4. Highway 5 Overlay District OrdinanceFI
77
J
CITY OF 4
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director
DATE: June 22, 1994
SUBJ: Highway 5 Overlay District
Background
On March 28, 1994 the City Council held a hearing to take public comment of the Highway 5
Corridor study, the EA document for the north access boulevard and the ordinance
establishing development standards along the 'corridor. At that March 28, 1994 meeting, the
only action that was taken by the council was a resolution supporting the southern alignment
for the northern frontage road alignment.
Subsequently, a city council work session was held on May 18, 1994 to review the corridor
study. At this meeting was Bill Moorish from the Design Center for American Urban
Landscape and Barry Warner from Barton Aschman. This work session provided the council
an opportunity to focus on the purpose and the vision for the study, as well as the elements of
the study document.
A public hearing will likely be held in August for the Council to officially approve the EA
document (including the north frontage road alignment) and the corridor study. After the
adoption of these two documents, staff will work through the comprehensive plan amendment
and rezoning process. The overlay district, which provides the standards for development
along the corridor, can be adopted independent of these other two documents.
Analysis
The purpose of the Overlay District is to provide additional design standards in the Highway
5 District. There are two districts, HC -1 and HC -2. The western side of the city, east of
Powers Boulevard is HC -2. The difference in the two zones is the setbacks from highway the
and the proposed frontage roads. The District is shown on the map attached to the ordinance.
The underlying zoning will still dictate the permitted uses and development standards. The
MEMORANDUM
I Don Ashworth
June 22, 1994
' Page 2
overlay district requires additional development standards for developments along the
' corridor.
The Planning Commission recommended adoption of the Overlay District at their January
' 19, 1994 meeting. Staff is recommending adoption of the Overlay District and its standards.
We are recommending a change to one section of the ordinance. Section 20 -1454
Architectural standards call for material and design that is unacceptable. Staff has added the
' following language "Major exterior surfaces of all walls shall be face brick, stone, glass,
stucco, architecturally treated concrete, cast in place, pre -cast panels, decorative block or
approved equivalent as determined by the city."
Recommendation
' Staff recommends the City Council approve the first reading of the Highway Corridor
Overlay District ordinance as shown in Attachment 1.
' Attachments
1. Highway Corridor Overlay District
2. City Council minutes dated March 28, 1994
L JI
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. '
2 '
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CH APTER 0 O F THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, ,
ESTABLISHING HIGHWAY CORRIDOR DISTRICTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: 1
SECTION 1. Section 20 -1 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding the
following definitions:
Landscape means all forms of planting and vegetation, ground forms, rock groupings,
'
water features and patterns, and all visible construction except buildings and site
furnishings.
Site Furnishings means any structure, other than buildings, visible from any public
way, and any street hardware located in streets and public ways and outside of
buildings. Site furnishings include, but are not limited to signs, decorative paving
treatments, fences, walls, railings, artwork, transformers, utility access boxes, lighting
standards and arrays, and other visible site appurtenances.
'
SECTION 2. Section 20 -201 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding the
following special districts:
'
HC -1, Highway 5 Central Business Corridor District
g Y
HC -2, Highway 5 Corridor District
'
SECTION 3. Section 20 -106 of the Chanhassen City ode is amended b adding
Y Y g
subparagraph (6) to read:
(6) Within the HC districts, meet the additional purpose, intent and standards of
the HC districts.
'
SECTION 4. Section 20 -109 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding
subparagraph (6) to read:
'
(6) Within the HC districts, the application shall also include:
0
U�
L
A. Building elevations from all directions, indicating materials, colors and
landscaping at installation.
B. Building and site views from Highway 5, the appropriate access
boulevard (north or south of Highway 5), and any other appropriate
arterial or collector roadways.
C. Site views showing the relationships of the proposed building or
development to adjacent development, including buffered areas.
D. Drawings of all significant or atypical site features, such as unusual
landscaping, man -made water features other than retention ponds,
outdoor sculpture, or other large -scale artwork, and other uncommon
constructs.
E. Sample building materials, upon the City's request.
F. Sample paving materials, upon the City's request.
' SECTION 5. Section 20 -110 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding
subparagraph (7) to read:
(7) Within the HC districts, consistency with the purpose, intent, and standards of
the HC districts.
SECTION 6. Section 20 -116 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding
subparagraph (e) to read:
(e) Within the HC districts, the standards for the HC districts shall apply in
addition to the standards specified in this division.
SECTION 7. Section 20 -118 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read:
Sec. 20 -118. Retaining Walls.
Retaining walls exceeding five (5) feet in height, include state walls which
cumulatively exceed five (5) feet in height, must be constructed in accordance with plans
prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect and in conformance with all building
materials specifications and limitations set forth in this division or, if applicable, in the HC
districts.
SECTION 8. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Article
XXIX to read:
ARTICLE XXIX.HIGHWAY CORRIDOR DISTRICTS I
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 r
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 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.
3 1
I E
(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, minimized 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 Parking 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 front lot line.
,
3. In any Highway lot that abuts both Hi hwa 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
f
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.
'
FROM LOT LINE FR,DHT L UNE
NGhWAYS
LOTH LOT D
� I
I
LOTC bOULEVARD
_ C, TWS FROM LOT LINE SK-IL
LOT b tt' TWEDES*MPRECEDENCE
E
5 FROM LOT LINE
i FROM LOT LPC
FRONT LOT LINE
'
J
I
1
C�
(b) Parking areas shall not be located within the required minimum front (primary or
secondary) yard setback of any lot. �.
n Al
M6MV 5 = Y I W 0
Z
NO PARK NG N FROM YARD
buLDNG
6UlDNG
glp„ ND P AJMN G
C'
N FROM YARD
i
A=" WUIEVMD
Sec. 20 -1454. Architectural Design Standards. B UIL D ING SM ACK
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 exotic are prohibited.
1-0.6 S'Pl MO uI.SSmb ._
scn.a
/r / n�,rrt wtOtr+s N ,p (AaOPs
(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.
R
u^ V
V
Do TMS_
p
DO TKS_
NO T Tw5
-LDING I
AVOIDING MONOTONY
molt TM5
(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.
0
MUM
nA
r�
(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
characteristics, and ease and frequency of maintenance. Major exterior surfaces of all walls
7
�
u
J
shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally treated concrete, cast in place or
pre -cast panels, decorative block, or approved equivalent, as determined by the city.
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. No 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.
u
♦ 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.
U
(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.
� -
t►r�
PROPORTIONS OF BUILDING COMPONENTS
(h) Colors shall be harmonious. Bright or brilliant colors and sharply contrasting
colors may be used only for accent 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 located 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 areas 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 right -of -way and shall be equally effective in winter and summer.
0
I
1
i t
USING COLOR
i
i
SCREEN FENCE OR WALL
r SHRUD6
'3
.1
�4
VENTED SCREEN WALL
FLAT ROOF ----
STREET
HoR¢ONTAL
V400D 1RELL
EQW.
TLEROOF
SCREENING
T
MECHMIICAL EOUPMENT
6CREENFENCE
OR WALL
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.
.3M
(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.
t Lit
ILI
7-
L
F 1
L
t
PRESERVING TOPOGRAPHY
L
(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.
(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.
(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.
TREE PROTECTION
,EE MWE
(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 I I I
GO TMS._ . NOT
' TREE PLACEMENT
12
UNITY OF DESIGN
(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.
EOAOINC roe
SCREE N FENCE ORWALL
KDGE
ERI X PAVING
ORNAME TREE
CON�RETE wAU
GRA6.
ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE TREATMENT
ROCK GARDEN
GTREETTREE
0) 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.
LIGHTING 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 here, shall be a part of the criteria
of this subsection.
13
I
r
n
L
fl
�.J
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.
(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.
1 Sec. 20 -1463. Architectural Design Standards.
The architectural design standards for the HC -1 district shall apply, with the exception
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
SECTION 10. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and
publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of
Council of the City of Chanhassen.
ATTEST:
, 1994, by the City
Don Ashworth, City Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
6/22/94
15
j
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table the variance request to the code regarding sign
requirements for West Village Heights Center, Lot 4, Block 1, West Village Heights Second Addition until
the next City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: We'll see you in 2 weeks. Thank you.
