential. That's up against the
47
1
LI
I�
'I
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
parcel that's a single family home?
Aanenson: Yes.
Scott: Okay.
Mancino: Now where's medium family again?
Aanenson: It's right here.
Mancino: The piece behind?
Aanenson: All of this will be zoned IOP. And we've always stated that commercial will not
be permitted at this corner. That commercial under a PUD, if they have 25% and if they
were to put it in—down in this corner and not on this side of the street. And the PUD would
guide this to be office type uses ... design, the lighting be compatible with the acreage.
Scott: And then multi- family would abut the 10 acre parcel.
Aanenson: Where the wetland is adjacent to the house?
Scott: Yeah. That kind of, the wetland kind of bisects that parcel. Let me ask a question. It
says the PAD.
Aanenson: That should say PUD.
Scott: That's kind of what I thought. Another acronym I didn't know. Okay. What do we
feel about that?
Conrad: It's perfect.
Mancino: Not for me.
Scott: It doesn't work for you?
Mancino: I would still like to see all the, the land that touches the Arboretum multi- family.
I went and looked at a land use map and looked through the city and looked at our city parks
and what kind of land use was around you know Lake Ann, Meadow Green Park, Greenwood
Shores Park. You know all of our parks are surrounded, except for Lake Susan Park, but
most of our parks we have tried to, at least from what I can see that predecessor's have done,
to
48
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 . I
have tried to put them in those green spaces in single family or multi- family areas.
Scott: From my big packet, that's a park deficiency thing.
Mancino: And I think that's done for a reason. I think that there are green spaces. If you
look at that map that's up in front of us, besides Lake Ann Park, if it weren't for the ,
Arboretum, there wouldn't be a lot of big chunks of green open space. And I'm very
concerned about what we do around those big green open spaces. To preserve them. To
keep them as a place where people want to go and walk and see vegetation, etc. And so I '
would like to see medium family surrounding the Arboretum.
Scott: Well isn't the trailhead for the Chaska trail system is actually right across from what '
is now ... as IOP, right? And if we brought multi- family all the way down, that might make.
Mancino: Which is what they've done in Chaska, and what abuts the Arboretum in Chaska is '
single family.
Scott: Yes. Along with the road coming in. Now correct me if I'm wrong. Everybody... '
that actually the folks at the Arboretum would prefer industrial office because of the activity
being predominantly 8:00 to 5:00 and nothing going on on the weekends and so forth when
there'd be people at the Arboretum versus multi- family. The times that the multi- family are '
going to be the most active would be when the Arboretum's most active?
Krauss: I talked with Peter Olin on that after our last meeting. No, that is not his position. I '
think it was the position of the people, the residents in the area, who are Chaska residents...
Aanenson: That's what Peter Olin spoke tonight... ,
Scott: Yeah, I heard that and that didn't make sense to me. '
Aanenson: Just to go back to the park issue. One of the most successful parks we have in
the city is in an industrial park and I think Todd's preference is, is his desire to have the park ,
in an industrial parks.
Scott: Lake Susan? '
Aanenson: Lake Susan is a good example and for scheduling and then the traffic. It works
better than trying to impact things on the neighbors who are concerned about lighting and '
traffic through the neighborhood and it's been very successful. That's why he was pushing so
hard to get it into the Opus site. Where it benefits both large industrial users where they
49
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
0
have a place to go on their lunch hour, after work or ... organized activities.
Scott: Do the customers or does Todd think his customers for Lake Ann, or Lake Susan
Park, is there a lot of activity from the leagues from Rosemount, Roberts?
Krauss: A tremendous amount.
Scott: Okay, so his view is that it's something that kind of suddenly dawned on me is that
this could be basically you're putting the park where your customers are. For organized.
Their vision of the park is active, scheduled type stuff where we tend to lean more towards
the passive, wetland. Okay. Anyway, what do we all think about having multi, bringing
multi- family all the way down to West 86th Street?
Aanenson: 82nd.
Scott: 82nd Street. And having a multi- family strip there instead of IOP down there on
82nd. We know what Nancy thinks. What do you think Ladd?
Conrad: I think it's nice.
Farmakes: I've never seen a compelling reason to bring industrial across the highway. But
tempered with what comments I have heard from the Arboretum, I'm open to whatever the
residents that abut that property would like. From a planning perspective, this is like really
kind of a back closet in Chanhassen. It's a corner and it's, I think it's an issue of buffered
use at this point. It's not really a planning issue. I'm open to vote either way on that
particular item.
Scott: Okay, good. What do you think?
Conrad: I think we're treating this like it's an access park. You can't, your multi- family
folks can't go into the Arboretum. That's trespassing.
Mancino: Sure they can.
Conrad: But you made some parallels between other parks and that doesn't count. They
can't go there. I think, the issue is buffering the Arboretum. Flat out, that's the issue. My
perspective, and the second issue is doing what the local residents who have single family
care about. Single family folks would rather put the office institutional in there is what my
feeling was when I heard them talk. In fact, my feeling is, the best buffer, the best visual
control we have is putting in. Making it IO in that area. I think we could just do a terrific
50
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 1
job for the Arboretum in terms of visual impact if we left it IOP. Because we've got control. ,
� '
We've just got a ton of control. We can put some, we can do so many thing s that just
it unobtrusive to the Arboretum. Maybe you could make the same comment about putting in
multi- family but multi- family is real, I'll tell you. If you put multi- family in there, it doesn't,
it's like you're putting it in the middle of where? You've got office. You've got industrial
to the south. You've got industrial IOP to the east. It is kind of nice to put it up against a
park but they can't use the park.
