Loading...
3. Elementary School/Recreation Center Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan Review and Wetland Alteration PermitI i CITY OF CHANHASOU PC DATE: 1/5/94 CC DATE: 1/24/94 s (" CASE #: 93 -24 SUB, 93 -6 SPR 93 -6 REZ STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: The Chaska School District and City of Chanhassen propose to rezone approximately 42 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to OI, Office and Institutional District and preliminary plat and site plan review for a 107,690 square foot elementary school and recreation/park complex, and wetland alteration permit. LOCATION: The property is located at the southeast corner of Hwy. 5 and Galpin Boulevard. APPLICANT: Mr. David Clough City of Chanhassen Chaska School District #112 110600 Village Road Chaska, MN 55318 PRESENT ZONING: ACREAGE: DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: WATER AND SEWER: A2, Agricultural Estate 42 acres N - Hwy. 5 S - Timberwood Estates E - Vacant W - Galpin Boulevard 4011 n by City Administrator 6ado ✓ > A boditie Re*te Dat . Date Submitted to ConinllsSlon 0"" Subrvtted to Council I-2�1- ry PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site has been in an agricultural use and contains drained wetlands. Bordered on the east by Bluff Creek. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Single Family or School Site School/Recreation Site January 5, 1994 Page 2 PROPOSAL\SUMMARY This is a joint request by Chaska School District #112 and the City of Chanhassen for approvals leading to the construction of a new elementary school and recreational complex at the southeast ' comer of the intersection of Hwy. 5 and Galpin Boulevard. The requested actions include rezoning the site from A2, Agricultural Estate to OI, Office Institutional District, site plan approval for the school and recreational complex and a wetland alteration permit. ' The concept for this school was developed almost five years ago during the drafting of P Chanhassen's Comprehensive Plan and is specifically mentioned in that document. The City worked with the District on developing their growth plans. During that time the City came up with the concept of designing the facility to support joint use. Therefore the building was expanded to include a full gym with growth potential incorporating a design to allow use by the school during regular hours and by City recreational programs at other times. Similarly, the number and the scale of outdoor facilities was expanded to meet City needs. The proposal will create 5 baseball/4 soccer fields, 4 tennis courts and 2 ice rinks. The site which is currently ' being farmed, has been purchased by the City. Approximately one -half will be resold to the District as described by the requested subdivision. Site development is focused around what has become known as the "South Access Boulevard" in the Highway 5 Plan. This east/west collector street is designed to handle fairly large traffic ' volumes and provide an alternative routing to Hwy. 5. It will ultimately extend from Audubon Road to Hwy. 41. A portion of this street will be constructed concurrently with the school which is set to open by the fall of 1995. Preliminary plans have been developed for approval. What ' is known as the south access boulevard today actually was first contemplated in the 1991 Comprehensive Plan. However, the alignment of the road has changed. During development of the Highway 5 and school plans it became clear that a more southerly alignment was required ' to allow for development of the school and facilities and to maintain a safe intersection at Galpin Boulevard. In a related project, Galpin Boulevard itself will be upgraded and a traffic signal at the Hwy. 5 intersection will be installed. The proposed building is a brick, single story structure that is located towards the south part of the site. It incorporates a high degree of detailing. While much of the roof system is flat, there r are several pitched sections and vaulted areas covered with standing seam metal roofing. Building elevations are also highly detailed incorporating semi - exposed internal courtyards and projecting sections. Classrooms are clustered into areas that have exterior landscaped areas that can be utilized as part of the educational program. The site itself is relatively devoid of natural amenities due to the decades of heavy agricultural use. It contains several drained wetlands. Since these were drained many years ago they are not protected under current City and State programs and mitigation is not required. Bluff Creek is the primary environmental issue. City plans call for the creation of a recreational and t E School/Recreation Site January 5, 1994 Page 3 environmental corridor along the creek. The site plan needs to be refined in this area to demonstrate that grading remains out of the floodplain and immediate corridor. Landscaping plans in this area also need to be refined to begin establishing the Corridor restoration program that is being anticipated rather than the manipulated landscape that is appropriate elsewhere. The only major stands of trees are located almost entirely off -site towards the northern edge of ' residential lots in Timberwood Estates. Plans for the road need to be refined to demonstrate that these trees will be preserved and that new landscaping as appropriate to enhance screening, can be installed. The road project itself is not a part of this proposal. However, we believe that ' substantial screening will be provided by the fact that much of the road is located behind a hill or dropped below grade by a retaining wall. The school itself is located over 320 feet north of the south property line behind an extensive landscape treatment. The Timberwood homes are ' locate! several hundred feet south of the property line behind a major stand of mature trees. T:a :se's rolling topography will be mass - graded; however, an attempt is being made to preserve , some of the larger changes in elevation. For example, along Hwy. 5, the site drops from 966' at Galpin down to 948' near Bluff Creek before dropping rapidly to the 928' creek elevation. The school sits at 958' which is just a few feet lower than the finished grade of the expanded ' Hwy. 5. While the site must be mass graded to accommodate ballfields and the large footprint building, we believe it is being done in a sensitive manner. In most areas the actual amount of cut and fill is fairly minimal. Drainage and water quality protection are major concerns that are in the process of being , resolved at the time of writing. Plans call for obtaining and constructing NURP basins to the southeast, largely on the adjacent property. The School District and City will be liable for a portion of the costs of these improvements. Similarly, while most of the potential wetlands on the site have been determined not to be functioning wetlands due to agricultural conversion, there ' will be a minor amount of wetland filling occurring to construct the new road. The required mitigation will also be accommodated off -site in the immediate vicinity. Site landscaping is particularly well executed. The HGA Landscape Architect has also been retained to develop landscape themes throughout the Hwy. 5 corridor as envisioned under the ' Plan. Consequently, they envision heavy grove -Like stands of trees that will separate and define activity areas and grade changes. The groves are similar to some of the plantings around the Arboretum. When the area is viewed from Hwy. 5, there will be a grove of Crabapple, followed by a grove of Red Oak, then one of Linden, culminating in major stands of Maple. In the distance you will see the Oaks that frame in the Timberwood area The plans are consistent with the OI District standards as well as the pending Hwy. 5 Corridor Plan requirements. Staff is recommending approval with appropriate conditions. t"o I School/Recreation Site January 5, 1994 Page 4 SITE CHARACTERISTICS The site has been intensively farmed for decades. It was cleared of any significant vegetation and wetlands were drained and planted. As a result, several areas that exhibit some wetland ' characteristics are no longer wetlands protected under City and State law. The only identified wetland is the creek itself. ' The site contains rolling topography but little in the way of severe slopes. If these existed in the past, they were flattened by agricultural practices. The site does have a large change in elevation across it, generally falling from west to east and north to south in the vicinity of the creek. The ' high point of 985' is found on a small knoll located in the southwest corner of the site but much of the parcel is in the 940' to 960' range. ' Surrounding land uses include the following: NORTH- Hwy 5. Land located north of Highway 5 is currently vacant but is guided for a mix of medium density residential uses ' SOUTH- Low density residential lots in the Timberwood subdivision EAST- Bluff Creek and currently vacant land guided for a mix of office/industrial and residential uses. A proposal for the area is scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission shortly. I WEST Galpin Boulevard and a few scattered single family homes. The majority of the land is vacant and currently being proposed for the Centex townhome development. ' REZONING A2 TO OI, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, HIGHWAY 5 PLAN One of the requests is to rezone the site from A2 to OI, Office- Institutional The City has traditionally used the A2 district to hold property until development is proposed. The idea of a school being developed at this site first arose when the 