Don Ashworth: Point of clarification. That would assume that Colleen would be back available in 2 weeks?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Mason: Well.
Mayor Chmiel: Well we may even see something back here that may appease Mark with his position.
PUBLIC NOTICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF HEARING COMMENTS ON THE HIGHWAY 5
CORRIDOR STUDY AND THE EAW FOR THE NORTH ACCESS BOULEVARD ALIGNMENT
ANALYSIS. THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DESIGNED TO
IMPLEMENT TH GOALS OF THE PLAN.
Public Present:
Name Address
Brad Johnson
7425 Frontier
Vernelle Clayton
422 Santa Fe Circle
Larry VanDeVeire
4980 Co. Rd. 10E, Chaska
Harold Skjelbostad
LSA Design
Lisa Notermann
1450 Arboretum
Paul Paulson
3160 West 82nd Street, Chaska
Mike Gorra
1680 Arboretum
Peter Olin
Minnesota Landscape Arboretum
Steve Schwanke
RLK Associates
Bruce Buxton
WSN -Mills Properties Inc.
Thomas Green
Mills Properties Inc.
Peter Beck
7900 Xerxes Avenue So.
John Hennessy
7305 Galpin
Jay Dolejsi
6961 Chaparral Lane.
Deb Porter
Barton- Aschman
James Unruh
Barton- Aschman
Kate Aanenson: The purpose of this hearing tonight is three fold. What we'd really like to do is reference, try
to get a selection for the preferred alternative for the Highway 5.
Mayor Chmiel: Could we have it quiet please? Thank you.
Kate Aanenson: In your work session on February 7th we walked through the documents that are involved in
29
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
the Highway 5 study. As I mentioned it's a three fold process to this. One is the EA document. That's ... to be
the location of the frontage road between Powers Boulevard and Highway 41. The second component is the land
use recommendations for the corridor study. And the third component is the overlay for the corridor study itself.
,
The Planning Commission did recommend approval of the study, the land use recommendations modifications
and the frontage road alignment, which is the most northerly frontage road alignment. What we are asking you
tonight to do is to obviously consider all. We're available to answer questions on all three issues but most
preferably we would like a recommendation from you on the location of the frontage road. The reason this
being as we need to get this into the next arena which is the publication in the EQB, the Environmental Quality
Board and take up the 30 day comment period where you hold a public hearing after that. As I put in the packet
here, there's a letter from MnDot and that looks like there's a possibility that we could get funding for a
,
segment. Break out a segment of this and possibly do a '95 project and that would be the segment where we
have a lot of problems getting into Lake Ann, which is going to be between Powers and the Lake Ann and
possibly even picking up a larger segment. Obviously we'd like to see it go all the way to Galpin but in the
short run, at least getting that segment approved. In order to do that we have to have the EA document in place.
We do have here tonight Deb Porter from Barton- Aschman and James Unruh who worked on the design of the
two different alternatives themselves. So I think a lot of the discussion tonight is going to focus on the
alternatives of the two different alignments of the road and what do they cost and the pros and cons. If you go
back to our discussion at the work session back in February, I think a lot of concern the Planning Commission
had, I mean excuse me, the Council had was the cost differential between the two alternatives. I did include in
your packet a summary chart of two different alternatives and Deb can explain that in more detail if you have a
question on that but it's pretty much a wash as far as costs. There's environmental impacts ... but I think probably
the overall cost, if you look at the estimated cost, they're pretty close. The task force did recommend a
crossover and that seems to be where a lot of the concern is and that's when you cross at Galpin. Does it cross
the creek or does it stay to the north? ...into the Hennessy property. So again what we're looking at is for you
to get some input from respective properties along this frontage. We did notify everybody along the whole
corridor to give them an opportunity to speak to you and we're hoping to get tonight from the Council is a
preferred alignment so we can process this and get it to you. I did put in here the requirements to get this
,
process and get it onto the Federal Highway Administration so if you have questions on this, Deb Porter and
James Unruh are both here.
'
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. Are there any questions in regards to this? As Kate indicated, we have to make a
recommendation of the preferred alignment for the frontage road and approve the EA document as well as to
modify or adopt the Highway 5 corridor overlay zone and also approve the Highway 5 corridor study with the
land use recommendations that has been proposed. I would like to see us address presently, at this time, just the
service road from County Road 17 extending west to Lake Ann Park. I think that's a very critical part of this
proposal at this time because of the accessibility in and out of that park and I think that with people wanting to
get to and from, it would be a much safer portion going off Powers Boulevard, County Road 17 and making that
,
access through that service road. Taking it off of Highway 5 completely. But maybe if you could address that
part of it.
I
Kate Aanenson: I think I'll let James Unruh talk about where we are. We talked about this as far as when this
is special funding... I
Councilman Senn: Yeah Don, I didn't have a question before but now I do because, maybe I'm not following
but I thought you were asking that we approve the alignment all the way. I
30 1
i City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
Kate Aanenson: Well as part of the EA document we need the preferred alternative, the whole segment.
' Councilman Senn: And that's what under the time crunch that we have to act on?
Kate Aanenson: Right. Because we need to get the whole document approved. We're hoping, as James is
I going to talk about, that MnDot, it looks like they may break a portion of this out and fund it as a '95 project
instead of waiting until the 1998 -99 year. But we need to have an EA document in place. And what we talked
about before, if we have the whole document in place and money loosens up, there's a possibility of getting the
whole project going. And ... Conway's property is ready to go and get that property maybe tied to this whole
project so we would like to see the preferred alignment for the whole segment, if you're ready to do that. And
maybe it takes one more meeting after this to come to some conclusions but.
Councilman Senn: What is just the alignment from Powers to the park ... at this point?
Kate Aanenson: Well that's an easement we have through Eckankar. That's pretty much.
Mayor Chmiel: That's all in place.
Deb Porter. Why don't I point out the limits of the project that we're talking about right now. Powers
' Boulevard or County Road, or to South 17 is this intersection right here and what we are looking at as far as the
STP funds, it's called Service Transportation Program. That's part of the federal funding package. Is looking at
possibly applying for funds to build at least a portion of Arboretum Boulevard either to Lake Ann Park entrance
or preferably to Audubon Road intersection. That's where we really see a lot of impact happening in the next
couple years with development south of TH 5. So that portion of it is one application but James can explain in
more detail. There are actually two applications being sent forward at the same time through MnDot. One
includes the portion of Powers to Audubon. The other is from Powers to TH 41. The entire segment and
there's no disadvantage in applying for both of these. It's kind of a, you know throw it into a big pool. You
know make your grant application and there's a chance that either will be funded.
' Councilman Senn: But from a timing standpoint, what you need is the alignment? The overlay and the design, I
mean those, if I'm reading the staff report, those would be nice but I mean they're not critical at this point.
What you're really after is a decision on the preferred alternative.
Deb Porter. Right. MnDot is at the point now with their engineering design. If they're ready to move ahead on
Highway 5. If order to do that they need to know where are all the access points. What are your major
' intersections going to look like along TH 5? And that's determined by Arboretum Boulevard so that's their
incentive and that's what their letter about was to urge the city to come to some resolution on the preferred
alternative-James, is there any details you want to mention about the funding or the deadlines that go with that?
James Unruh: No. The only thing is, the City of Chanhassen is applying for funding from, as Deb said, County
Road 17 to Audubon Road. Now that's for upgrading Highway 5 to four lanes and for constructing a frontage
road. So there's two parts to that. That's due April 1st. This Friday so we're actually working on that. MnDot
1 is applying for federal funds to construction Highway 5 to four lanes and Arboretum Boulevard all the way from
County Road 17 to TH 41 and that also has to be done this, by this Friday. We'll find out about that at the end
of June and that would cover 80% of the cost for Highway 5 and Arboretum Boulevard. The other 20% would
be a mixture of city funds and state funds. So we'll apply and hopefully get the funding for it. That would
push, if the entire project would go, get funded, I believe ... to 1997. 1997, 1998. But that's basically where
31
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
we're at. It's a real tight time frame to get the application for the funding and we don't necessarily need a
decision for this application on Friday but to keep the EA moving for the overall process, we...