Mancino: Sure they can. They can walk to the. '
Conrad: You can't walk through.
Mancino: It s right there. y ou ou also have single family right south of them.
Conrad: It goes south but not in the park. ,
Mancino: No, but there's single family. The Chaska zoning is single family.
Conrad: But anyway, bottom lute for me is, I think
the residents would rather have it the
way, the IOP.
Ledvina: Well, can I just try to recollect my thoughts on that? I think they were thinking
that if we were going to be doing multi- family there, they'd rather have the IO, the industrial
thing application. But we had it set up here as a recommendation for single family and that's ,
consistent with what they have. Am I right there?
Aanenson: Well the way it's shown here, a portion of it's single family and a portion of it's ,
strictly office.
Scott: But is that square that's single family, that's one single family home.
Aanenson: No. It's 30 acres. I
Farmakes: There is an existing single family home.
Ledvina: So I think in comparison to multi-family and industrial, light industrial, they'd '
rather have the industrial but I think for single family, I don't think they would object to
single family as well. I mean given the hierarchy of land use. '
Farmakes: The single family though were looking at developing the property.
51
11
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
Ledvina: Right.
Farmakes: As industrial.
Ledvina: So whatever. I guess overall I'm pretty comfortable with how the staff has laid it
' all there. The parcel to the east, that's pink there on the map. The reality of that chunk is
that there is a very large wetland on the northern part of that that buffers the Arboretum and I
don't know what, even if you could possibly do anything with that single family orange,
industrial so I'm not, I'm pretty indifferent to any classification on that. So I'm comfortable
with it the way it is.
t Scott: Okay, so what you're saying is single family up above, multi- family on 82nd or IOP
on 82nd?
' Krauss: I think if you look at Figure 8.21, you have that recommendation. It _shows medium
density, office and medium density down on the street.
Ledvina: Okay, so it isn't single family?
Aanenson: No.
Ledvina: I guess considering that, I would agree with Ladd then. Kind of flip flopping but I
thought that was, right along 82nd there was single family on our maps but that's incorrect.
Scott: It's IOP.
Aanenson: No, it's shown as...
' Harberts: It splits.
Farmakes: Industrial, medium density residential.
Scott: Okay.
Ledvina: I guess I'm comfortable with the way the staff has laid it out.
Scott: You're not. Jeffs kind of.
' Mancino: Well I'm comfortable with the Highway 5 task force recommendation, which is
' medium density in that.
52
L� .
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
Aanenson: Adjacent to the Arboretum and then office...
Harberts: I support that staff recommendation.
Mancino: Which?
Harberts: Medium.
Conrad: Which is the task force?
Harberts: Yeah.
Aanenson: The modified...?
Harberts: The modified. Medium density.
Aanenson: With the rest all IOP.
Harberts: Yep.
Scott: Yeah, I would agree with that as well. Okay. So we're clear. Are you guys clear on
what.
Aanenson: So was there consensus on that? A show of hands?
Scott: 4 of us liked it as indicated. Jeff was.
Farmakes: I'm comfortable as it's written.
Scott: Okay. And then Nancy you wanted to see multi-family brought down to the, you're
snickering. What are you snickering about? Okay. You got that?
Aanenson: Yep.
Scott: Okay. Eckankar property. The owners are requesting that in addition to the multi-
family, that institutional be listed as a permitted use. Diane.
Harberts: Now as I understood from our work session, that the multi- family would be the
underlying designation in the event something happened to the current owners.
53
1
L
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
Scott: So your concern is, it's okay to have it institutional but if something happens to the
institutional use, it would revert back to multi- family?
Harberts: Right. Now the only question that I have, what's their current, how is it currently
guided?
Krauss: I think it's medium and high.
Harberts: Okay, so we're not changing it.
Aanenson: You wouldn't rezone it.
Krauss: The only proposal in here was that, I think it covers both bases because basically
you leave that yellow up there...
Harberts: Okay.
Aanenson: The zoning would still remain the same.
Harberts: Yeah, and as I said at the work session, I don't have any problem with it. I
thought it was fine.
Ledvina: Well I didn't attend the work session but I think that's a reasonable way of
amending it.
Scott: Okay, Ladd.
Conrad: Perfect.
Scott: Jeff. You're okay? Okay. Okay, so am L Okay, so that's a yes. Okay, about what?
Farmakes: Well we discussed the parcels next to it, I'm wondering about the issue of
commercial scale on the comer of TH 5 and TH 41.
Scott: But recommending an access boulevard alternative do we, and then also
recommending the design standards, doesn't that take care of the Fleet Farm use on that
corner?
Farmakes: Well yeah, I'm sure it will be brought up to the City Council and I'm wondering
if philosophically.
54
VA
t
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
Scott: You're looking for a statement.
Farmakes: A statement and the issue of expanding large scale commercial outside the '
business district.
Scott: Oh, well. I think we can take care of that. I mean I stated my opinion but I guess,
we'll take just a quick, actually sort of a detour but as Jeff is stating, as I understand it, that
as Planning Commission I think we may need to make a very specific statement about the
for the property on the Mills Fleet Farm property. And your thoughts are? '
Farmakes: My thoughts are that the large scale commercial use would be inappropriate in
that area.