1991 Comprehensive Plan was drafted. While the underlying land was designated for residential uses, the site was identified as a school search area on the plan map and there was detailed text concerning this and potential uses of the adjoining site to the east. The Plan also contained recommendations on the Bluff Creek Corridor. It was designated as a recreational and environmental corridor. The current proposal is fully consistent with the Plan. The school use was provided for and the Creek Corridor will be preserved under City ownership. The only deviation from the Plan concerns the alignment of the ' east/west access boulevard. The Plan shows a northerly alignment, although the current southern route was discussed. Several Timberwood residents pushed for this location to further protect them from development impacts. Ultimately, as the Highway 5 and school plans were developed, I %:* i-s School/Recreation Site January 5, 1994 Page 5 ' it was concluded that the northern alignment created traffic problems at Galpin and divided the school site to the extent where it was unlikely that a school could be developed. Additionally, ' it was concluded that the road alignment had greater flexibility since the site would be occupied by a school rather than approximately 80 -100 homes, thus development impact ceased to be a major issue. ' The Highway 5 Plan has been developed over the past two years and is nearing approval through the Planning Commission and City Council. Elements of the Plan considered the area in question ' specifically, and the draft ordinance provided additional guidance. The draft Plan illustrates the site as Institutional in recognition of the school proposal. A conceptual site plan was developed to serve as a guide in plan preparation. The plan illustrated a different location for the school ' building but is otherwise consistent with the proposal. It illustrated extensive landscaping along the Hwy. 5 and Galpin exposures which is being provided. It emphasized the protection of the Bluff Creek Corridor and trail (ultimately built under Hwy. 5) and an east/west trail along the ' access boulevard, both of which are being provided. A portion of the trail is being constructed with the underpass to be built by MnDOT in the future. The proposed access boulevard alignment and design standards are also being adhered to. Other aspects of Hwy. 5 Corridor ' regulations are addressed later. Staff has proposed rezoning the site to OI which limits use to schools, public buildings, offices ' and related uses. Since the City presently owns the entire site and will permanently retain ownership of half the site, we exercise a high degree of control over future uses should the school not be built for some reason. We believe this is the appropriate district for the proposed ' use. Since the requested rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and draft Highway 5 ' Plan, we are recommending that the rezoning to OI be approved. GENERAL SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURE The layout of the site was dictated by a number of factors including: ' - alignment of the east/west access boulevard - need to locate a sufficiently sized building footprint for the school and cooperatively developed City recreational facilities. The City portion of the building is designed to accommodate a separate entrance, parking and room for expansion. ' - need to maximize the number and variety of outdoor recreational facilities that will be provided to support City recreational programs ' - comply with the design directives of the Hwy. 5 Corridor Plan 1 i School/Recreation Site January 5, 1994 Page 6 requirement that the Bluff Creek Corridor be protected, and ' - desire to minimize adin , provided landscape buffering for the school, Tunberwood and �' g P Pe g ' Highway 5 Corridor In general, we believe that the designers did a good job of balancing what were sometimes conflicting goals. The building is oriented south towards the access boulevard. The building ' placement exceeds the 150' maximum setback from the highway by providing a 380' setback. However, the entire space in between will be occupied by green space in the form of athletic fields and planted groves of trees. The major reason why the Plan had a maximum setback from ' Hwy. 5 was to limit the potential for parking lots in the front yard. That is clearly not an issue here where the parking lots are in a remote location. ' The school is essentially located inside a series of tree groves that will be planted where corn and beans once stood. This has the effect of isolating the school from the surrounding neighborhood, ' highway and athletic fields and creating an interesting environment for learning. The natural world is further brought into the building by having rooms open onto planted courtyards and outdoor class spaces. The proximity of the creek and provision of trails will allow it to also ' become part of the school experience and hopefully curriculum. There are three separate parking areas. The western one with a capacity of 115 cars will ' primarily be used to support school operations. The lot east of the building with 157 stalls will primarily be devoted to City recreational facilities. The smallest lot with 26 stalls is located near the tennis courts and other facilities. There is also a bus turn- around and drop -off area located ' south of the school. All curb cuts access directly onto the access boulevard. The school building itself is an attractive and somewhat innovative design. In addition to its ' relationship to the outdoors, it incorporates a varied facade containing numerous breaks and jags in the outside walls. Brick will be used throughout as the exterior material with cut stone used for detailing. The roof line is flat for the most part but incorporates a series of barrel vaults that ' will be skinned in standing seam metal. Enclosed penthouses for HVAC equipment will also be skinned with metal. We are generally satisfied with the building but the lack of details has us raising some questions. 1. We want to verify that all HVAC equipment is located within acceptable enclosures such that it will not be visible from off -site vantage points including Hwy. 5. 2. As we understand the plans, there are equipment penthouses. They are at least 12' high and 44' long and skinned with standing seam metal. These appear excessively massive and bulky. While we understand the need for them, there must be a better way to incorporate them into the building design. We would suggest raising the brick wall to 2. The plan gave no attention to enhancing or restoring the Bluff Creek Corridor. While the City's plans for this area remain to be developed, we do not wish to lose the opportunity for positive change that is at hand simply because of bad timing. We are proposing that the applicant meet with MnDNR staff to determine what the original landscape along the ' Corridor was and develop a landscaping plan to restore this. An area 60' to 100' wide west to the creek should be set aside for the purpose. The area east of the creek will be handled when that is developed. Grading in the area may need to be modified. We are ' recommending that soccer field #3 be realigned north/south to minimize encroachment into the area. The public trail will meander through it. School/Recreation Site January 5, 1994 Page 7 ' reduce the perceived height and mass or pitching the metal seam roofing so that it gives the image of a roof section rather than stand alone penthouse. ' 3. There are no apparent provisions for a trash enclosure, although there is a screen wall provided for a loading dock. The screen wall should match the building exterior and , provide for concealed storage bf dumpsters. LANDSCAPING , The landscaping plan is unusually well developed and has a projected budget exceeding $200,000. It was developed by the Landscape Architecture Department of HGA Architects who , have since been retained by the Chanhassen HRA to develop the public spaces landscape concepts for the entire Hwy. 5 Corridor. The plan had to start with a site that was totally devoid of trees and one that needs to be heavily graded to allow for the construction of playfields and a large footprint building. The concept they developed is to establish groves of differing tree species that tend to increase in height and massing as you move to the south. The groves are used to delineate and separate the ballfields and create an independent environment for the scb - ` . As noted earlier in this report, there is also extensive landscaping around the school dF . red to improve the internal environment as viewed through windows and to offer outdoor le,=Ang areas. Staff's goal of providing buffering from the highway for the school and homes ' to the south is achieved. The size of installed materials meets or exceeds all City requirements. While we are generally satisfied with the plan, there are several issues which need to be ' responded to as follows: 1. The outlot area in the southwest comer of the site is a high knoll that serves no active , function relative to the operation of the school or recreational complex. Its grade and physical separation limit potential uses. We believe this area should be reforested to enlarge the Timberwood tree -line. Given the size of the area and nature of the request, ' we believe that it would be appropriate to use smaller sized material at the time of installation, however, the selected species should compliment what is already found in the ' area. 2. The plan gave no attention to enhancing or restoring the Bluff Creek Corridor. While the City's plans for this area remain to be developed, we do not wish to lose the opportunity for positive change that is at hand simply because of bad timing. We are proposing that the applicant meet with MnDNR staff to determine what the original landscape along the ' Corridor was and develop a landscaping plan to restore this. An area 60' to 100' wide west to the creek should be set aside for the purpose. The area east of the creek will be handled when that is developed. Grading in the area may need to be modified. We are ' recommending that soccer field #3 be realigned north/south to minimize encroachment into the area. The public trail will meander through it. School/Recreation Site - January 5, 1994 Page 8 3. A 6' high chain -link fence should be provided adjacent to the ball fields along Galpin and ' Hwy. 5. The fence should be located inside of the tree groves and used to keep people away from the roadways. ' 4. Data should be provided to indicate whether or not the parking lots comply with the green space and landscape standards. It does not appear that they do. City ordinance also requires the use of overstory trees in these areas rather than the Hawthorne and Pine that are being proposed. 