Deb Porter. I think also another thing that may need to be mentioned is that these applications are one of just
hundreds that are being submitted and I think MnDot has tried to let us know in a subtle way and maybe also in
their last letter that you received from them, is that there are many projects competing for limited funds and
those that seem to have their planning in place. They have their environmental review documents approved and
there's consensus among the community as to what to build, those will have the least hassle. The least headache
in trying to get funding approved. If they see something that looks like it's ... with a lot of disagreements and '
delays and so on, other projects may look better in comparison so I think that's been our concern in trying to
move the environmental document ahead. It's not necessarily to just push a decision sooner than it needs to be
made but now we're looking at critical funding deadlines and to present the project in the best possible light you
need to have it look as though we're fairly sure as to which way to go.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Kate.
Kate Aanenson: Again I just wanted to, what we did then was by notifying people, just to give them an
opportunity to speak to the concerns that they would have with the two different alternatives and let that help
you make some recommendations.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Okay we'll open it up at this time and if we could limit this to probably about a 3
minute time frame per each person getting up because we do have some additional business to conduct yet this ,
evening. So if there's anyone wishing to address this issue at this time, please come forward and indicate those
concerns. Maybe we could just lower that. Is there anyone wishing to say something in regard to this? It's
your opportunity to give some additional input into this. I know we've had a lot of work done on this. A lot of
open meetings and this has been going on for almost a year and a half, two years. '
Jay Dolejsi: Is this on the entire corridor?
Mayor Chmiel: This is on the entire corridor that we're looking at, correct. Just please state your name and '
your address.
Jay Dolejsi: My name is Jay Dolejsi, 6961 Chaparral Lane. I own property between the Mills Fleet Farm site
and the Swings golf course. One of my concerns is if this federal funding does not come through, who's going
to be paying for this road? And also on my particular piece of property, I would like to see that road, the
northern alignment swung a little farther south to preserve the large stand of oaks that is currently running ,
through. That's about it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else? 1
Tom Green: My name is Tom Green. I'm Vice President of Mills Fleet Farm. We've been following these '
meetings for several years as you all probably know. We own the property at Highway 5 and 41, the northeast
quadrant. Our detailed response to this is in a letter which I'll hand out to everyone but in summary we disagree
with the present road alignment through our property. It is, as it's shown, the north alignment makes our
property unusable for the purpose that we're intending to develop it. We can't build a store there... While I'm
here I'm going to comment on the land use that deal with the land use study. It's not reasonable for our
32 1
I
rJ
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
property, which is located on the intersection of two State Highways. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
Mike Gorra: My name is Mike Gorra. I live at 1680 Arboretum. I own approximately 150 acres on the
southwest side of Lake Ann and your northerly road alignment's going to be running right through the center of
my property. I'd like to make a few comments. I attended most of the task force, Highway 5 Task Force
meetings and Planning Commission meetings and I still don't understand why the city decides that Chanhassen
needs a 6 lane highway running into a business district that's only a couple block square. I don't think that
business district is going to get much bigger unless they start tearing down houses and schools and existing
buildings. Minneapolis has a 6 lane highway, that's Highway 35W but Minneapolis is just a little bit bigger
than Chanhassen. It's probably got about the same number of stop lights but it is a little bit bigger.
Minneapolis, I don't think the people that live in Minneapolis paid for that 35W either. I think the State of
Minnesota paid for that. And I too am also worried about who's going to get the bill for this road in case
MnDot pulls out ... we talked about. What I've got here, I've owned this property most of this property for
exactly 20 years and I've lived on it for 17 and I'm a developer and I have had plans for this property and
you're looking at one of the plans that I've been considering for approximately 3 years now. Before I even
heard that there was a road running through the property. You can see that what that road would do to a golf
course. It'd make it impossible to build. Another thing that I would, another project that I would contemplate
putting on this project, in case the golf course wouldn't work for some reason, even though a golf course is my
first choice, would be a high end real estate development and the road would not do that any good either. You
couldn't tie it together. You couldn't put a lake access for all the development. It just wouldn't work. Which
isn't hard to understand because ... is divided in half. Looking at the whole west end of the city there, you've got
the school that you're developing. You've got your baseball diamonds. You've got the park ... if I did have a
chance to build a golf course, it would fit right in with everything. In fact even if the rest of the city got messed
up, the west end of town would probably carry it. Now I'm not here trying to talk you out of that road so I can
make more money because anybody that knows anything about development, and I hope there is a few people
here. Would be able to tell you that if I developed that property, I would be able to make considerably more
money than if I put a golf course on it. It's just the economics of the development business. I'm not here trying
to be a good guy saying I'm going to give Chanhassen a golf course because I like to live here. I'm kind of
selfish. I do live here. I've lived here a long time and I do live on the property so I have developed for 20
years because I wanted to do something that would really make the property look nice for you know, for a long
time in the future, and I think a golf course would do that. So I'm not just trying to stand up here and say that
I'm going to do something that I'm not to delay this project. I know some people in the past have asked, have
stood up here and said, hey Gorra's not going to build a golf course. He's just trying to throw a wrench in our
plans. Well, those people don't know what they're talking about. First of all how could they know what I plan
to do. And why wouldn't I do it? I've got the land. I'm in the business. I've got the plans and I just told you
that I could make more money developing it anyway. Not only that, none of my plans include a road going
through the center of my property so you'd have to take it from me and usually that involves condemnation.
Paying for the land. Separation costs. I don't know if the people who live out in Chanhassen are going to want
to pay for that in their taxes. My suggestion is to do what Evan Green suggested a long time ago. He's with
the Minnesota Department of Transportation. That they would provide me, my property, 150 acres with a stub
off of Audubon Road. You come across TH 5. Stub into my property. That would handle my property. It
would go all the way through to the city. Take care of your park traffic, if you have a lot of, you know enough
traffic that would justify that. The property to the west would be handled by CR 117 and TH 41. That's why
the State put those highways there in the fast place many years ago. You've also got TH 101, CR 17, Highway
7 and you've got other accesses into town. I don't think a 6 lane highway paralleling or an additional 2 lanes
33
I
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
paralleling an existing 4 lanes is going to do any good. I also wanted to ask one question. At one of the other
meetings, or at several of the other meetings it was stated that MnDot didn't want to pay for a route that was too
far off of the Highway 5 access. Does that still hold true or has that changed?
Deb Porter. No, the funding officers for construction funding for either alternative are the same. Those have
always been, the ratio, the ... ratio is 80% federal funding. The other 20 %, which would be made up by MnDot
and city funds.
Mike Gorra: But are you familiar with what they said maybe 6 months ago. That they would kind of balk if
you strayed the highway too far from Highway 5 corridor?
Deb Porter. No, those discussions were based more or less on right -of -way acquisition. The land acquisition
...and the right -of -way acquisition policy of MnDot is generally they are interested in buying properties that
border a state facility like Trunk Highway 5. So it is, there is less likelihood of...as much right -of -way
acquisition for Alternative 1, the route that's farthest from the highway versus Alternative 2. That's strictly
right -of -way cost. That doesn't have anything to do with the construction. '
Mike Gorra: But it is true that they'd be less apt to kick in for the right -of -way costs, which would be a
substantial part of this project?
Deb Porter. Land costs, right -of -way costs. Both alternatives would have some portion of right -of -way costs
participating with MnDot.
Mike Gorra: But that northerly route would have less. So the excess burden would fall on the city of
Chanhassen taxpayers, is that correct?
Deb Porter. City and federal money.