Scott: Okay, I would agree with that. Nancy? '
Mancino: I agree.
Scott: Ladd. Diane.
Ledvina: I agree.
Scott: Okay so just for th matter of record, the Planning Commission - is unanimously
opposed to any large scale commercial use of the property northeast on the intersection of
Highway 41 and Highway 5. Otherwise known as the Mills property. Okay. J.P. Links,
g Y
which is 15 -20 acres may be considered as a park site.
enson: ...another option.
Aan P
Scott: Fine, fine? Okay. That's a yes there. Heritage Development west of Bluff Creek. '
South of the frontage road. Multi - family should be considered as an option with the
industrial. What do you think Ladd?
talkie just j
Aanenson: That was the piece we were � g about.
Scott: With Mr. Dobbs, correct? Okay, Dobbs? '
John Dobbs: That's correct.
Conrad: I think that's fine.
i
55
t
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
Scott: Fine. Nancy.
Mancino: No problem.
Scott: Jeff.
Farmakes: No problem.
Harberts: Fine.
Scott: Just because of it's proximity to the Bluff Creek corridor, obviously this is coming in
as a PUD?
Aanenson: Yes. _
Scott: Okay.
Mancino: Is it going to be industrial on the outside and multi- family on the inside?
Farmakes: Sounds like a candy bar.
Scott: And crunchy too.
Conrad: How many acres are we talking about right there?
Aanenson: 120. We'll have three different ones. Single family, multi- family and industrial.
Conrad: Okay. Good. So by doing what we just did, giving them the option, how many
acres are we taking out of?
Aanenson: You're taking it out of the industrial.
Conrad: How many acres would we be taking out?
Aanenson: We're not taking it out. We're saying...
Conrad: It could be but more than likely...
Scott: And then we'll be able to, we're going to see it anyway so.
56
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 1
industrial's a high value. Do we have enough of it?
Conrad: My only point is, you know indu g
Krauss: You have to remember that's also a flood plain. '
Scott: Okay. Possible locations of a 15 -20 acre park of the easterly portion of the Fleet
Farm property.
Aanenson: We talked about that already. '
Mancino: I actually think it would be a wonderful viewpoint into that area, into the wetlands
that are north of that.
Scott: Okay, that's a big yes on that one. Okay. Now we move on into development and
design standards issues. Application of these standards should be in two subdistricts, the
central business district (HC -1) shall go from Dell Road on the east and Powers on the west.
And that was something that just came out of our discussion at the work session.
Krauss: That was something that when we expanded the CBD district...
Scott: Which will definitely impact the DataSery looks.
Krauss: I think it gets to a lot of the ... I don't know what the concern is but that was one of
the things we discussed. ,
Scott: But that's the gate, the eastern gateway to the city and I think it's appropriate that we
do something. So we're all in favor of that? Okay. Now here's a big item that we'll be
debating for a long time. Application of these standards for public transit, is there flexibility?
Mancino: No. '
Scott: Okay. Better definition of pitched roof elements, graphics will be added. So that's.
Aanenson: We ll put that in there—we asked for 3 different typicals ... Not all pitched roofs '
depending on the same of the building ... so different applications.
'
Scott: Okay. Definition of accent color possibly amended to exclude corporate logos.
Aanenson: That was raised by Jeff.
Scott: Yes we will.
57
I Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
Aanenson: You want to put that in there?
' Scott: Yeah, I think so.
Conrad: Why?
Harberts: Yeah.
1 Scott: Well, because we talked about accent colors and that we want to have accent colors to
break up the monotony but I don't consider a Hardee's sign an accent color. So it can't be
' part signage.
Ledvina: What I'm thinking of, what if they have an admiral blue as part of their, one of
their logo colors. They can't use that?
Scott: Well, I think what we're trying to get away from is someone saying we're breaking up
the monotony on our building by using our signage.
Krauss: I think Rapid Oil is a good example where they have their red barreling as part of
' their logo. Or Burger King which has a neon orange stripe around the building. If that's an
accent color...
' Scott: Yeah, we're looking more at architectural elements and not signage.
Aanenson: I think what we did is put it in context.
Led a g
vin : You're telling them not to use their color.
' Scott: No, no. They can't include the color as, see if we're asking them to break up the
monotony of a surface on their building or their structure by using accent colors, generally
they do something with tile or brick or something like that which is great but by putting or
' using, holding their signage up as a conformance to adding accent colors to break up the
monotony, signage should be. I don't know if you want to.
' Aanenson: ...context of looking at the ... of the ordinance about—Those are questions to make
sure we...
Scott: Okay, and then the height of parking lot lighting possibly amended to state they are
limited to one story and it shall be neutral in color.
58
I
planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
Aanenson: So you want that added?
Scott: Do we? Yes.
Ledvina: Well, I don't know.
Harberts: As opposed to what? 3 story?
Ledvina: Is it appropriate to do that? I mean in all cases to limit it to 1 story? I don't know
that that's.
Krauss: Well, you're going to wind up with more poles, which raises cost.
Ledvina: Yeah. Which there's more lights.
Scott: Well then we have our landscape, our parking lot landscape stuff which is going to
cause more islands.
Ledvina: How tall is one story? 12 feet right? That means you're looking at a 12 foot
light?