5. Preliminary comments received on the plan indicate some concern over the use of ' ornamental trees on the perimeter of the site including Washington Hawthorne along Galpin where it serves to buffer a parking lot and Snowdrift Crabapple along Hwy. 5 where it is the first tier of the grove effect that staff supports as a valid concept. ' Comments have been raised relative to the potential of kids throwing the fruit and of bees attracted to it and the flowers. Others may have concerns regarding the use of .an ornamental rather then overstory tree. Staff supports this, believing that it was never intended that every tree in the City be a maple or oak. We feel that this landscaping plan needs to be viewed in a comprehensive way and, when we do so, we find it is one of the most sophisticated and well developed plans we have ever seen. We are providing conditions relative to items 1-4 but have made none on this issue, preferring to wait to hear public and commission comments. ' PARK AND RECREATION ' This plan has been developed in conjunction with the Park and Recreation Department and is designed to meet their long term needs. Thus, the review that was undertaken by that department does not fit the normal pattern. They are essentially one of the primary applicants. The only issue we have here concerns the trail construction. The leg of the trail that connects from soccer field #2 to the access boulevard, is missing. It should be constructed immediately. Secondly, the trail link north of field #2 is the ultimate connection under Hwy. 5. The connection will not be made until the highway is upgraded. We are therefore recommending that while it should be built, it should be provided with a temporary barricade indicating that it is a ' dead end. ACCESSTARKING ' The sole access to the site will be the new access boulevard that will ultimately run between Hwy. 41 and Audubon Road. A portion of it will be constructed under City contract and will be in place prior to the opening date for the school. Similarly, Galpin will be upgraded to four lanes between the access boulevard and Hwy. 5, and the County may even extend some improvements south to Lyman Boulevard. These will also be in place by the opening date along r� I School/Recreation Site January 5, 1994 Page 9 , with a traffic signal at the Hwy. 5 intersection. Plans for these improvements are being developed and will be reviewed by the City Council. ' There are few good guidelines for projecting the parking required for this type of use. During development of the plan, it has been a goal to minimize parking availability with the assumption ' that there will be some cross utilization of stalls, particularly for evening recreational activities. We believe that parking provisions should be adequate. Internal circulation is acceptable. School buses are provided with a turn - around and parking area outside of the normal traffic flow. ' WETLAND IMPACTS , Proposed Alterations The City is in the process of designing and constructing an elementary school located in the , NWl /a of Section 15, T1 15N, R23W. Although there are a couple of areas on -site that meet the defining characteristics of type 1/2 wetlands, these areas have been determined to be exempt from wetland permitting under the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) interim guidelines and the U.S. ' Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Clean Water Act Section 404 guidelines associated with the filling of wetlands. It has been determined that these wetlands are exempt since they have been prior converted to cropland. , Wetland Descriptions ' The wetland on -site that is not exempt from the WCA or the Corps process is the creek that runs north to south along the eastern border of the site. The creek is characterized as a saturated ' palustrine broad - leaved deciduous forested/emergent wetland (Cowardin PFO1/EMC; Circular 39, Type 7/2) moving from north to south along the eastern boundary of the site. The creek essentially disappears into a prior converted wetland located in the southeast comer of the property. The creek later emerges off -site at the outlet of a wetland that is not considered prior converted. This wetland, although off -site, is characterized as a saturated palustrine emergent wetland that has been partially drained or ditched from past agricultural practices (Cowardin ' PEMCd; Circular 39, Type 2). The proposed construction plans for the school site will impact an area of wetland less than 0.5 ' acre at the point where the road crosses the creek. All other fill is considered exempt under the WCA as well as the Corp's Section 404 permit rules since these wetlands are prior converted as discussed below. Since this impact pertains to the road and not the school or recreational complex, it will be dealt with when that project is reviewed. Wetland Conservation Act - Minnesota Regulations ' Under the interim guideline, the WCA's first exemption to the rule states the following: School/Recreation Site ' January 5, 1994 Page 10 A replacement plan for wetlands is not required for activities in a wetland that was planted with annually seeded crops, was in a crop rotation seeding of pasture grasses or legumes, or was required to be set aside to receive price support or other. paymen under United States Code, Title 7, Sections 1421 to 1469, in six of the last ten years prior to January 1 1991. ' Documentation, such Agricultural h as A 'cultural Stabilization and Conservation Service form 578 or equivalent, United States Department of Agriculture records, or affidavit of landowner must be ' required by the local government unit to show and use as evidence for this exemption. Set aside land used for this exemption must be wetland types 1 and ' Welter, the phone conversation with Ms. Mary previous landowner, on September 30, 1993, P � over the last ten years. The 1979 and acknowledged that this land has been seeded and cropped except for the creek. 1989 aerials show all wetland areas on -site to be cropped P The wetlands on -site can be considered exempt from the WCA since there is evidence that the ' wetlands have been cropped 6 out of the last 10 years. Section 404 Wetland Permit - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulations ' Prior converted croplands are not waters of the United States. The final rule was published on Friday, August 25, 1993, in the Federal Resister at 58 F R ti 45008. az s Section material of the ' Clean Water Act a permit is required from the Corps for into all waters of the United States. The term discharge of dredged material means any addition of dredged or excavated material into, including any re- deposit of dredged material within, waters of the United States. The term discharge of fill material means the addition of any material used ' for the primary purpose of replacing an aquatic area with dry land or of changing elevation of a waterbody. ' The regulation clarifies the Corp's and the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) position that prior converted croplands, as defined by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), are not waters ' of the United States. Generally, prior converted croplands were once wetlands but have been 23, 1985, for the drained, dredged, filled, or otherwise manipulated before culhue co possible. purpo 3oectzon� and having he effect of, making the production of an agn 404 permit is not required for activities conducted on such lands, unless such lands are considered to be abandoned and subsequently develop the characteristics of a wetland. site ' According to the SCS cropland status designations (s o converted or non�wetlandn T herefore the except for the creek area is considered either prior c wetland areas delineated by a wetland consultant that will be impacted as a result of the proposed project will not need a Section 404 permit. This rule requires clarification from the Corps. tro _CQ School/Recreation Site January 5, 1994 ' Page 11 GR ADING /STORM DRAINAGE/EROSI CONTROL ' As noted earlier, site grading will be extensive. The grading Plan is generally acceptable although we note that some changes are likely to balance cut and fill on the site. o this time we have heard that the current lack of available fill south of the sin upgrad pr in lowering been found to be required for Gal b y a few feet. Grades in the vi cinity of Bluff Creek need to. the building or other site elements by a few . s to the creek's flood ' b looked at in detail. It is not clear