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Paul Paulson: Mr. Mayor, Council. My name is Paul Paulson. I live on the northwest quadrant of the
intersection of 82nd Street and Highway 41. My concern, I guess the reason I'm here tonight is concerning land
use. The Opus, actually that Gateway West Business Park straddles Highway 41. The bulk of it is on the
southeast quadrant of that intersection. However 30 acres of it is on the west side of Highway 41. Now of that
northwest quadrant of 82nd Street and Highway 41 there are 40 acres and my property, the 10 acres is on the
northwest part of that. And the only access to my property is a one quarter mile easement through the heart of
the 30 acres owned by Steiner Development, which is part of the Gateway West Business Park. Anyway, my
concern is that if my property is not given adequate consideration in the plans for development in that area, that
I'll have a severe negative impact on the value of that property over the long term. And I guess my primary '
concern is that I'll become an island in the midst of development there. Unfortunately we don't have a map of
that area. Do we? This is my property right here. The easement goes through here. This is the proposed
Gateway West Business Park I believe it's all the way down in here. About this part. Here is the Minnesota
Landscape Arboretum and you'll notice that our property being here, we're sandwiched between the Landscape ,
Arboretum and the Business Park. We're landlocked. The analogy I was just thinking of this evening as I was
listening to the end of the discussion is that it seems to me that that property is a little bit like the filling between
two halves of an Oreo cooking. The top half might be Gateway West Business Park. The bottom half might be
the Arboretum and I'm the filling in the middle. Now there's two interesting characteristics about the filling in
34 1
fl
Ll
n
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
the middle of an Oreo cooking. First of all it's been squished. Okay. And second of all, there's the buffer
between the halves of the cookie. I'm here tonight to avoid being squished and to say that I don't want it to be
used as a buffer between the business park and the Arboretum. About a year, maybe over a year ago I requested
at the City Council that our property be incorporated into the project. And by that I mean I requested that we
become part of the Planned Unite Development, the PUD for Gateway West Business Park. To the best of my
kpowledge, no action has been taken on that. And so another one of my concerns is that I feel a little bit of a
lack of response on the part of the city in reacting to my request. Another example of that sense of lack of
response is a recent letter that I sent to Mr. Paul Krauss. The former Planning Director of the city of
Chanhassen. And with the Mayor's permission I'd like to pass around a copy of that letter to the City Council.
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Councilman Wing: Paul, just to clarify. I remember, I don't remember the discussion on this land use other
than , what's your proposed and preferred use of that land?
Paul Paulson: Of our property?
Councilman Wing: Yes.
Paul Paulson: I don't have necessarily a specific desire for what happens to that property in terms of
development but I would like it to become incorporated into the overall Gateway West Business project so that,
so that more than anything if in the future we'd like to leave that property, our property has some value and we
could sell it. If we remain an island, I believe that the value of the property will be very minimal because I
can't imagine anyone wanting to buy a single family residence in the middle of a business park. I personally
wouldn't touch it. Also I'd like to.
Mayor Chmiel: Has the Arboretum ever contacted you?
Paul Paulson: About?
Mayor Chmiel: Regarding your property and acquisition of it.
Paul Paulson: I've had some informal just conversations with Peter Olin in regards to the overall 40 acres. That
they would very much like to purchase that and I agree wholeheartedly. I would love to see the Arboretum get
it. I'm jumping ahead a little bit. I was going to mention this at the very end but in the Planning Commission
meeting of January 19th I believe, there was a discussion about what the residents of the city of Chanhassen
south of 82nd Street would like to have happen north of them on north of 82nd Street. And I believe the
understanding of the Planning Commission members was that those people would prefer industrial office space
north of 82nd Street. I did contact two of those neighbors before I came this evening and they said their number
one, if they could have a wish list of what would happen. The number one thing they want to have happen is
for the Arboretum to buy that property at a reasonable price because that would protect them and they appreciate
the presence of the Arboretum there. Short of that, their next desire would be to have it be a nicely done office
or industrial site. Next beyond that would be low density housing. Maybe 1 to 4 houses per acre and then it
would go to medium density and then high density. So the addition, you know the housing part is the least
desirable for them. I would like to read the text of this letter so that it's recorded in the Minutes of this meeting.
It's just a single page letter and I'll go through it quickly.
35
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 1
PJ
Mayor Chmiel: If you would, I think what we're looking at is this can be entered into discussions as far as this
is concerned and I'll make sure that it does get into the Minutes.
Paul Paulson: So the verbatim text of this will be in there?
Mayor Chmiel: Correct. Right.
Paul Paulson: Okay.
Don Ashworth: Is it not sufficient Mr. Mayor to make sure that the Minutes refer to this letter rather than. '
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. That's all we'd have to.
Paul Paulson: So my goal is that the actual text ... and not just a reference to the letter. Okay.
*Please refer to a copy of the letter submitted by Mr. Paul Paulson which is attached and made a part of I
the official Minutes of the City Council Meeting.
Councilman Wing: Before you go Paul. Again, I don't remember these discussions from a year ago. Looking
at the Arboretum coming south. It seems like the perfect buffer would be low density housing. Why would you
and the neighbors prefer the industrial park? What's the reason for that?
Paul Paulson: Well I didn't ask the neighbors I questioned specifically so I might be taking a little bit of a '
guess here but they see the office industrial park as a daytime use. Maybe during daylight hours and then they
would have it quiet during the evening hours. And there's also a concern with higher density housing that
there'd be many more people there. Then you have problems with people trespassing and you know pets and all
that sort of thing. And there's also a concern about people going into the Arboretum and trespassing and that
sort of thing.
Kate Aanenson: I just had a comment. That was the reason why. Obviously it was felt that if we did the PUD, '
it could be ... and you'd have something that would probably be pretty nominal on the weekends and shut down at
night as opposed to multi - family which would be traffic pretty much non stop. Plus the weekend, as far as the
trash and noise and a lot of that would, we'd have more control over industrial. We'll be putting in that it would
be the higher end office as opposed to industrial traffic. We could arrange ... and that sort of thing. Again, this is
still ... I know Mr. Paulson has thought we have ignored him but Opus, we have not seem them back. There are
still ongoing negotiations. We're still negotiating. Don has a meeting with them next week. We're still hoping
some things happen with the Arboretum on that property in this area. They've got a lot of work to do and
things have to, they've changed their plan. We talked about that, as far as grading. What we did was we told
them not to come back until we get the Highway 5 corridor planned and that's what we're... We've asked them
to incorporate a lot of the issues with this plan.
Paul Paulson: I have a question on that. Does that mean that my property could not be considered for
incorporation into the PUD until Opus completes their work? I
Kate Aanenson: Certainly not. I mean their PUD is a separate thing from this. What we're recommending is
some land use. What we're hoping is that there's a possibility that maybe some of that property to the north and
we would also be by the Arboretum. Then you wouldn't be an island, which is.
36 1
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
Paul Paulson: And see, that's part of my problem. You said that their plan is separate from this. And that's
my problem is I don't want them to be separate. I want my property to be considered in conjunction with what
they're planning to do.
Kate Aanenson: Exactly. And that would be part of their PUD. We haven't left you out. We originally, the
staff is the one that had the recommendation to include Mr. Paulson. At first he was reluctant and then he
thought, well I don't want to be an island and asked me. We certainly ask the developers of that property to
work something out to maybe incorporate him.
Paul Paulson: And see that's the other thing. That's another example of my sense of no reaction because you're
right. I saw that. About a year and a half ago there was a request that the developers incorporate both my
property and Wrase's property and I haven't heard a single word from anybody.
j Kate Aanenson: We're working to do that.
Don Ashworth: But neither have we. I mean we can't incorporate you into something that doesn't exist.
Paul Paulson: And I'm not asking to be incorporated ... but I want to be planned in on the development so I don't
find myself 5 years down the road with a property that I can't sell. I'm stuck. So that's all I'm asking.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Anyone else?
Peter Olin: Peter Olin. I'm representing the Arboretum and I've not talked with Paul in quite a while so I'm
glad to hear his views. We are concerned about that end of this corridor study obviously but I wanted to address
the route, as that's what you are looking at tonight. And I was on the team looking at that. We did look at all
the land use along there. We tried to consider all the different options that were proposed, and there were many
and obviously some are not going to work no matter where that goes. But one of the, several of things that we
looked at were making this not just a frontage road but a city street for Chanhassen. A continuation of main
street. And when you look at many of the suburban towns that have grown and the highways that have gone
through them, they create a wide swath. Not only the highway but the frontage roads. It's not only ugly but it
divides the town up and becomes a real barrier. And this was a new idea. Chance to make something a little
different to create this as a main street or a continuation of main street for Chanhassen. We looked at it in terms
of the town center and the town center ending at Powers Boulevard. It is Powers isn't it? I've got the right
road there. And then from then on going into the neighborhood. Parks and neighborhoods and the way the
route on the northern section would be would allow neighborhoods to be on both sides of that street so that it
would be very much like a town street. A main street and then it would end up at the border of the Arboretum
at sort of the end of town on Highway 41. We thought it was a very good concept. It solved the circulation
problems and it also allowed for the town to grow and to create a nice image. Part of the image right now of
Chanhassen, which is going to be lost shortly is the agricultural community. The open lands and the forest lands
and this was a way to keep some of that right along Highway 5 as well because some of those areas are not
quite buildable. So we thought it was a very good route and we're glad to see that recommendation come from
the Planning Commission from our work up to the Council. We hope you approve it.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
Lisa Notenmann: I'm Lisa Notermann. I live at 1450 Arboretum Blvd. I'd just like to make a comment. My
house is going no matter what. I'm right by Lake Ann Park. We really need, we really would like to have
37
id
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
some time frame. We're living in limbo out there, you know and it's really hard. Just with the upkeep of your
home and with the kids in school. I mean it's really a hard situation that we're in right now and I'm hoping that
it will be something decided soon and that you'll inform us so that we know what's going on. I mean last
meeting we came here and we thought, when we left we thought well, anywhere from 4 to 14 years. And now I
hear well, maybe '95 you know. That's pretty soon so I'm hoping that you keep us informed. And if it is going
to be long range, then let us know. If it is short term, then let us know but don't let us sitting in limbo forever.