Scott: How tall is Target?
Ledvina: Those are 40 feet.
Krauss: Those are 40 feet, yeah.
Ledvina: We want something inbetween.
Scott: What are we looking for here?
Mancino: Well we didn't want anything taller. One of the things was it wasn't any taller
than the building. Like the ones at Target are much taller than the building.
Krauss: Well there you have a 25 foot high building.
Scott: So is Market Square and it seems like every, I think you go into any commercial
parking lot and you can see.
Mancino: You can see them over the heads. I mean you can see them 3 miles away.
59
1
r]
�J
1
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
Ledvina: Yeah but one story, is that overkill? I mean that's what scares me.
Mancino: I don't know.
Conrad: You know actually I think you're right because I'm not sure that that makes sense.
Scott: Should it be 1 1/2 times the height of the building? I mean is that what we're looking
for?
Mancino: Well that could be 3 stories...
Farmakes: We toyed there about whether or not it should be any higher than the building,
similar to a pylon issue. Then there was a discussion that you would have too many lights
because they don't, the arch of the lights does not give off enough, it's not high enough to
give off enough light coverage. So can we get, it would seem to me again that that's a
professional response to what's appropriate. I think the issue is, you don't want to drive in
and see these kind of arched lights that are far higher than any of the buildings... Well they
lend too much visual pollution from the standpoint of it kind of becomes signs in a way.
Ledvina: I understand and I agree with that but can we just, instead of saying these shall be
whatever, 12,feet. I mean can we say that they're going to be.
Mancino: In proportion to the height of the building.
Ledvina: Yeah, right.
Scott: What does that mean? I mean I was more comfortable when it was like 1 1/2 times.
Farmakes: I'd like to see a specific gap similar to the way that we do pylon signs.
Scott: What is that?
Farmakes: I'm not saying it should be the same. I'm saying that something that is
reasonable for the economy of lighting a parking lot. But no more than that.
Scott: Why don't we say 1 1/2 times the height of the structure and if somebody comes back
and says, watts and all this kind of junk and they can say well.
Mancino: But 1 1/2 times is still higher than the structure.
.,
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 ,
Scott: 1 1/2 times so it's 16 feet on a 12 foot building.
Farmakes: es: But you could have a maximum building though of more than 40 feet.
Conrad: We really don't know what we're talking about here. Let's stop this. Somebody's
got to tell us. The intent is real valid but we don't have a solution.
Ledvina: Let me get back to that just a little bit though. I mean if we can't say that it
proportion should be ro
in ortion or use a qualitative term like that, then the whole, then we're taking
the wrong approach to this ordinance because we go through this throughout the ordinance in
terms of being subjective and having qualitative measures and all of that. So if we're trying
to do that for light fixtures, I think we've got to take a real deeper look at that what's in here
and how we're doing it. '
Farmakes: No, I disagree with that. I think that there are qualitative issues on there. There
are issues_ such as how many materials are being used in comparison to build it... There are
other issues where you don't want to be quantitative and the issue of the height of something, '
I think you should be, should say specifically what the maximum is. And the issues of
aesthetic things, that becomes a far more difficult issue. You talk more about the end intent
of what you're looking for.
Ledvina: Isn't the height of a light fixture aesthetic though? '
Farmakes: Not necessarily. Not if you're going to qualify it. If you want to qualify it, and
you say in proportion to the building, define the word proportion. Many of the definitions
that are in there, that may seem ambiguous are defined. And I think in the purpose of the '
light fixture, or we discussed that issue. You were concerned I think about the ... and issues of
things that are already currently in our ordinance. I think the purpose of it was that you did
not get disproportionately huge lighting situations going on.
Scott: But I don't have any problems specifying something and it doesn't have to be 1 1/2 '
times the building but I think when you put some language in, the ... who would be impacted
by it, would take a look at it and if they can come back and you know with reasons why this
isn't going to work. I mean I don't know, quite frankly on that issue I don't know what '
we're talking about but I think we do need to put something in there that's specific. So as
part of the next step of the process, if somebody should come back and say here's why or
why not it doesn't make sense.
Farmakes: Currently I believe don't we have a height restriction on lighting? I
61 1f
Plannin g Commission Meeting - January 19 1:994
Mancino: I think we just have a candle.
' Krauss: Now we have a half a foot candle at the property line.
Farmakes: You just have a power restriction.
Krauss: And the problem always comes about, that when they take these plans to an
electrical contractor... to bid, that can save you $25,000.00...
Farmakes: Well, I would entertain just getting a professional responses to what would, the
economic... leave it to that
' Harberts: I think it's a public safety issue too perhaps.
' Scott: Yeah. Let's do it.
Mancino: I have one quick question. Kate and Paul, on Chapter 8 with the standards related
to architectural designs. It says standards governing all these architectural designs shall ... both
new and renovated buildings. Do we need to say what a renovated building is? I mean does
that mean when somebody existing on Highway 5 let's say, I don't know the storage
' company who has rooftop equipment that shows now. It's very visible from Highway 5.
Wants to screen and do a little bit of building renovation. Do they have to comply with these
standards now?
' Krauss: I think we should have some more specific language. One of the things we talked
about, a couple of years ago ... you want to work with your existing business community by
' encouraging them to expand or improve and a way to do that is not to throw, not come down
like a ... you're adding a window, therefore you've got to add $75,000.00 in improvements to
make it proportional. We can probably put in some language there that says just that.