how the proposed grading elevation and steps must be taken to insure that fill not be placed below this line. This area also needs to be looked at relative to restoring the creek corridor a d escrib e d rsin control meanu es plans need to be prepared for City approval. Staff rec that around the wetlands be the City's Type III erosion control fence to minimize disturbance to the wetlands during construction. All areas disturbed as a result control B constru Manage shall comply , with the City's construction site erosion and sedum royal. Handbook. A final erosion control plan should also be prepared for City app Storm drainage is a complex issue on this site and efforts are currently underway to resolve them. ne site drains to the southwest into Bluff Creek. Sufficient ponding needs to be found toom et to � Xntion and water quality standards. For the most part, this ponding , acs F;; >odated on if the necessary recreati onal facilities are to be provided. Consequently east. We have initiated we are seeking to provide ponding on the adjacent parcel u successful. Final with that developer and believe that then concept hearing or at the latest, by the City Council ' plans should be in place by the Planning Commission meeting. No grading or other site activity will be allowed to occur until final plans ha royal b developed and approved and construction of off -site improvements as well. Project app , the Riley -Bluff Creek Watershed District is required. The site itself will be drained by a series of storm sewers that tie int t is to , be built with the access boulevard. Final details will be a part of the document that approved by the Engineering Department. Plans need to incorporate a means of picking up the drainage that currently flows under Galpin Boulevard onto the site in the vicinity of the staff parking lot for the school. SUB DIVISION ' The proposed subdivision will create city and district owned parcels � e • delineate int thegym, line will actually run through the bull ' note that the property Provisions acceptable to the Building locker and meeting rooms that will be owned by the City. Official need t be made to insure joint operation and maintenance and avoid the need for ' building a fire -rated separation between the two uses. i F i L I n School/Recreation Site January 5, 1994 Page 12 The subdivision also creates right -of -way for the access boulevard and Galpinwidening although these need to be clearly illustrated and described so that they can be conveyed. The plans were developed in cooperation with MnDOT .so that they could take into account future expansion plans for Hwy. 5. However, the required ultimate ROW has not been illustrated. The plat should be revised to illustrate this issue and create an outlot that the City will be in a position to offer to MnDOT when they are ready to build the road. All landscape and other improvements should be kept out of this area. COMPLIANCE TABLE Variances required * 12' variance for parking lot setback from south access boulevard. Can and should be eliminated. ** Technical variances from Hwy. 5 Plan. Not yet adopted and no variance approvals are required. In any event, we do not believe the plan was intended to address this unique type of project. L� Ordinance OI Hwy. 5 Draft Proposed Plan District Minimum Lot Size 15,000 square feet N/A 40 Acres Lot Frontage 75' N/A 1,200± Lot Depth 150' N/A 1,080' Lot Coverage 65% N/A 25% Parking Setback 35' 70' Hwy. 5 480' Hwy. 5 50' elsewhere 70' Galpin 38' access blvd.* Building Height 2 stories N/A 1 wry Front Yard Setback 35' Hwy. 5 - 70' min. 400' Hwy. 5 ** 150' max. 250' Access blvd. Access Blvd. - 50' min. 100 max. Parking N/A N/A 1 296 stalls Variances required * 12' variance for parking lot setback from south access boulevard. Can and should be eliminated. ** Technical variances from Hwy. 5 Plan. Not yet adopted and no variance approvals are required. In any event, we do not believe the plan was intended to address this unique type of project. L� t Staff is continuing to work with all concerned parties to address drainage issues. Final ' resolution is likely to take more time but in any event, no building will be allowed until the plans are in place. We are holding a meeting on January 20 to address this issue. School/Recreation Site January 5, 1994 Page 13 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The pl lannin Commission considered this item at their January 4, 1994, meeting. The plans for the school were discussed at length and there was strong support for the proposal. They proposed several, generally minor revisions to the conditions as follows: , Condition #1 was revised to address the architectural design of the gymnasium portion of the building. While the Commission found the archi � e design acceptable, of the gym , they were concerned with the massiveness asked that the designers take steps to soften this facade. Condition #2 @] pertaining to the restoration of the Bluff Creek Corridor was modified Co , _ to indicate that it should be done in a manner consistent with page 7 of the staff report. have had an opportunity to further clarify this pon Since the Commission meeting, we with the project architect. They are willing to make changes to the grading pla as , outlined to increase separation from the creek. Generally, a corridor 60 to 100 feet wide the west side of the creek will be preserved. The east side of the creek is located off on problem site and will be acquired in the near future when d ItW is devlope d e are � the While the corridor be protected surfaced in this area however. of working with the MnDNR to determine its pre - development condition, process budgetary limitations mean that it is probably not going to be possible to undertake the restoration work along the corridor at this time. scap - On a related matter, the architects are proposing to scale back some of the land ing the to bring the budget into line. Staff is continuing to work with them to minimize While we believe the final plawilf consistent an overall , someom impact of the changes. design standpoint, there will likely be a reduced number tre be planted at a smaller size (although they will still meet or exceed City standards). .. Condition #2 (e) was added by the Commission. The condition would have the architects - go back through the landscaping plan to insure that materials located near road surfaces are tolerant.to salt spray. - Condition #8 was added to have the applicant work with Southwest Metro Transit to insure that the project offers support for mass transit. Staff is continuing to work with all concerned parties to address drainage issues. Final ' resolution is likely to take more time but in any event, no building will be allowed until the plans are in place. We are holding a meeting on January 20 to address this issue. U 1-1 fl r] School/Recreation Site January 5, 1994 Page 14 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Site Plan Review #93 -6, rezoning from A2 to Ol and Preliminary Plat for the Chaska School District #112 /City of Chanhassen Recreation Complex, subject to the following conditions: 1. Revise architectural plans to verify that all rooftop HVAC equipment is concealed from Hwy. 5 and other views by enclosed penthouses, respond to staff's proposals for minimizing the massiveness of the penthouses and make provisions for a concealed trash enclosure as outline in the staff report 2. - Revise the landscaping plan as follows: a. provide reforestation for the knoll located in the southwest corner of the site b. provide plans that respond to the goal of restoring the Bluff Creek Corridor . as described in the staff report. C. provide a chain link safety fence between the roadways and e d. revise parking lot landscaping as required to meet current ordifinancnance r re equirements for tree species and green space to insure that materials located near road e. address concerns on landscaping plan surfaces are tolerant to salt spray. 3. Provide a trail connection between the terminus of the creek trail at soccer field #2 and extend it to the access boulevard. Provide a sign indicating the presence of a temporary dead end for the trail component running north from soccer field #2. 4. Provide final grading, utility, erosion and ponding plans for City approval. No building or grading is to occur until final plans have been provided. Grading plans are to be revised to protect the Bluff Creek Corridor and stay out of the floodplain. 1 5. Project approval by the Riley/Purgatory/Bluff Creek Watershed District. 1 6. Revise the plat to describe the right -of -way for Galpin, the access boulevard, to the outlot and the future right -of -way needed for Hwy. 5 widening. Revise plans as necessary to stay clear of the future Hwy. 5 right -of -way and Galpin Boulevard right -of -way and maintain a minimum 35' setback from Galpin Boulevard. 7. Relocate the staff parking lot as required to maintain 50' setback. 8. Work with Southwest Metro Transit in designing the drop -off, pick -up and turn around elements to accommodate public transit." School/Recreation Site January 5, 1994 Page 15 ATTACHMENTS 1. TH 5 South Frontage Road Feasibility Study. 2. Planning Commission minutes dated January 19, 1994. L FEASIBILITY - STU <; 'IW� C f b. A _ iti��OG....x.1`.�k... .\ \ \ti\ vt `:$` •; }. ri• ? .x :hA riv$• ti•:::n %}�j�) :.}x,C,, } .... . .... ;.:.xk:}\j.,�`V..:: , :• %:'• ,): f ( {$$� .},". ;GY'.k? n{? n q�. ..Ytk:k t3.v.•. . n'fi> W b \, v : }n•`f v: rfi: J :: n..G:: 2' $•.r. Lk . n,+'ht: 2.}•n, v.. :::> }'•:h �:> v / "�ft>r v` .iii• . � ;�'::. j • }fi: . ri$:•$,:;$.v::, •:: •:2 +R,Yb} \•'•fCkk:!•iit': .•: ? %hti:; O'. :k• _ . - ryil3'3.