Mayor Chmiel: If you can't get questions, call me. I
Lisa Notermann: Okay, thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: You're welcome. Anyone else?
Peter Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Peter Beck and I'm here tonight on behalf of the owners of
the Ward property, which is a piece of property completely unrelated to this, the road corridor and I'd be more ,
than happy to bring my comments up at a later meeting when you're talking about land uses in general in the
corridor unless this is the only opportunity to bring it up. If this is the one and only chance to talk about land
uses anywhere in the corridor and you want to get into another topic, I'll talk about the Ward property. I'm
happy to come back at a future meeting if you're going to have another public hearing on the land use.
Mayor Chmiel: Kate. Regarding the location in comparison to what we're talking from Powers Boulevard
going west, the property which is the Ward property, as you're aware of TH 101 and.
Kate Aanenson: It's on TH 101 south of TH 5.
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Peter Beck: Not related... '
Kate Aanenson: There are some land use recommendations as a part of this and different even from this at the
Planning Commission. We kind of went through those in our work session. As I mentioned, there's really three
components but this one right now we want you to get on for the 30 day comment period. As I suspect we'll
probably come back in order to get those issues resolved and have another public hearing and maybe even a
work session before that. So if you guys want to make it part of the record or.
Peter Beck: I'd be more than happy to come back. I just want to be sure we're not passing up our opportunity
by not speaking.
Mayor Chmiel: No, I don't think that you would be.
Don Ashworth: Eventually we're going to be looking to a comprehensive plan amendment incorporating.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Don Ashworth: Okay. That requires a separate public hearing process. So I mean it would be at that point in
time where Peter should really show up and talk about the land use issues.
38 1
i
L
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
Peter Beck: I'm more than happy to do that because our request is that you also do something different than the
Planning Commission recommended on the corridor study but it is land use related and I'll be happy to bring it
up later.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Sure.
Peter Beck: So I'll do that with respect to the Ward. As the Council knows, Eckankar is also a client of mine
and I just wanted to tell the Council, the discussion about the project that's ready to go ... be more likely to
happen and the most important segment of course of this frontage road is the piece that goes through Eckankar
and I think the Council should know that the right -of -way for that is all resolved. An easement is required.
There will be no hassle from the property owner with respect to that segment of the frontage mad and
Eckankar's looking forward to working with the city as to landscaping and the way that road lays into the
easement as that moves forward and the landscaping we talked about. You know additional opportunity for
landscaping... so at least for that segment over there, there should be no controversy and you should be able to
present a pretty clean proposal to the people that decide whether it's going to in.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. Anyone else?
Steve Schwanke: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Steve Schwanke with RLK Associates and
like Mr. Beck, we are here this evening representing DataServ. DataSery owns approximately 60 acres south of
Trunk Highway 5 just west of Dell Road and again, like Mr. Beck mentioned, our comments are mainly land use
related. We just wanted to make you aware that DataSery is within a month of completing their corporate
planning process for that piece of property and in the near future will be before you to discuss a number of land
use and site design related issues. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thanks. Anyone else?
Susan Markert: My name is Susan Markert and I live at 7461 Hazeltine Boulevard which is the northeast corner
of TH 5 and TH 41. And I just want to comment that I am in agreement with the northerly route because I
think any other route which would have been down south further wouldn't work because of the stacking of the
traffic. And also I'm wondering, I had heard that there could be some sort of a lit intersection. Is that true?
Where that northerly mute would come onto TH 41. Is that going to, has that been decided?
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think any determination has been made on that. Kate?
Kate Aanenson: Well as that property north of the Arboretum, the Courtnoy property, that develops. There may
be a street to T into that property.
Susan Markert: No, I'm talking about lit Kate. Is it going to be lit. Is there going to be a light.
Mayor Chmiel: Well I would imagine.
Kate Aanenson: If warrant, that would have to be something that would be resolved.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. That would be something that would be looked at by the city. A determination is the
light is shed the proper area within. If there's a given problem, and there could very well be. You're talking
strictly a light, not a stop and go light?
we
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
Susan Markert: No. I'm talking, I don't care. Anything. See I'm talking anything. Anything that changes you
know I'm concerned about. I'm wondering if there's any way that we could get a buffer you know. A bit of a
buffer from evergreen trees where that. would come. I don't know exactly how close that's going to come to our
house. I did know and I can't remember now. It's been a while. Is there any possibility that we could get
some sort of a buffer of evergreen trees? Lots of them.
Mayor Chmiel: I can't make any commitment on it right now but that's something that Council can take under
consideration.
Susan Markert: Okay. I would ask that the Council would take that under consideration because it does, you
know somewhat alter our view. I also would like to make a comment on my concern for the, well first of all the
evergreen trees that were just knocked down on the Byerly's, I believe it's the Byerly's property. Is there a
reason. I'm concerned about the alteration you know of the land. ...but the alteration of this hill. I'm real
concerned about that and I'm wondering if there's some sort of a maximum grading ordinance that is ... because I
don't want to see this beautiful. Okay we picked this road and I was also on the committee. Picked this road to
be north of Highway 5 for the beauty of it. And part of the beauty of it is the hill. So now if you start
flattening everything because it's easier to build something on a flat piece of property than a hill, then I, it's
going to look like Highway 7, depending on what area it is. Market Boulevard or something like that. Where
they widened Highway 7 and took all the hills down. I'm very concerned about the aesthetic beauty of what we
have because that's what Chanhassen is about. Is there any kind of an ordinance to protect the destruction of the
hills?
Kate Aanenson: That...overlay zone. That was ... and maybe James can speak to that. That was how the
alignment came to be. We looked at the natural features. Mr. Dolejsi brought up the oak trees and ... but we
looked at all the natural features. The creeks. The wetlands. The existing stand of trees. The topography and I
mean James had that whole area worked and what he came up with was 4 alignments and they got narrowed
down to two preferred and we looked at an 80 foot right -of -way because it came down to a 32 foot paved
section with a bike trail on it and a lot of that was designed with the sensitivity of saving or preserving the
natural features.
Councilman Wing: You were there Sue. I'm surprised you don't have the answers yourself because we
discussed all of these.
Susan Markert: Well I know but I said I'm also bringing up an issue that I want to make sure that you know,
that everybody's aware of that. Okay I was there. I agree with that. And also I would like to make a comment
lastly, of the width of the road to be. There was the narrow road and then the second, I think it was the second
to the narrowest. That's what the task force wanted. I would hope that you would comply with that because I
believe it's a workable road but I don't like to see, you know personally myself, would like to see a big wide
road where we don't really actually need it I don't believe. So I guess that's all I have to say.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Anyone else?
Brad Johnson: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Brad Johnson. I live at 7425 Frontier Trail.
I'm here as both a resident and then also representing... Conway who owns some property out that way. As far
as the, which northerly or southerly route. I think we have figured out that we can work with either one on the
Conway site. We are concerned however, as we've done our planning and you'll soon see the proposed plan
probably within about 30 days, that the current plan will require you potentially immediately to condemn Mr.