' Ledvina: I'd recommend that.
' Scott: Also too, this is on page 12 where it talks about in locations where plants would be
susceptible to injury, so on and so forth. Possibly something in there about the salt tolerance
and I may have missed that if it was in here but we spend a lot of time talking about that in
' all of our developments. This would be good to have use of salt tolerant species.
Krauss: ... over the summer we had the ordinance that...
62
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
Scott: Good. Okay. What about the comment that came up about any development, and I
don't know whether it's going to be at the conceptual plan would show not only all the
elevations but some sort of a computer aided design or a computer generated simulation of
actual, the actual visual impact and as constructed. Not in 15 years when the trees are big. It
seems like when we see these plans, first of all and I got quite excited when I saw that, the
bridge because I think we were able to jump on that and make some better decisions. I think
we would be better served if we had that as a requirement of all projects at a certain point.
Aanenson: ...you may want to amend the ordinance to say any large scale parcel...
Scott: Okay, so that's a different spot. Okay. Have we satisfactorily dealt with the land use
portion and the design standards?
Mancino: I have one other design standard question for people to talk about and that is,
there's nothing in here on neighborhood commercial. And I would like to see something
about how neighborhood commercial is different than a regular commercial area, meaning
does it, how it fits in with the neighborhood better. Does it have more residential type
materials being used that reflect the neighborhood that it's support to be part of?
Scott: Good point.
Farmakes: Won't that be part of the zone though?
Scott: I don't think it is.
Aanenson: In a PUD certainly when we looked at that with Opus, certainly that would be
something to put in a PUD development plan. Do you want it to be architecturally
compatible so it looks as one cohesive unit, and that's one of the goals. But certainly if you
had a separate case that's not under a PUD.
Mancino: Yeah, I mean what about Galpin and TH 5.
Aanenson: Right, and that is built separately without any other project, right. Do you still
want it to go under the residential, so it looks like it's part of that neighborhood.
Mancino: Yes. Because it is neighborhood commercial. I mean it's not general commercial.
Aanenson: I know that's in the intent. I think we'll have to make sure that, even the intent
when we adopt the plan. I mean that's in the goal statement there but how we put that into
63
L�
0
!
L
LI
1
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
the ordinance, we'll have to get some clarification from the City Attorney on that. That was
an issue that was...
Scott: Any other comments on design standards or land use? Seeing none, let's talk about
the access boulevard.
Harberts: I'd like to maybe broaden that a little bit. Just with regards to the comments we
heard this evening. I think some of the comments that we heard tonight we've addressed
through some of this discussion. And there seems to be other comments. I don't know if
.they're really our role to address such as with the roadway, moving it 100 feet south or, I
guess what really concerns me is some of the comments made by the, well the fact that the
comments made by the landowners in terms of not supporting the whole access boulevard
concept. I'm not saying that, I certainly recognize the need for development and I think the
best thing that this community can do is put a plan out there. I think we've all sat on this
commission and pulling the hair out of our head in terns of, give us a road map. An
infrastructure plan so we don't have this pieces here, pieces there of roadways not connecting.
I like the idea of putting the access boulevards out there as a guide plan so that we do know
what way development is going to go. I guess I'm going to defer to the task force of where
the alignment is for the corridor because of all the time they spent on it. I guess when we
look at DataServ, I don't know who's role it is to consider that request with regard to you
know 600 employees. That's somewhat of a major development for Chanhassen. So I'm just
sharing my; I guess my comments in terms of what I heard tonight.
Farmakes: I would qualify that. I was on the task force and we had known that, the task
force was made up of many divergent interests. The same divergent interests that you see
here tonight. And it's similar to this commission I guess. They don't always vote alike.
Sometimes it's 5 to 4 and sometimes it's 10 to 1. I mean there were a lot of different things
to look at on this issue. Many of them, particularly the landowners, obviously they have a
divergent interest. Their properties are all shaped differently. How they can maximumly
develop them to get their return on their property. Where their access roads would be. Each
property owner, if left to decide that, it would be different and obviously you can't build a
corridor like that. And the other spectrum of that process.
' Harberts: And did the corridor task force hear these same comments or similar comments
then?
d
11
Farmakes: Oh sure. Yeah.
Harberts: And that's why I'm saying that I certainly defer to what's being recommended by
the task force because of the detailed work that you folks went through, and overall like I
VO 64
1
planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 1
said, having a plan for a roadway system that's going to help enhance the mobility of our
community is important. And I think with what's being planned, I think it's good. '
Farmakes: I just wanted to say that the task force was in disagreement just like we are here
and the issue of what was voted on of course is, in some cases there was no disagreement '
whatsoever and in other cases there was disagreement.
Scott: And also too, as necessity is the mother of invention, I think left to their own devices, '
I think any developer, and rightfully so, which p what least don't want ' our least
creative, the least costly and you get bas is stuff, f�, the alternative as proposed by the
community. You know we need a plan. I happen to pre still going to be ,
Highway 5 task force and after the hoopla dies down, this property is
developed. We're probably going to see the same people coming back in here with similar
plans. Tweak those a bit but they're going to have to think and they're going to have to '
stretch and they're going to have to be creative, and isn't that what we want anyway.