}j• } }:, �i::'i$Y$:i:'t'y is :k;:y; r { }�' :tiff %v ` •:v im :? :} f ' G r� : ?.}+?t }:ki•,v'':i:. ` �c . $:fir,.. $,ik.•�, ? 3:•. � '•,'y `j � . ..h h� <o .h. ... -g ............ v vF. y. ?t. ::::::::::....:..............: . ... v ... ....... ... .. .. ,,. } ..t \\•'.tip } }• ?�' , `,:;: ? • <i$ ?:':�:• }: :t :: f.+ .3 o.t..y:rr. ;..; t AkY «• TH t W j5 DEC i )1993 ` .CITY OF CHANHASSEN MAR al ®AATON- ASCHMAN ASSOCIATESs INC._ _ PARSONS TRANSPORTATION! OROLP • -vim i': BARYON ASCMMAN ASSOCIA TES s INC. 111 Theo Avenue South. Suite 350 • Minneapolis. Minnesota 55401 USA • (612) 332 -0421 • Far.: (612) 332- 6180 December , 1993 Mr. Charles Folch, P.E. City Engineer City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' Re: TH 5 South Frontage Road from Galpin Boulevard to McGlynn Road and Galpin Boulevard (CSAH 19) from Timberwood Drive to TH 5 Dear Mr. Folch: As requested, we have prepared a Feasibility Study for the proposed construction/ reconstruction of the captioned roadways. The study describes the design, cost, and feasibility of the roadway improvements. A significant impetus for the roadways is the proposed construction of an elementary school by Independent School District No. 112. The school will be constructed on the property east of Galpin Boulevard and south of TH 5 and is scheduled for occupancy in the fall of 1995. We look forward to discussing the study with you and other city staff at your convenience. ' Sincerely, I James H. Unruh, P.E. Senior Associate JHU:dmv I hereby cert that this r was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and p that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ' James H. Unruh 1 Date: Reg. No. 'Cis ' - PARSONS A-- + " S TRANSDORTATION GROUP �� "' �`~ ' INTR ODUC17ON I Independent School District No. 112 proposes to construct a new elementary school on the 40 -acre property east of Galpin Boulevard and south of TH 5. The City of Chanhassen proposes to construct a new frontage road along the south side of the school site to provide access and utility service to the school. Carver County, in cooperation with the city, proposes to upgrade Galpin Boulevard (CSAH 19) from a two -lane rural roadway to a four lane urban roadway with left -turn lanes along the west side of the school site. These must be in- roadway and utility improvements lace for the occupancy of the elementary p ' school, scheduled for fall 1995. The city also proposes to extend the frontage road from the school site to McGlynn Road. The Minnesota Department of Transportation proposes to reconstruct TH 5 to a four -lane divided expressway in the late 1990s. The Galpin Boulevard/TH 5 intersection will receive interim improvements and a temporary traffic signal installed as part of the I reconstruction of Galpin Boulevard. . Figure 1 shows the project location within the southwest Twin Cities metropolitan area. Figure 2 shows the specific project area and proposed improvements. This study addresses the design, costs, and feasibility of The proposed ' • osed TH 5 south frontage road from Galpin Boulevard to McGlynn Road. T p p • The proposed reconstruction of Galpin Boulevard from Timberwood Drive to TH 5. 1 1 , EXISTING CONDITIONS I The proposed TH 5 south frontage road would cross an area that is currently agricultural cropland. The roadway would also cross the west and east forks of Bluff Creek. Wetlands ' and an area of mature trees are located south of the proposed frontage road in the vicinity of the school site. Galpin Boulevard (CSAH 19) is currently a two -lane rural roadway. Its south terminus is at Lyman Boulevard, approximately one mile south of TH 5. Several residences have direct access onto Galpin Boulevard as shown on Figure 2. Collector roads from several residential developments connect to Galpin Boulevard south of the project limits. Construction on some of the developments has been initiated within the last year. Trunk sanitary sewer and water main lines have been installed along Galpin Boulevard south of Timberwood Estates to service the new developments. PROPOSED LAND DEVELOPMENT The City of Chanhassen's population grew by approximately 54 percent from 1980 to 1990. Census data for 1990 showed a population of 11,732; the city projects an annual population increase of 4.75 to 5.5 percent which would yield a population of approximately 18,000 by the year 2000 and 30,000 by the year 2010. Both the residential and employment populations are expected to increase significantly during the next two decades. 0 ft I L i Carver County is currently updating is 1986 Eastern Carver County Transportation Study to quantify the projected traffic volumes resulting from the increase in population and ' commercial development.. The proposed TH 5 south frontage road and the upgrade of Galpin Boulevard are in response to the current and future growth and the subsequent development pressures within the Chanhassen community in general. However, the following specific proposed developments determine the feasibility and dictate the timing of the roadway and utility ' improvements: • Independent School District No 112 proposes to construct an elementary school - on a 40 -acre parcel east of Galpin Boulevard and south of TH 5 as shown on Figure 2. Several athletic fields and part of the school building will be utilized as community facilities by the city. Occupancy of the school is scheduled for the fall of 1995. The proposed roadways and utilities that service the school site must be in place at that time. The budgeted construction cost for the building and site is approximately $9,000,000. • The proposed Chanhassen Corporate Center Development is east of the school site and east of Timberwood Estates. The development is a mix of single -family and multifamily land use south of the proposed frontage road and commercial land use north of the proposed frontage road. Construction activities within the development are scheduled to begin in 1994. 3 Centex Real Estate Corporation is proposing a multifamily development on the west side of Galpin Boulevard south of TH 5. Construction activities are also scheduled to begin in 1994. Although not part of this feasibility study, the south frontage road is proposed to extend through this development. • The McGlynn Bakery along Audubon Road was constructed around 1990. Although development plans for the area between McGlynn Road and TH 5 have been considered, development of the area is not imminent. PROJECT FUNCTION AND DESIGN TH 5 South Frontage Road The TH 5 south frontage road is proposed to be constructed as a 36 -foot wide (curb to curb) high- density collector that will accommodate a 40 mph design speed. Figure 2 shows the layout of the proposed 4,050 foot long roadway. Figure 3 shows the proposed typical section for the roadway, which includes provisions for an eight -foot wide sidewalk; Figure 4 shows the proposed profile for the roadway. It should be noted that a 34 mph design speed crest vertical curve is provided just east of Galpin Boulevard. This is a reasonable design at an approach to an intersection, especially for the minor traffic movement, and it is consistent with the existing 33 mph crest vertical curve at the approach to Audubon Road. 1co 4 I , Ili 11 The proposed horizontal alignment of the frontage road within the school site was based on the site plan for the school; access, circulation, and safety for school buses and pedestrians were primary considerations. The intersection location at Galpin Boulevard was determined by the location of the existing residences on the west side of Galpin Boulevard. Southeast of the school site, poor soil conditions dictated the most appropriate location for the roadway. The Chanhassen Corporate Center Development plans were taken into account to determine the south frontage road alignment east of the school site. Existing McGlynn Road, which has the same cross - section as the frontage road, is the logical connection point for the frontage road. Galpin Boulevard Galpin Boulevard will be reconstructed to two lanes in each direction with left-turn lanes at the intersections with the south frontage road and TH 5. From south of the school site to Timberwood Drive, Galpin Boulevard will be widened to 52 feet; it is likely that pavement striping would limit traffic to one through lane in each direction. A 45 mph design speed is proposed. Figure 5 shows the extent of Galpin Boulevard proposed to be upgraded in conjunction with the TH 5 south frontage road project. The length of the segment from Timberwood Drive to TH 5 is approximately 2,000 feet. The north 800 feet of this segment will be considered temporary construction and will have to be reconstructed when TH 5 is upgraded to a four -lane divided expressway; the profile of TH 5 will then be lowered by approximately seven feet at Galpin Boulevard. A temporary traffic signal is proposed at the Galpin Boulevard/TH 5 intersection; turn lanes on TH 5 will also be constructed. L l o %-Q 5 Two alignment alternatives for the reconstruction of Galpin Boulevard between Timberwood Drive and TH 5 have been developed and are illustrated on Figures 5 through S. Table 1 summarizes the comparative cost estimates and the impacts of the alternatives. Figure 9 shows the existing and proposed profiles of Galpin Boulevard, which are the same for both alternatives. Under Alternative 1 (Figures 5 and 6), Galpin Boulevard would be widened to the east along the school site and to the west along Timberwood Estates. This alternative minimi impacts to the three existing residences along the west side of Galpin Boulevard and to the mini golf/driving range business northwest of the TH 5 /Galpin