40 1
[1
s
1
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
Gorra's property and to condemn Mr. Hennessy's property in order to give us access to that so I'd like to have
you look at what is currently before you because if Mr. Conway is going to develop his property, currently there
is no access unless one or both of those are done. Which brings me to a couple of questions, and I have been to
a lot of these meetings. I have not, from a development point of view, seen costs adequately addressed. I note
that the road across the way, a short portion of that is up around $4 million so far. Over by the new school. I
just don't understand how this is all going to be paid for. Number two, the completion time will relate to when
it's going to be paid for. I have no idea when this will be completed. My concern is not so much for Mr.
Conway's property but just for all of you to go through this whole process and there are no funds available.
Each time a parcel there is going to be developed it will be kind of a small war. If there's no money available
from the city. We understand the cost of this road is in the $200.00 to $260.00 a square foot. A normal road
that would be required by development of this nature I guess is around $100.00 so there's quite a bit of
difference in cost. I don't know how that's going to be handled. I have not seen a traffic study. It's nice to
have a road running from TH 41. The road starts and ends basically nowhere in my point of view. It's
basically a collector street. Most of the people that we've talked to tend, if they go to TH 41 they end up going
TH 5 to come into town. If they go to CR 17, they end up on TH 5 to come into town because TH 5 will
always be quicker. So it would be interesting to see, we're good at traffic studies here. If this whole area is
developed, how much traffic would this road actually handle. And then I think one of the problems you're going
to have as you go through this whole process, and this is just for the record, is that you're trying to align
basically collector streets for quite a long ways. And I really question whether it needs to be a road that runs
from TH 41 to downtown. I think you're going to run into a lot of costs and over a long time and in fact, if we
just look at a collector street like much of the road to the south is, you'd probably get it put in by developers
and with a lot of extra costs but just these alignments are causing trouble. An example of that is Mr. Hennessy's
property. Because we've got a historical barn across the street, we've got to go through Mr. Hennessy's house
and all these kinds of things are just going to create a large cost. I haven't seen what I'd call an adequate real
effective cost to the city, especially if you don't have federal funding and if you don't have state funds.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Councilman Wing: Why don't we see if there's an answer to that.
Kate Aanenson: Would you like us to respond to that?
Mayor Chmiel: Kate, would you please.
Kate Aanenson: I'll let Deb.
Deb Porter. I think part of the problem sometimes in the information that we're presenting here at these
meetings. It hasn't been realized yet and we probably haven't announced it clearly enough, is that some of the
impact issues, for instance traffic projections, that sort of thing, are contained in this environmental assessment
document. This has not yet been released to the public for review, which is the point in having the public
hearing once you get this document released through your local libraries and City Hall and through the EQB
Monitor and so on. So it may seem as though we're discussing a lot of things here without having enough
background information but we're doing this up front, as all cities do, to come up with at least a preferred
thinking or route that the city has in mind of what they're planning to do and release all the information to the
public for them to read and then comment at the public hearing, which I think we're estimating would be
somewhere maybe late April, early May on this document. So I can understand there's some confusion and lack
of information for a lot of people to make comments. We haven't yet released the public documents so. Most
41
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994 1
�l
of the information for instance Mr. Johnson is talking about is in the document. There's some cost information.
Cost estimating is somewhat out of the scope of the environmental assessment documents. We try our best to ,
get some preliminary estimates but that's awfully difficult to do until you have more finalized engineering
information. And you get more into the right -of -way acquisition activities and that's all part of the EA actually.
But we do have some estimates on range of cost. We're hoping to release this in early April ... is the city's
recommendation on the preferred alternative and that again, even when it appears in this document, it's not a
final selection. It just gives the public some idea as to what your feelings are at that point.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good, thank you. Any other? Okay. If seeing none, we'll come back to Council and
have some discussion in regard to the recommendations that we're going to be making. Mark.
Councilman Senn: Well what are we trying to address then? Just simply the alignment issue?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. We're looking for a preferred alignment for the frontage road and approval of the EA
document first of all. Then you can ask questions regarding that or any of the things that were brought before us
as well. And then also the modification or adopt the Highway 5 corridor overlay zone.
Kate Aanenson: I put that in there. I think at this point we'll just hold off on that issue ... you know obviously
we went ahead and we have a lot... happening along Highway 5 corridor. We want to get the overlay standards
in place ... so we'll be bringing that back to you shortly but tonight you really, we would prefer that you...
Mayor Chmiel: Strictly the alignment.
Kate Aanenson: Strictly the alignment.
Councilman Senn: Okay. I'd be uncomfortable with the overlays and the land use tonight myself but as far as '
the alignment goes. I've really tried to basically look at this and look at every piece of information that exists
out there, and boy there's plenty of it. Talk about an issue that's been studied to death. The basic problem I
keep having I guess is I still have a real hard time getting past all of the land use assumptions that exist and
those land use assumptions to me have a great deal to do with the alignment of the road. And I don't think
we've really had a good discussion of those land use assumptions, at least at the Council level yet. If I had to
state preference tonight in terms of an alignment, the way I would be leaning right now would be towards the
southern alignment simply because it leaves most of the options open and does not, how would I say, imply or
accept all those land use assumptions which I really still have some questions on. In reading a lot of the
information it appears that a lot of the premise to the north road is basically related to land use between the
north road and the highway.
Kate Aanenson: Well to go back to what Peter and Sue were talking about. I think part of the reason for the
northern frontage road is to allow for you to look at something besides another road. There's a lot of
development occurring in those two parcels—there's some existing natural features. Maybe create some
landscaping buffers, especially along the edge of the pond. That was really the intent of pushing it to the north.
The Planning Commission struggled with that too and that's why ... but really you know as far as you get the
residential. The development east along, between Audubon and up to Galpin. There's some issues about
crossing... going through Mr. Hennessy's property. Whether you do the environmental and cross the creek
between VanDeVeire's and Conway's piece but that's always been shown as residential. Again, we have
predominantly residential until you get to the property that's owned by Fleet Farm and we did Sue, in the land
use recommendation, we did a site analysis for that and the one thing that was recommended that we didn't want
42 1
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
to see a large user on that site. We had it broken down to smaller office and we didn't want to see, this is the
same on the south side. We didn't want to see a large user on the other side where Opus is building either. I
mean that was eliminated from their property too ... the large corner. So I agree with some of what you're saying.
The Planning Commission struggled with that too but towards that philosophy... was trying to maintain some of
the existing natural features before you look at the road. Pushing the road back...
I Councilman Senn: But as I understand either route really maintains natural features. You know both routings,
at least as I've studied them, take the natural features surrounding the road into some pretty good consideration.
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilman Senn: You know and I think that's why it's down to these two alternatives but the underlying
assumption that I keep coming back to and then say okay, well. You want it removed so it's not part of like a
highway corridor. You know that may be a nice goal but where I keep struggling with that is then I look back
at the land use and I look back and the land use and I see geez, everybody has this here's the north road. Here's
the highway and the big assumption is there's a lot of multi- family housing between the north road and the
highway and they aren't large areas. Then I just kind of apply my personal test and I'm sorry, I don't really see
a lot of people having a burning desire to live in any kind of housing along a major highway.
L1
Kate Aanenson: Except we know, at the Planning Commission meeting we've already seen Mr. Conway's
proposed development. It's not all multi- family on his piece of property. It's my understanding that Lundgren's
has an option on Mr. Dolejsi's property and they state that the northern alignment works for them and they'll
probably do at least some. I'm not sure if it's going to be all multi- family but they do own the property that
they're developing to the north and probably continuity of some of that coming to the south so I'm not sure that
it's all going to be multi- family because we put the road...
Councilman Senn: Kate, I don't know if it is either. Again that's, I'm just saying that's what I'm
uncomfortable with and yeah, and the golf course issue there, I've gone out and looked at that. I don't know
whether that's a real or not but I can look at the whole corridor and say who knows what's for real and what's
not.
Kate Aanenson: And the Planning Commission felt like if that's legitimate, he's ready to go forward, that would
be one area they would recommend...
Councilman Senn: It seems like a heck of a use for that site.
Kate Aanenson: Sure, and again that...
Councilman Senn: But if you settle on the north now it pretty much.
Kate Aanenson: No, what we're saying is that, as Deb had indicated that that would be preferred ... we put it out
and we get comments and we look at that more closely.
Councilman Senn: Yeah see and that's why I kind of bounce south because again that keeps the options open
and again, just from my standpoint that's what make me more comfortable at this point.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other thing Mark?