Farmakes: But you would expect that though. I mean this is in use now as agricultural ,
property. So it's much more of a free for all than on the east side of TH 5 where it's much
more defined and city zoned. And as I said, each individual property owner has a different
expectation. And rightfully so. That's their prerogative. They own the property. ,
Scott: So you've got, you support your recommendation. I support the recommendation.
Each of the guys that are on the task force, you guys were on opposite sides or?
Farmakes: No, not necessarily. I, obviously I'm in the minority of the issue of the access
road. I believe it's 2 between Lake Ann and Galpin route
Whether '
solely because I think that the city would be able to control more of the property.
the city buys it or whether the State buys it. Whether the money's there or it's not there or if
it was there 6 months ago and now it's not. 6 months from now it might be back. I think '
that it's logical to assume that by controlling that property between Highway 5 and the access
road gives you more opportunity to landscape out and buffer TH 5. The issues of land use, it
seems to me it's convenient to slice off that chunk and essentially make a strip of high '
density housing. And I've already talked about this with everybody so I'm not going to
repeat myself again about my issues there. Failing that, I do support the northern route ,
around the Bluff Creek area which is not currently on the recommendation. I'll just give you
my opinion. I don't think that the task force spent a considerable amount of time with that
issue. We spent more time arguing the north and south routes. That's my personal opinion '
anyway. And I feel if you go and look at the property, there's a lot of compelling reasons to
run it to the north. There are some issues of crossing over residences. if you look at there's
4 for on either route and this is a sensitive issue. But if you look at the long term...one '
65 1
1
planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
would have to say that there's a limited short term life span for those uses. Based on what's
coming in there. So if we were looking in terms of, long term planning and we're looking at
' essentially a highway network that's going to be here for the foreseeable future, I would say
that it would seem to me that protecting that creek corridor, where the trees are, and going
around it rather than through it would be in the best interest, long term of solving the intent
' of the original statement which was to keep Highway 5 from becoming a wall with no
landscaping, no trees and no separation.
.Scott: That seems to be a wash with construction cost anyway.
Mancino: Yeah, I'd ditto Jeff on that too. I mean—and did like the northern route. In fact I
' think the site plan that's done for that parcel between Lake Ann and Galpin, it's a very good
one that shows some view so that we won't have a medium density just lining Highway 5.
There's some good site plan analysis in here. But so I do agree with him on taking that
northern route and not cutting through Bluff Creek in that heavily wooded area.
Scott: Okay, Ladd.
Conrad: I agree with that.
Ledvina: I agree with the proposed alignment and again I would support the northern route
right at Galpin there avoiding the crossing at Bluff Creek. I see that as a severe crossing at
Bluff Creek. I see that as the most environmental friendly way of tackling that feature of the
terrain.
Scott: Say that again.
Conrad: Yeah, say that again.
Scott: You support the A -C connection or just number 1?
Ledvina: No. I support the northerly route.
Conrad: The blue.
Ledvina: Right. Right.
Scott: Blue all the way.
Ledvina: I think that you know I feel bad about displacing people and that but again, we are
VIO
66
Plannin g Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
talking about long term planning issues � laid out for as ground rules, I think with that
objectives of the task force and what
northerly route at Galpin satisfies those objectives.
Scott: So the recommendation that we Will then pass to the Planning Commission would be
see here with the northerly
,
the complete Alternate #1 without A -C. Just the blue line that we
connection at Galpin.
' basicall y what Jeff indicated in the beginning?
Harberts: That s
Scott: Yeah.
'
Harberts: Going around Bluff Creek.
,
Farmakes: I disagree with another section but yes. No crossovers. Just go up to the north.
Scott: I had some concern about that too because I was thinking, if it's dollar for dollar and
for
'
such huge soil stabilization and so forth a f th � e dfi e ll andreSI think we ad 200 or 300 feet of.
tremendous amount o
connection versus a
'
Farmakes: It's still all essentially a wash. Any of the routes at you go and from an
environmental impact. Or at least that's what the recommendation.
'
Scott: So we'll pass the complete alternate #1 without th e A -C connection. We've gone
through the EAW on the design standards.
'
Farmakes: I'll dissent on that one.
'
Scott: Okay. Oh , because of your.
Farmakes: Yeah. I support no crossovers and that issue but I just don't support the northerly
,
route from Galpin to Lake Ann.
Aanenson: We can break these out into three separate motions.
'
Scott: Yeah, can I have a.
'
• 'm not sure, are we voting on this or are we just giving recommendations?
Farmakes. I
Scott: Well, we're going to now.
67
it
1
IJ
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
Farmakes: It makes no difference to me.
Conrad: Let's not vote yet. The northerly route, does that eliminate the possibility of the
golf course?
Scott: Well, my personal opinion is that the golf course is not real.
Farmakes: I would not be opposed though to leaving in an option in there that should it
become real, or should he acquire another 40 acres to the west and it becomes a viable issue,
let him bring it forward. Let him bring it forward and let's see it. I mean it does support the
intent.
Conrad: I'm not sure how we do that Jeff. It's like. I think we can revise stuff but you
know. On the other hand, where can you put a golf course? You can put a golf course in a
residential. In our zoning, as we would have it, even though we've already talked about -
zoning, we don't have a zone for a golf course but they're permitted where, in our proposed
zoning, would a golf course be permitted where he's got the property?
Krauss: Actually I don't think we'd permit it practically anyplace. We'd probably have to...
the zoning ordinance to do it but in itself...