Boulevard intersection. Lowering of the Galpin Boulevard profile (as shown on Figure 9) will require that the front yards of the west side residences be re- landscaped. The driveways will also need to be reconstructed. Some impacts occur in the northwest comer of the Timberwood Estates. Section B -B on Figure 6 shows three grading options for the area. Table 1 summarizes the comparative costs and impacts of the grading options. Under Alternative 2 (Figures 7 and 8), Galpin Boulevard would be widened to the west along the school site and along Timberwood Estates. However, the alignment would be adjusted at TH 5 to minimize impacts to the mini golf/driving range business north of TH 5. The three existing residences would be purchased or condemned as roadway right -of -way under this alternative. The middle property is currently for sale. The listed price was to 6 LI M = MM = M MM mm M m r m m m� ww TABLE 1 GALPIN BOULEVARD RECONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES COMPARATIVE COST ESTIMATE/IMPACTS SUMMARY Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Widen Galpin Boulevard to east along school site Widen Galpin Boulevard to west Widen Galpin Boulevard to west along Timberwood Roadway Construction Same for Both Alternatives East Backslope Options Retaining Wall 2:1 Backslope 3 :1 Backslope Right -of -Way 0.3 ac = $7,500 0.2 ac = $5,000 1 0.2 ac = $5,000 (e $25,000 per acre) East Side Temporary Easement (® $20,000 per acre) West Side Easements do Restoration at Residences Retaining Wall Construction TOTALS Tree Removals 0.3 ac = $6,000 $20,000 200 f. ® 8 ft. ht. ® $40 /8.f. = $64,000 $97,500 None 0.3 ac = $6,000 10.4 ac = $8,000 $20,000 1 $20,000 None None $31,000 $33,000 One 24" Fir Two 24" Firs 3:1 Backslope 3 Residential Properties ® $120,000 each = $360,000 0.2 ac = $4,000 None None $364,000 None F $118,900 as of November 18, 1993. An assumed cost of $120,000 for each property was utilized in the comparative cost estimate. It is recommended that Alternative 1 be selected because of its substantially lower right - of -way costs. The 3:1 backslope grading option of Alternative 1 is also recommended. Retaining wall costs are eliminated and a stable groundslope is provided. The two fir trees that would be impacted seem to be in marginal condition. Some volunteer growth would have to be cleared. However, a 36 -inch mature oak tree would be preserved. To achieve the desired 45 mph design speed, the profile of Galpin Boulevard is proposed to be lowered by up to nine feet at one location as shown on Figure 9. This requires that Galpin Boulevard be closed to through traffic during construction. Parallel routes such as Audubon Road one mile to the east and TH 41 one mile to the west provide suitable detour routes. Upgrading of Galpin Boulevard to a 52 -foot wide urban roadway from Timberwood Drive south to Lyman Boulevard will likely occur shortly after the upgrading of the segment from TH 5 to Timberwood Drive. Excess earthwork material from lowering the Galpin Boulevard profile will be stockpiled and utilized in the upgrade extension to Lyman Boulevard. E 1 I I L r C The proposed utilities shown on Figures 2, 4, 5, and 9 are in accordance with the city's comprehensive water main and sanitary sewer plans.. The only addition is the segment of sanitary sewer from the Bluff Creek west fork to the school service. ' Nearly all of the storm water runoff from the school site will be directed to a storm water treatment/sedimentation pond south of the frontage road and east of the school site. As shown on Figure 3, the frontage road typical section, a large storm sewer pipe will be installed in the roadway subgrade to carry storm water from the school site to the storm water treatment/sedimentation pond. The city is conducting the necessary analysis and design for the pond. At the Bluff Creek west fork, a 48- or 54 -inch culvert will likely be installed across the f frontage road as shown on Figure 4. At the Bluff Creek east fork, an arch culvert structure is proposed to accommodate a grade- separated pedestrian crossing of the frontage road. Bluff Creek would remain an open channel within this structure, a detail of which is shown on Figure 4. Pedestrian Trails The proposed pedestrian trails shown on Figure 2 are in general accordance with the city's parks, open space, and trail plan. One change is that the proposed grade- separated crossing of the south frontage road is at the Bluff Creek east fork rather than the Bluff r Creek west fork. The east fork is a much deeper and more defined ravine, as shown on 8 Figure 4, than the west fork and, therefore, is a more appropriate location for a grade - separated crossing. PROJECT PHASING /SCHEDULE As noted previously, occupancy of the elementary school is scheduled for the fall of 1995. The roadways and utilities servicing the school must be in place at that time. To meet this objective, the following phasing/schedule has been developed: December 1993: Feasibility Study approval; proposed improvements ordered by Chanhassen City Council. ' January 1994: Begin final design construction documents for roadways and utilities. April 1994:" Begin grading work on the school site. May 1994: Submit design plans for Galpin Boulevard reconstruction and for the TH 5 south frontage road along the south side of the school site to MnDOT for State Aid review. May 1994: Begin construction on the school building. July 1994: Receive bids on roadway construction plans. August 1994: Begin roadway and utility construction. 9 October 1994: Complete grading work on the school site. November 1994: Galpin Boulevard opened to traffic with base course bituminous surfacing. December 1994: Complete utility installations along south frontage road. June 1995: Complete school building construction. July 1995: Complete roadway construction including interim TH 5 improvements. August 1995: Elementary school open for 1995 -1996 school year. SOCIAL, ECONOAUC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS The proposed roadway improvements do not exceed any of the thresholds set by state and/or federal law which require the preparation of a formal Environmental Assessment or Environmental Assessment Worksheet. However, social, economic, and environmental considerations have been taken into account and are summarized below. An 80 -foot right -of -way width is required for the TH 5 south frontage road as shown on Figure 3. The right -of -way along the school site and within the Chanhassen Corporate L 7 0 :-A 10 E The right -of- -way within Center Development will be dedicated via the Platting P rocess. the McGlynn Property will have to be purchased by the city. cted Galpin 'Boulevard win be between 100 The right -of -way width required for reconstru s g and S. and 150 feet. The existing right -of- -way width is 66 feet as shown on Figure ween the frontage road and TH 5 the additional right -of -way will be dedicated via Bet latting of the school site and the Centel Real Estate Development. Right -of -way P requirements south of the frontage road will be determined by the selected Galpin vard alignment alternative. Under the worst case scenario, three residential Boole properties could be taken as roadway right -of -way* n, tlandc and ZRIe aJj ' As shown on Figure 2, the proposed roadways do not cross any areas that are designated we tlands according to the city's wetland inventory. No major channel changes will be where the frontage road crosses the west and east forks of Bluff Creek. required rovements. No major stands of mature trees will be impacted by the proposed roadway imp Some brush will be removed along the south edge of the frontage road in the vicinity of Timberw ood Estates. However, the mature trees in this area are located south of the Ti mberwood Estates property line and will not be removed. 11 ' 1 1 I I A grading permit for the roadway improvements will be obtained from the Riley, Purgatory, Bluff Creek Watershed District. Since more than five acres will be disturbed by grading activities, a General Storm Water Permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency will also be required. Permits from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and from the Corps of Engineers (COE) will not be required for the proposed roadway improvements. The guidelines provided in the city's 'Best Management Practice Handbook for Erosion and Sediment Control" will be adhered to during the design and construction of the roadways. A grading permit from the city will be required. State Aid funds will be utilized for the construction and right-of-way costs associated with reconstructing Galpin Boulevard. The construction plans will therefore be subject to MnDOT State Aid review and approval and must meet State Aid standards. The frontage road will be constructed with city and State Aid funds and will eventually be placed on the Municipal State Aid system. The roadway design must therefore meet State Aid design standards. COST AND FUNDING SOURCES The estimated construction cost for the TH 5 south frontage road from Galpin Boulevard to McGlynn Road is $1,750,000. Engineering, legal, and administration costs would bring 12 the total project cost to $2,275,000. Potential right -of -way acquisition costs for the McGlynn property have not been estimated. The estimated cost for reconstruction of Galpin Boulevard from Timberwood Drive to TH 5 is $640,000. Engineering, legal, and administration costs would bring the total project cost to $832,000. This cost does not include the right -of -way and other costs noted in Table 1 that are dependent on the selected alignment alternative. The interim . improvements to TH 5 would cost an additional $120,000 for construction. The detailed cost estimates for both roadways are included in the Appendix. The city will fund construction of the frontage road from Galpin Boulevard to the east edge of the school site. The remainder of the frontage road will be constructed with Municipal State Aid funds. Galpin Boulevard reconstruction will be funded with County State Aid funds. The cost for construction of all trunk water main and sanitary sewer lines will be assessed to benefitting landowners. The assessments were computed in a February 1992 report entitled "MUSA Expansion Area - -Trunk Sanitary Sewer and Water Main System," Project No. 91 -12, prepared by Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik and Associates. 