43
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael. 1
Councilman Mason: I certainly don't feel that we're making, I was glad to hear Deb say we're not making a
definite decision tonight. I also was on the task force committee and as I recall the vote between Alternative 1
and Alternative 2 was very close. And I think environmentally, I think Alternative 1 is a better route. I think
when you include, if you just look at the environment as the natural resources, I think Alternative 1 is the better
route. There are a lot of people that are affected and I guess quite honestly, as not as a task force member but
as a Council member I've got to consider the environment of the whole city. Having said that Kate, somebody
else that was on the task force help me out. Didn't we talk about that if alternative 2 was chosen, that it would
be as much as possible completely buffered from Highway 5 with berms or plantings?
Kate Aanenson: ...we talked about there'd probably be more acquisition because what we've done is created a
dead zone that you can't do anything in so there may actually be some more acquisition that you would have
to ... because it's unusable property.
Councilman Mason: And did we ever come to any kind of agreement on that?
Kate Aanenson: I think we directed the consultant to look at some cost estimates and we just talked about
rough numbers but that would be something, if that's an alternative, that we may want to look at. But we are
creating more land that's basically unusable.
Councilman Mason: Well yeah. That's something, I think that's a very important part of this puzzle because
I'm sure there are people that are saying, we're doing that by alternate, well they were here tonight. Saying that
by alternative 1. You know, having said all that, I am a firm believer in the commissions and the task force and
I kind of feel like, kind of being between a rock and a hard place here because if I say I like alternative 2,
that's saying I disagree totally with all the work that's been done and quite honestly nothing could be further
from the truth and I hope anyone that was on those commissions understands that. With the exception of the
west end, my inclination right now is to go with alternative 2 just for some of those stated reasons. Simply
because when we look at, when I look I should say, at the whole picture, I see alternative 2 having less of an
impact on what's currently out there and who is currently out there. I do want to add, I see a need for a road
going all the way through. We're talking, what are we talking about in the year 2010? 35,000 people? I mean
in the city of Chan. Aren't we somewhere around there right now?
Mayor Chmiel: Right. I
Councilman Mason: To say that Highway 5, for those of us that live in the city and quite honestly don't enjoy
driving on Highway 5 now, I can't imagine I'd enjoy driving on it 10-15 years in the future. I do think we need ,
a road that goes through there and I don't think that road will be a 6 lane road in and out of the city of
Chanhassen. I quite honestly do not feel totally committed to alternative 2 right now. There are still a bunch of
questions that need to be answered but that certainly is where I'm leaning right now. I'm, no. The southern '
route. Alternative 2 and where I would change that would be up towards the Highway 41 there because of some
traffic configurations. I think we discussed at that point it would, I would be tending to lean towards alternative
1. No, isn't that, yeah. Alternative 1.
Kate Aanenson: Swing to the north.
44 1
1
i City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
Councilman Mason: Swing to the north but I think we also are some other issues on that property that need to
be addressed too but I'm right now I'm leaning towards alternative 2. The southern route.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Well I of course was real active with Bill Morrish when this all started and the concept of
breaking these roads off and designing this boulevard if you would, that was going to run north of the highway
to avoid this 4 or 5, 6 lane Fridley type atmosphere. What'd we call it, the Fridley syndrome I guess. We
wanted to avoid that. That's how it all started. So I guess I voted with Peter Olin and Planning Commission in
selecting number 1. But that was only after Paul and staff in truly some detail had gone over land uses on both
and how the acquisition costs played in and what the options were of those pieces of property. If you compared
them to what their zones were, what their use would be with either one, the northern route seemed to give us
1 that neighborhood road that Peter addressed and tried to accomplish what we were doing with the extension of
West 78th Street. And it was also I guess, as Mike had mentioned, a more environmentally sound one. It was
the better city street and gave us greater separation. And if you can take then, just take the land use as a
nebulous, non - subjective discussion at this point, I guess right now I'd favor the northern route to accomplish
what we'd like to do long term for the city in a visionary way. Alternative 2 is certainly acceptable to me. I
don't have any problem with it and I could go along with the Council if that was the majority but I think too,
what we need here to make the final decision is a very detailed discussion of land use and what the options
would be with both uses. And then I sat down with Paul Krauss one afternoon and really talked about what it's
zoned for. How it could or couldn't develop and as he explained the options that the owners would have, the
northern route continued to make sense to me. They did not cut anybody out. It allowed for quite a bit of
development and gave them quite a bit of options. Sometimes maybe more so than the southern route so right
now I guess I continue to favor the northern route which was recommended by Planning Commission and the
task force.
Councilman Mason: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to make one comment that I forgot. The issue of cost has come up
and that's a very real issue and it is, I think I agree with you Don that it's paramount that we get some sort of
frontage road in to Lake Ann. I see cars turning in and out of there in the summer and it amazes me that we
' haven't had a problem there yet. But cost, at least after Lake Ann is definitely an issue. A very big issue and
without funding, with federal funding I, long and hard look. Long and hard look.
Councilman Wing: For what? ...project or just development?
Councilman Mason: Well I'm on record as saying, we've got to go. We've got to hook up to Lake Ann
somehow and I'd like to see it go to Audubon regardless. But after that, if we find out we don't have any
federal funds available, that's a whole other can of worms.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah and I guess I don't disagree with that Michael because that's some of the concerns I have.
' We're talking about the city purchasing right -of -way for the frontage road and access which was really originally
required to provide local access that we talked about and for the discussion that we had with the City and
MnDot, it's necessary for us to work out with the parcels, will be the responsibilities of the city. And there
' again too, I don't know what the costs are going to be. I have a real concern with that. The other areas that
we're talking, we're going to work with MnDot. Those figures I don't believe are completely and fully
consummated either to even do the share of the 50 %. Or is there some figures that's fairly reasonable.
Deb Porter. When you're speaking of 50 %, are you talking about construction funding dollars for Arboretum
1 45
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
Boulevard for the access road?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Deb Porter. I think our assumption has been since the beginning of the project that the predominant proportion
of the funding would be federal funds meaning approximately 80% of total funds. 1 don't believe that you are at
great risk of losing, or acquiring federal funds at some point. That's what has become the issue here during the
last 2 -3 years with MnDot is that it's not that projects no longer qualify for federal funds and will never receive
them. It's that they aren't receiving them as soon as they can plan. All projects pretty much have been delayed. ,
There's been a moratorium on a lot of building in some areas. There are no federal funds available at that time.
I can't imagine that you won't receive a large amount of federal funds at some point. It's that they're not
coming nearly as soon as we had originally forecast. �.
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's some discussions I've also had with Chuck Seeger from MnDot. And there's a need
for funding throughout the entirety of the metro area and there are also other cities who have been in line
probably before us. And that too is some of my concerns because we've been moved back from where we were ,
originally to 1998 and it could go beyond that. And so consequently some of that is a real concern to me as
well.
Deb Porter: I think what we talked with MnDot again, representatives from the Federal Highway Administration
about, in terms of what is the real likelihood of Chanhassen and some other communities in receiving federal
funds by the year 2000? A lot of the projects are planned for the year 1998 and so on. That now is the new
date for the Trunk Highway 5 reconstruction is 1998. It was 1995 I believe just as of a year ago that was our
projected date and that... Their feeling is that most projects that were promised federal funds, if you say
promised. At some point in the past you will also qualify for those in years to come. It's just that if they delay
4 or 5, possibly more years.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. And as you're probably well aware I do sit on the Transportation Advisory Board for the
Met Council and I'm aware as to all these ties that we're trying to get. And it's causing a lot of difficulty
throughout the metro area in coming up with total dollars. In fact they've also requested that the Governor cut
loose some of the dollars that they have to do some funding but I don't think you're likely to see that either.
Deb Porter. The best I guess, not a guarantee but the arrangement that MnDot has proposed to some cities and
Chanhassen being one of them, is to fund projects through what they call advance funding. Meaning that the city
would have to come up with funds on their own for construction if they wanted projects to happen at an earlier
date than what MnDot has them planned for based on their funding requirements. That advance money means
that the city goes ahead and builds it. At some point in the future, maybe 4 years later, MnDot then reimburses
them for their agreed share. So in fact you receive the dollars then at a later date and whatever those...