Farmakes: Since the city or the developer is going to have to pick up the cost for the road
anyway, when it does go in from that section, I would assume from a matter of practicality if
he comes forward with a golf course, it doesn't stop him unless there's a zoning issue that
would stop him from proposing that.
Scott: Plus the fact is that the, there is not going to be any access to that parcel off of
Highway 5. All access to that parcel has got to come off of the access boulevard, right?
Krauss: Well yes. That's the way we see it...MnDot will see it.
Scott: So, I think you can take the senior housing would have to be serviced from a different
way. And still, you know having a 15, actually we've got 30 feet. The total right -of -way for
the access boulevard is what?
Aanenson: 80.
Scott: 80 feet? I can think of 5 golf courses right now that have major, major like
University of Minnesota golf course has got Larpentur Avenue. That's 4 lanes. Minnekada.
Interlachen. I mean the list goes on.
68
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994 I
Conrad
Yeah. I don't think a road would preclude. It will take some property but I don't
think it's going to preclude putting a course there. I think the total amount of land is more
an issue than the road going right, you know separating 3 or 4 holes from it. '
Scott: He's got to have.
Farmakes: Another 20-40 acres.
Conrad: He probably does but I guess my only issue, and again my only issue is I don't ?'
want to not, I don't want to force that as not a possibility by whatever we're doing and my
perception is, the road is not the thing that's going to keep it from happening. But I want to
make sure that we haven't done something zoning wise that is keeping that from happening. '
If he can make it happen. Actually if he can make it happen I'd rethink a lot of stuff. What
makes the northerly route valid in my mind is that it's not only, it's transit for people to the
northwest to downtown but it services some high density area that we really are putting in '
between the road. It's really a very functional street and that, once we drop that street down
to right next to Highway 5, then its nothing in my mind It's nothing. It's just not doing a
great deal. '
Farmakes: But what's right next to Highway 5? 80 feet? 100 feet? 400 feet?
Conrad: You'd end up with not a functioning piece of property.
Farmakes: Something that you could develop as a medium density or high density. '
Conrad: Basically a service road concept doesn't give you much to work with between '
Highway 5 and.
Farmakes: Well in the case of TH 7 or 494, there's nothing. It's right next to the slope.
Conrad: Right. And I think we've got a great opportunity to do something different and
that's why I like what we've got but that's why I want the road to the north to make it. I '
need to justify it cost wise and that's not our decision here. Price is no object to the Planning
Commission. We kind of want a realistic solution but we don't really weigh it against some
price options. We typically don't. But from a citizen standpoint, I can justify that road and '
when it's servicing some people, plus it's also a corridor for the community.
Farmakes: It would seem to me then that the only thing it would restrict, since they're not... '
the road, would be an issue of how much time we're looking at or the timeframe we're
looking at here and whether or not the zone that we're committed to or give a guideline to is
69
l
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
going to include that. Does the fact that that's going to be single family and multi keep them
from putting in a golf course there?
Scott: Wouldn't you think though that if a proposal like that came forward for a golf course,
that would be able to be built on that property, I'd be willing to bet that any Planning
Commission who saw that would say, well oh you mean we have to rezone this to have them
build a golf course. I would think that most Planning Commissions would go fine. Let's
change it. That's definitely something you want.
Farmakes: But what happens when you get some piecemeal development going on there?
Maybe they don't want a golf course. I can't imagine that but maybe they don't.
Scott: Well I.
Farmakes: Are we committing ourselves here? Are we essentially zoning this to the effect
that nothing else can go in there? Where we have it as multi- family and single family, I
think on the comp plan it's listed as residential, is that con=t?
Aanenson: It's guided right now for multi- family and single family. That's how it's guided
right now.
Farmakes: Okay, but what I'm saying is there isn't, is there a line on the comp plan that
shows exactly where multi- family begins and single family ends?
Krauss: Pretty much.
Farmakes: Okay.
Krauss: I mean arguably it could slide a little bit one way or the other but the line was put
exactly where Mike Gorra asked for it to be put several years ago. When he says he was
never consulted on this, I mean...
Farmakes: When you submitted the comp plan.
Krauss: Yeah.
Scott: Yeah he was, yeah, I read through all that stuff. On the July 23rd meeting. He talked
about ...but are we in a position right now. I see we've got three things to adopt. Should we
make that into three motions? I think we all have them in front of us. I'm not going to
make the motion since I'm not supposed to do that.
70
1
planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
Mancino: paul, I thought of something else that I wanted to add to this whole thing.
Scott: It says approval of these things, like the corridor land use study as modified. With
modifications. I supposed you want to get the modifications in before your. motion tonight.
Harberts: Yeah. Just real quickly.
Aanenson: Those that we took notes on, and I'm assuming there are modifications.
Scott: Yeah, but if anybody has any more, let's get it in before we made a recommendation.
Mancino: The only thing I'd like to add is to the park and trail section which is Chapter 5.
I'd like to beef up the Bluff Creek corridor specifications. You know when we had the
school site and we reviewed it, one of the things that I commented to staff I thought they did
a great job on was proposing that the applicant meet with the DNR to determine the original
landscape along the corridor and also to have a 60 to 100 foot width set aside for that
purpose of getting it back to it's origin here. Som s ort f specifics�on the Bluff Creek �
And I think that would be really good
corridor and how it was treated going through the Highway 5 area. Does that make sense?