Mayor Chmiel: In looking at the routing in itself, I too know the environmental concerns that were based on the ,
northern route as well and looking at the southern route and I too sort of put my chips right now into that
southern route because I think that that to me looks like the most feasible and probably, and hopefully the less
impact on a good share of the people living within that particular area. Those crossovers that we talked about
in the center portions there, are something that we looked at rather strongly and I too sat in on an awful lot of
these meetings that they've had. But as I, if I were to hang my hat on anything presently, I'd hang it on the
southern route. So with that, any other discussion? I
46 1
i City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
I Councilman . Wing: No, let's vote on something.
g
Mayor Chmiel: That's the way I feel. Do you want to make a recommendation?
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Wing: I'll second it. I opposed it but I'll second it. What I don't like, what occurred here
happened the same thing at Planning in that this task force spent month after month after month discussing the
issues of land use and then the Planning Commission was given it and they had to kind of reinvent the wheel.
Now we tried to push it through there and kind of have to reinvent the wheel there. I'll go along with the
' southern route but I think it's really important that we look at these land use issues and development potentials
and costs so that, that's why I'm willing to go along with this without any effort. I mean the southern route is
fine. At least we're not creating a 6 lane highway and that's my big concern. But I think there's some real
issues here that favored the northern route that we haven't heard, haven't talked about.
Mayor Chmiel: The other concern that I might have too Dick is on the west end as to where that road would
come out onto TH 41. Either the southern or the northern and part of my concern with the southern is if there
1 would be stacking on that particular road for accessibility and would it be better to go to the northern portion of
that.
Councilman Senn: I thought either one was acceptable.
Councilman Mason: Well I talked about the northern route at the tail end there.
Councilman Wing: Who made the motion?
Councilman Senn: I made the motion but I'm going back to, at least in all the information I've read, from a
traffic design standpoint, both meet the standards. Okay. Whether it's the north or the southern route. Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Is that?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
James Unruh: That's correct.
Councilman Senn: That's my understanding so I mean that's.
Councilman Wing: But the southern one doesn't tie into the proposed road coming across to the west.
1 47
Councilman Senn:
I'll move on the southern route.
Kate Aanenson:
endorsement or approve of the EA document also?
...that
'
Councilman Senn:
Yeah, for purposes of yeah.
Deb Porter. Right.
We include within the Environmental Assessment would be the issue...
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Wing: I'll second it. I opposed it but I'll second it. What I don't like, what occurred here
happened the same thing at Planning in that this task force spent month after month after month discussing the
issues of land use and then the Planning Commission was given it and they had to kind of reinvent the wheel.
Now we tried to push it through there and kind of have to reinvent the wheel there. I'll go along with the
' southern route but I think it's really important that we look at these land use issues and development potentials
and costs so that, that's why I'm willing to go along with this without any effort. I mean the southern route is
fine. At least we're not creating a 6 lane highway and that's my big concern. But I think there's some real
issues here that favored the northern route that we haven't heard, haven't talked about.
Mayor Chmiel: The other concern that I might have too Dick is on the west end as to where that road would
come out onto TH 41. Either the southern or the northern and part of my concern with the southern is if there
1 would be stacking on that particular road for accessibility and would it be better to go to the northern portion of
that.
Councilman Senn: I thought either one was acceptable.
Councilman Mason: Well I talked about the northern route at the tail end there.
Councilman Wing: Who made the motion?
Councilman Senn: I made the motion but I'm going back to, at least in all the information I've read, from a
traffic design standpoint, both meet the standards. Okay. Whether it's the north or the southern route. Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Is that?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
James Unruh: That's correct.
Councilman Senn: That's my understanding so I mean that's.
Councilman Wing: But the southern one doesn't tie into the proposed road coming across to the west.
1 47
Councilman Mason: I don't know that we need to get tied up in that.
Mayor Chmiel: Well eventually there's going to be something there but we don't know where that is. Okay,
any other discussion? If hearing none, I'll call the question.
Resolution #94 -40: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the southern route,
Alternative #2 as the preferred alignment for the frontage road north of Highway 5 and to approve the
EA document. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. '
Councilman Wing: That's number one. Do we have to do any of these others?
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think we have to go through 2 or 3 now.
Kate Aanenson: No, that's fine.
Mayor Chmiel: As far as I'm concerned.
Councilman Mason: When do we see this coming back before us? I mean who knows but. I
Councilman Senn: I'd like to spend some time on a work session.
Mayor Chmiel: I would think a work session would probably be the ideal time.
Councilman Senn: I mean I'm really, just this issue and.
Mayor Chmiel: Come up with some of the things and some of the answers and some of the questions that we
have and in order to do that, I think it'd be advisable. I
Councilman Mason: When do you see a finalizing what alternative we choose?
Deb Porter. Once you issue the EA document you have to wait approximately 3 weeks before you can have a '
public hearing... comment period is open for another 2 weeks after that and at whatever City Council meeting
follows that last 2 weeks, it's possible you could make a decision at that time. It's not often done that quickly
because you will have a fair amount of agency review and if possible...
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I would think that that would be an aggressive way to move with it. And I don't think it
will go. I
48 1
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
Deb Porter. Continuing west from Trunk Highway 41.
Councilman Senn: 41?
Councilman Wing: 41.
Councilman Senn: What road?
Councilman Mason: I don't know that we need to get tied up in that.
Mayor Chmiel: Well eventually there's going to be something there but we don't know where that is. Okay,
any other discussion? If hearing none, I'll call the question.
Resolution #94 -40: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the southern route,
Alternative #2 as the preferred alignment for the frontage road north of Highway 5 and to approve the
EA document. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. '
Councilman Wing: That's number one. Do we have to do any of these others?
Mayor Chmiel: I don't think we have to go through 2 or 3 now.
Kate Aanenson: No, that's fine.
Mayor Chmiel: As far as I'm concerned.
Councilman Mason: When do we see this coming back before us? I mean who knows but. I
Councilman Senn: I'd like to spend some time on a work session.
Mayor Chmiel: I would think a work session would probably be the ideal time.
Councilman Senn: I mean I'm really, just this issue and.
Mayor Chmiel: Come up with some of the things and some of the answers and some of the questions that we
have and in order to do that, I think it'd be advisable. I
Councilman Mason: When do you see a finalizing what alternative we choose?
Deb Porter. Once you issue the EA document you have to wait approximately 3 weeks before you can have a '
public hearing... comment period is open for another 2 weeks after that and at whatever City Council meeting
follows that last 2 weeks, it's possible you could make a decision at that time. It's not often done that quickly
because you will have a fair amount of agency review and if possible...
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I would think that that would be an aggressive way to move with it. And I don't think it
will go. I
48 1
i
F,
t
I
1
City Council Meeting - March 28, 1994
Deb Porter. Yeah and I think we may be looking more at July and August...and discuss the land use issues
further. That kind of goes back and forth. You know each decision making body hasn't heard all the...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Very good. Thank you. Do you want me to give you a few minutes to clear your
boards so we can start with the next process? As it looks right now, I would think that the Chanhassen Estates
is probably going to take us to 11:00, if not maybe a little bit beyond. So if anyone is staying yet and still,
unfortunately for the preliminary plat for Minnewashta Parkway, Minnewashta Landings. Item 11 which is the
Wendy's and Edina Realty office building. Amendment to the City Code. Resolution to increase wetland
alteration permit fees. Resolution for the wetland buffer monumentation. I don't.
Councilman Senn: Don, a question.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't believe that that will be heard this evening. But the next one that will be on the agenda
is the item number 9. Mark.
Councilman Senn: Is there any chance that we could maybe get through 9 and 10?
Mayor Chmiel: Well I'm amenable to it. I would go along with item number 10 then.
Councilman Senn: Because there's a lot of people here on both of those. I'd hate to have to see them come
back and sit through.
Councilman Wing: I want a commitment that they're not going to leave.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We'll move on with item number 9.
APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CHANHASSEN ESTATES STREET, DRAINAGE
AND UTILITY RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT 93 -10, AUTHORIZE ADVERTISING FOR BIDS.
Public Present:
Name Address
Mark Littfm
Martin & Lora Wade
Gerald Fischer
David & Joanne Malkovich
Keith Anderson
8052 Erie Spur
8028 Erie Avenue
8042 Erie Avenue
8039 Dakota Lane
8043 Cheyenne
49