Krauss: Well I think it ties in real well with the ... the way the routing should go on the north
side. By the way, when you touched on this golf course thing too. There's some issues that
were raised tonight that we're going to want to address as staff ...but it may be appropriate to
add some text to the plan that says if a golf course is legitimately demonstrated to be a viable
option, then that's something that will be considered.
Conrad: I would like that very much.
Scott: But it's not going to change the alignment of the access.
Krauss: Well I don't th ink it will but since we don't have that ...coming down the pike
immediately, it could. I mean if Mike came in with a proposal and said look. I really need
to slide this thing over. Over to here because it's going around the 14th hole. We always
work with people on stuff like that.
Scott: Is it going to go down the line and down the line and down the line and then all of a
sudden the road's looped all over the place?
Krauss: Well yeah. It obviously has to meet our parameters and the longer Mike waits to do
something, the less flexibility he's going to have if the die is cast on either side. What I
71
F
I
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
heard Mike Gorra saying was, don't do anything and I'll tell you what I'm going to do when
I'm ready to tell you. But if you want to keep your foot in the door and say that the golf
' course is a possibility.
Conrad: See Joe, if somebody brought in a golf course that was real, it's a terrific
' community asset and it's equivalent if not better than where this road goes. I'll just tell you,
if you can get a golf course in Chan, if somebody's willing to put it on this high potential
property, if that's what he wants to do, I'll slide roads wherever they want them because I
perceive that to be a very definite community resource. But I'm real comfortable keeping the
roads the way they are right now until that comes in but I do want to communicate to them
that I'd sure consider it. That's real valid. I just...the course next to the park, it's just really
neat but I considered it but not until I see it.
Scott: Yeah, I'd go with that. We want to see something that's for real and we haven't seen
it yet. I mean I think we were all took it as waving the golf course around to try and get the
road to move so something else could be built there. And I think it was pretty obvious that's
' what was going on, at least to me.. But I would agree with Ladd. U something for real
comes in and it's something that we're comfortable with, we're not going to, I mean I'm
personally not going to shove the road all the way down to Highway 5 but, as Ladd is saying,
if the layout is such that you need to put a bend in there or something to get it around a hole,
I can see that minor modifications but nothing major.
�J
Farmakes: If we were talking about his proposal exactly, I would not entertain any other uses
though except a golf course.
Conrad: Correct.
Farmakes: He had some other uses that were envisioned there including ' a large space,
building yet to be determined.
Conrad: Well there was some strange stuff.
Farmakes: But recreational golf area between...
Scott: Why don't we take this, can we take this as one motion or three?
Ledvina: No, three.
Scott: Okay. Well, who wants to start?
t'A
72
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
What would
Ledvina: you recommend? Y
Aanenson: Obviously number one's been amended... ,
Ledvina: Okay, well I would recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the following th
motion. Number 1. Affirming andgreview o f rn�a v eArboretum BBoulev cross
over for the access road alignment Boulevard Environmental t
Assessment document prepared by Barton- Aschman.
Scott: It's been moved.
Harberts: And second. '
Scott: Is there a second? Yes. It's been moved and seconded that we affirm the preferred
Alternative #1 as stated by Matt. Is there any discussion. '
Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to
affirming the original Alternative #1 alignment without the A/C cross over for the access
road alignment and review of the Arboretum Boulevard Environmental Assessment
document prepared by Barton - Aschman. All voted in favor, except Jeff Farmakes who
opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. '
Scott: And your reason?
Farmakes: I don't support Alternative #1.
Scott: Same as during the discussion prior to this? '
Farmakes: Correct. For reasons already stated. '
Scott: Okay. Is there another motion?
Ledvina: I would move the Planning Commission adopt the following motion. '
Recommending approval of the Highway 5 Corridor Land Use Study and the land use
recommendations as discussed in detail this evening, and we had several discussions on the '
items that were identified by the staff report.
Scott: Is there a second?
Mancino: Second.
73
' Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
' Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we approve the Highway 5 Corridor Land Use
Study as extensively modified. Is there any discussion? No discussion?
'
Ledvina moved , Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of the Highway 5 Corridor Land Use Study and the land use recommendations as
' modified during the previous discussion of the issues outlined by the staff repor L All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
' Scott: Is there another motion?
Ledvina: Well I'll finish it off. I would recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion for the approval of the Ordinance Establishing the Highway 5 Corridor
Districts with modifications as discussed this evening.
Scott: Is there a second?
7
L
Mancino: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we approve the ordinance of the corridor districts.
Is there any discussion? No discussion.
Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of the Ordinance Establishing Highway 5 Corridor Districts with modifications discussed
during the previous issues outlined in the staff report. All voted in favor, except Diane
Harberts who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to I.
Scott: And your thoughts Diane?
Harberts: Public transit needs to be further flushed out and we'll do it at the Council level.
Scott: I'm sure you will. Motion carries. Due to the hour, unless there's some significant
administrative approvals or first of all, we'll accept the Minutes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Scott noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated January 5, 1994 as presented.
Scott: Unless there's any objection. Yes ma'am
Mancino: We just need a calendar for our attendance at City Council meetings for '94.
74
Planning Commission Meeting - January 19, 1994
Scott: Good. Matt mentioned that. Can I have a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Mancino moved, Harberts seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:08 a.m.
Submitted by Paul Krauss
Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim
r
75