13 1 1 r f CONCLUSION It is concluded that the proposed roadway improvements are feasible based on the following: 1. The improvements are required to service the Independent School District No. 112 elementary school scheduled for occupancy in the fall of 1995. 2. The improvements are required to service the proposed developments both east and west of the school site. 3. The utilities proposed to be constructed in conjunction with the roadway improvements are part of the city's comprehensive water main and sanitary sewer plans. The city is methodically constructing these utilities to serve its rapidly expanding population. 4. The improvements have little, if any, averse social, economic, or environmental impacts. 5. The project costs are in accordance with similar projects in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. 14 wD J,n•ury, r • • , •mow �. d � - lJ C!f .r. rrw.w. ur t w 80> It S.W A 0 w.w , C M.V q err.l,otro DuuA Lab A r MINN[TON[ LAKE 1 M.n.whaha MI NNETONKA a. PA" P BRACH - ..y - .n.�.rt• S�NAVt �.1:.' P.AA f ftr ® "' .+ilti: ::.� .•..oae ".''... C� , ...•w.. A i LoWER LAXE lj ....,.r r # r :• Oj It = so. { : .rt tt. lNf • :... 1 4 • s'a" 1 "•r ' 8 SAad> iR� ava. A Llay UP Ri�000 �p LAKE • Hafad a O Gidten eu,y, t• . Q O © �, . i : L w C1ost .<, t • B 1.. e1HOREwooD = L C t • ' t' , Q : �� 84S (� :• Q. �.et<- .'�� .t Ld1. ;1.oh1. : ;� 'wi•tii. -.•� r.. .. ice.. � a. is COP /,rand S SL1 . ty fore• !� 11 Haas,+ ::A o '� LaA. T 4 t A�rew . aaat auCr ¢ra ' • ..t ! �' fr' . N `'"► "; ' �': ' '.':. Mlnnt h1e • r 4 y� a Dud , ¢ p 0 �,'. /.dienlba� S= an•erod :� ar.t.rn Low O 1V t 3 Q ! ! ! .nMn LA* Ldu LaA. '• :. tQ .sat • 1 � 9 a aim FAL 0 '� VICTORIA :;:;:::;:J:::: � wr .et •.' ..• :' ^'• "' • r .;w .• Lam, O Mt re. PRADtd D 8 ,.::::: Cad , QI er Rtd ¢ 11nde►een a ttr� tt. Kmy _ .. ::C� : F }' : 11 : i Ma►,A > Rod MsCey d 1 LAW L.b a — r x (: + a• © Lal1t Lab L Lh,th • ® :•.I'• u..c• a�, arc LeL. au � b �' f �,� s '°^ r Pvealety + ""• t Ptr,o^ mod. Lab ( N~ 0 E poem : Y .-p 0' , Mat,A .. � L.b � 1•. � • h It t�lt � � ° I ., t 1MILE t N F E A 81 8 1 L I T Y S T U D Y TH 5 South Frontage Road O CITY of CHANHASSEN (froM GeO Bold = 10IlaGliM ft"M FIGURE 1 IIIIAIPITOM.AMCMMAM Ammoca"■s. mr. Project Location Galpin Boulevard ( 19 ) a PArAmmm TpAMSpopTATIOM OROUP (from TI rhwwwd Drkoft TH S) `�'� •.,d•• r�.i;fJl -:J , •�"`'�3'"q;'.- ''�'^!�xr •..� ,• .." �.✓ r• �����•/f // /i. " 4'1 *��� — � pr t�'� � � ^ aJ# ��liLt':(rt,' "" ' y "'• w.' a•'At•: 1F.', r %+" r .' / ftY,Ar, ., , `•r f I r • f 1' r' • } j ti ! � �� / � r •l r � � � • • Pv�,`'�P"� , .'{�'' �'.' �': � � � � �''.�.In i ;Y , I r _ � �-I� � l r I _ ..I 4/fl!lj k' / Z� , v ■ + }., r ,; I � t � • A t • 1 r• r w.l�,wae a �� h, !!l V .fir % r s y A `}..r, ;9S `ei: k. y`�f i� '� 1 t�` i it, t '' 1 r:x /r < "$x ~.d.•e), '.�"�`��� �.,. �rjw..r.,,r• w. ��� ���k.r� �/►. �� "n� ,�l �C' �,...,� 1 �9. ° y R !r �_L 1�,��� � •A �� V..1 '�Li4�. q 1 �,,. . // ./ 1► _ +u• �1 y j. +.q.�, ,r,I R� i wr> •, .yr. Il, '.. :� - '�� ` ¢1/ 1i. ,`y Ir v `I \..li' 9914 k'1" :fll � V , ,/, � `r. � i:�'�. tt t « �!{�,�y �„ • : r .. 1�, � +kr' r fr is � er r �r • f b� .:Ar 1^ 'k�NtW!"' - �•' r� '� r 1 I p�.''� 4 ,�+ 1 _rtj�l..,.,� �„ rn y r"'�f'r `'� s ` T !r � !✓ " a' 1 � � L `� w l !�, I � 7 , r 1 '4 .�f� ,y�j r 1 . , {., /! ' }r� N l• / / ! � /"r Y: ,• t 4 j �1 �� r .� '1� • . l r.l'%.�., .R T• I r •� /�� a ♦ /� r1I/. � �', '•y .a� /t. "•, N ' ��1 �T �' f �j•ri . t r � /•• re1� I� �` • dr/ {. t/ 1• / ✓.. I ' y. • r . 4 i't 7 i t •��:'k Jrr r • ' d � �„ }� ; � ,. i. �•11 r �:' 1 Y n� lam, f�% 4 , rte• /�✓�'�[ r. �i �i, `•r•e Imo., "��la •..�t r..r P F `�" �,� .u; a+ "` . � 1 y a �i:f /,/" e; '1'� •'�„r�•.r'�S: yqw.'_. If `t•'r r 1 <•r�r + `f j ai .'�` X , "N !,', ��� ., .J f.; �," t,' r,: r I r • y f ✓� fr✓ / y ,.' (r r aY w' •i /��y�" l � �'' D r rl •` / 3.17 f /�/ �'' v �'`• > ' 1 + ; ^ w ^.l��i/ r1 . k .� �1 .1 , r r •... i% i % /,(�J r /Id // /� • //O 1 ? I' *p•'K' t R 3a I` • _ ,� a °l f. r 1 I J /�i / ,Y r •�j•�•�, .rf i�j. r• IA * �'�V , �•l. r, I �•' 1,�/'/ / ��f� '► •/, J 1 ..' -i,` `{ r• .��.l',r it., "�:. l .�. r' .g:� �/I/ I� `fi 4 {. '• +• � .1.• '�� 4 ',{ fit.' ai h +. ". �•w .r•t� � '�1 / � %. I •� Y� �1• f � f f � f f �4 tt / � 'M6 y t yr �� V ,, 3'�r T '`•� .M` .fib �� '} r 3'Ydl ~ R�i gg � ' /�/ �/ � } � ' '�. ��•� 1Y ,� l•'" e ¢'.�.r � n �' 4k+• I n'F / �,A�yr �. � •�•,,.• S' r Y"- ' . ••ar a'� '' /`f /r � /,Y. ���^�?�. t� �.,�� �, A• ,rl t �i..� 11A''�' �,��;,. y r li � L !�'�' �1• �' ,< 1 _ a . J �'P.! .. �" ^' ;,'� +,. d'hfr c.l ; � ,a _.±�.'.''`�!r,'��.ro,�r'i•'A,'1 : ,.,j ; �A : v" r + ' . . Y ,,: - t ,y,�. ' . 1 71 7 � � •,� �•,; r Yy � '• x• {�� � ` 1w • i . M�,. .� ` ,' 1 , r+ .� � 1' 1 ^al al rtWl . o Q r i ^! ,r rr ' �•�1. ^` � .y ,,,�k w � ' �:• , ,, \ , J)l) F• ` • l r 'A : �+i I �.14 '�S. ` •' l .1 �► L . .i � t r� +l �i•At . � � �• ,. � � �� rl i �__+.r..rw •�' • ;w I •� � 1 • r -71 • 71 }%wx�w � � ` �; �� �� hr9y { :''� ~q'l' ! .,' "C • � �M.�v � %~ .•� � � V. �y^ I � . � 1 X71 Z �4 *, 'l rl �• 4• r r y r SDm BLVD -- - - -- ---- as•coNCaE -- ls 0 GRANULAR FEASIBILITY STUDY QTY OF CHANHASSEN SCALE• M1 w FISSRS S Nw OAFYTE MI-ASIMIRSA G AUMCC lwTE% WAr" Calpin Boulevard (GUAR 19) Frontage Road ® MAMSOfAR TKAFISM WATOW gSIUMM FrwTYiw�naddlwlrTNR Typical Section GD• ww w • w na• as wD LAW AR LAW I f ROADWAY ECG I DOHS 1 .A . SCHOOL SITE HTONTAGE RD O GRADM .� aRABM - -- ---- - - - - -- - -- OwM SEWER BEVreR 0 !• TOPSOL • r WEAR COURSE - 1.6• EASE COURSE ./r CLASS S -SIZE GRADNO MATERIAL -am, ING SUSBRADE lO RETANO WAIL MIQA D ALONG TalERWOOD ESTATES 11 10 PROPOSED ROADWAY M V OR MORE ABOVE E70STM GRADE TN S South Froumne Road PA* , M As* .....:...................... .................:............. . ........ ............................... .. .............................:. _::..... . ::......... E� „.ba., .., ..................... ............ ....:........... . ..................... .........:.......:........ ..........,..: ............................... IN MANTOO&ASCiMMAN AXMO=ATME, Wr— lrJ'wwwr. TwsNrewrwTaDN stowu' Calpin Boulevard (MAN 19) Owm o"IDT”" Frontage Road Profile IFSASIBILITY STUDY THS South Fro Read CRY OF CHANHASSEN pisi "°'s pistons 4 S •� "y,,. � I � ��,Y � � • � .� � c i1�i�,��� -Lb .� t-. Y s it Ilk AL fart r . �t 4Rr`� IA J IF It I jr 1 x FEASI81L17T 51UIL CITY OF CHANHASSE aTON•ASCMAAN ASSOCIAT I ftlffij � ,•L..MO.el..T� see pin Boulevaro Layc Al +erns +ivy U SS' EXISTING R1 rr r rr r� rr rr ISURING M r M = ■@ RMNWAr A SOW r 90 rr GALPIN BLVD � BLVD I I 1! C-G �—" 2 % 4.j SECTION A -A �' � ''� MATCH SCHOOL SITE GRADING W EXISTING R/W TEMPORARY EASEMENT 1 ESMT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AS #" I REa I GALPIN BLVD 23' w °PO i oREr W ALL I, I 3B GALPN NO GALPIN E. W PROPO �R W ALL I BLVD I BLVD I. 24• 24• 36• FIR OAK S' 14' 12' 12' 14' 10' or 2' , , — — — _ — — _ LANE LANE LANE LANE BLVD DWK 024 C -0 I 8824 C-0 a -- - - -- -• POSSNLB RETAINING SCALE r- 2W WALL SECTION 13 -13 wEIEN GALPN BLVD TO THE EAST ALONG SCHOOL SITE WIDEN OALPN BLVD TO THE WEST ALONG TMBERWOOD FEASIBILITY STUDY TH5 South F CITY OF CHANHASSEN I R°'o' FIGURE NQw MAR M ASSOCIATES, W4C Galpin Boulevard (GSAH19) Galpin Blvd. Typical Sections PAXV S TR (f mmTkbwwoodD*ntoTHQ Alternative _ 11, illilljlll lllllllllllll Am ��� "!-" ' � �: •.. � i -'psi :: � - ; � .. — ,�._.� -.� -�- R - IT `, LEGEND PR OPO SE D - TEMPORARY EASEMENT ; T j ERMANENT R/W TAKING _ fir. f �.3�'+ ti •. W LITT OF LHANHP a TON -A*CH MAN ASSOC ... .....�,�. pin Boulevard Gaya A +area +ivi R/W DEDICATED VIA LA� z--r q:: — — r a HOI FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF C HANHASSEN 38 66' EXISTMrO R/W QALPIN W _ ANE LTL LANE I LANE SDWK ! 8624 C - Q f - SECTION C -C SECTION D -D TH S South Frontage Road nmmGmIpInBa lwmd "li PAa l MSApTOlII�Afi.CMNAN Assocwrmw� mr. PA IECIPIMi TAANRPOATATU M CWVCXW Galpin Boulrd PAR 19) (, TwWwmdod"toTHh m m m m MATCH SCHOOL SITE GRADING WELOPMENT 24" 24' FR;'` FA SCALE- 1'• MY WIDEN GALPIN BLVD TO THE WEST FIGURE • Galpin Blvd. Typical Sections Alternative 2 ................... ................... ................... ........... ................... ................... ................... ... ............... ................... ............. ..... .................. ................... .......... .............. I ...... 11 .............. : I : ........... I .............. ........... . ...... ............................. ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... :,*''*::::,*, .... ....... .... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... : ..... : ......... ......... . . . . . . . . . ...... .. .... ................... ......... ... ......... ......... ......... ......... ..... ................... ......... ............................. ........ 1 .... 1. ...... I . .... I .... : . . . - - . . . . . ..:: ........ ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... . . . . . . ......... : ................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ....... ... .......... ......... ......... ......... ..... ...... ........... . ....... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...... ..... ....... ......... . . . . ..... . ......... ....... ......... ......... ........ .................. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ ........... ......... ......... ........ ........ * .......... ................... ....................................... .............. ................. ..................... . ...... ..... . .... ................... .. .......... ................. ................... ................... ................... ................... ................... ......... ......... ................... ........ .......... .......... 13'30 ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ww: :EL,'%8;79: ......................................... ......... ........ ......... ............ ...... .......... ......... ........ . ....... ......... ......... ........ .......... ......... ......... ......... ........ ......... ......... .... PYr- 14-80-W- ...... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...... ............ ...... ......... ......... ....... ... .......... ................... ......... ......... fA-6j�g! ....... : ......... ......... ; ..................................... .............. ..... ...... ......... ......... ........... .......... ....... ......... ......... ......... ................... ......... ....... . ................... ................... ................... ......... ...... I ................................. ................... .......... ................... ................... ................... .............. ................... ........ ........ ............... ................... ................... ................... ................... : ....................................... : ......... ......... .................. ...... 9� .......... ........ ......... ........ ......... ......... ......... ......... Y.uw , - - w .30 ... ...... .. ...... ........ .965.2 ........... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ... ................. . ........ IGN - ' . FRON11109 RaAD: ......... ....... .......... .......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... I -I - 0R(VE ::L0:I29.5�':M-!-a34 .... ..... .......................... .... ......... ......... ........ DMVLINAY::.. ...... ....... . ......... EXISTING:::: ......... ................. .. ............... .... ................... ............... . .......... .... .......... ........ ...... ....... ......... : ...... ERPJMT*. cmq*rmtt. is ................... ............... ................... ................... ................... ..: ......... ...... ............ ......... ......... ....... . ....... ....... t"N-db ...... ... ......... : : ................... ......... :1 .............. .. ........ ............ ..................... . ..... ......... •i::::: ........... .............. . ....... ......... ....... ......... ................. .......... ......... L-T 9MOK .......... .0. MR" i ;;;�/ : ....... I'M ....... ........... ....... :p":Q*95:tL.W.s5: ......... .-SPEED-i ... : ........ ....... .... 77: ... ::::::! ........... 7:70- * ......... .. ---FVrURE - A ....... ......... .pv4c-0*18-EL- 94 ....... ......... i .. ....... .... - ...... . T ...... ..... :.. .. .7 . ......... ............ ........................................................ ................ ........ ...... ............ ..... ................. :P .: vV.I.4-?2'U�.05V;3&: * " ............ . . ...... ....... .......... ......... ......... ...... .......... ...... . . 5 8 ..... ......... ................ .... .... ......... ....... ............... I ............. ....... ............................ ......... ......... ........ ............ ..... --- .... ...: ................ ... . ...... ....... ......... ..... ..... :.. - - - *..: ........ "GOA" Iwo ....... ...... : .... : : *::." ............ ..... ..... :.— ----- - ..: ....... ........ ......... ......... ...... .. ......... ......... : ....... .................. ......... .......... : ......... ....... EXISTM.. ......... ......... ......... ......... i ................... ......... ......... ....... ...... . ...... .... ................ ................ .................... ........ ... ....... PRML4E i ...... ............... ........ . ............. ... : ................... ......... ....... ... ......... ......... i: ....... .............. ............... ....... ............ ...... ... ..... : .... - - .: ... ......... .... ...... . .................. ........................... : : ............... :.:.: ................. . ...... : ............... :: ............ ...... ................... ..... ................... I .......................... ....... .. . . ..... ................... ......... I : ... :*,*:* ..: ....... ........ : .... : . . .; ....... ...... .............. : ............... ..... ...... ....... .... ... .......... . .. ......... ......... ................ ......... .............. .......... .......... ......... ....... ... ... ...... .. ...... .. . ...... ........... ........ ....... ......... ........ .......... f ................ ................... ......... ......... ......... ......... .... ........ .......... ....... .. ... ....... .... ::: ...... I ....... ......... -.: ................... ......... ......... ........ ...... .............. .... ...... ......... WATttmw.: ......... ......... ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... ........ ... ....... ....... ........ .......... ......... ; ......... ................... ......... : .......... ................... ......... ....... . .................. .... .... ................ . ..... ..... ........ ..... ............ .. ........................................ ........ ...... ............ ............... .............. ................... ......... . ......... ; ......... ......... ......... ......... .................. .......... ... ... ........... ...... . . . ........ ............ .............. ........................................ ......... ......... ......... ......... : .. ................ .......... .............. ...... . ..... ; ......... ......... : .......................... :::: ......... ....... ................. *..::::::;:: :-' ...... ................... ........ ......... ....... .......... ......... ::bd . ...... ......... ......... ........ ...... .... ......... ......... ......... ............................. .......... ......... ............................ .......... .... " ... * ::::::::: ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ .. ...... ........ . .. .......... ....... .... ........... ...... .................... ......... : ......... ......... ....... ;. .... ................... ............ .... ........ ...... ............ ........... ....... i ... .................... ............... . ...... . ........... ..... ..................... . ... ....:.:.:::.:. s.:. :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. .................. ............... ........ .............................. ................... ................. ................... .............. . : : .. ...... ........... .......... ................... .......... ......... ......... ........ ......... ......... ......... : ....... ........... ....... : ......... ........... ......... ....... . ........ ......... ................. ............ .................... ............................ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...... .......... .................... ......... ......... .......... ............. .... ... ................... ......... ......... ......... ....... ......... ............ ......... ....... . ....... ........ ... .. .. .................... ........ ............ ..... .... . ....... ......... ......... ....... . ........... ::::. : : : ... : ....... .......... .......... :::::::: !::::::: 154W: :::::::: !:::: ................. .......... ......... ........ ................... ............ .00 ..................... ...... ........ ................... ...... . . . ................................ ......... ......... ......... : .......... .................................. ......... ......... .. ...................... : .................... ................... ......... .......... n .................. ............... ....................................... ....... :.. ....... ::. ::::::: ......... ....... .................... ......... ......... ......... ................... ........ ................. ......... ....... ....... ......... ......... ....... ................. ....... ...... ......... :-- - ..: ........... ......... ......... ......... ........ ....... ::: ................ :::::: ......... ....... ....... ......... ......... ....... ......... ......... ......... ........ .............. ..... .......... ....... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ ....... ............ .......... ....... ....... ............ ......... ......... ......... ....... .......... ......... ................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ................. ......... ....... :. I ....... ......... ......... ........................ ................... ....... ......... ................... ......... i ......... ................... ......... : .......... ......... ......... .................... ......... ......... ....... ......... ......... ........ . ... . ........... . ..... . .. . ................... ........................... .................... ......... . .................. . .... .. .............. . ....................... : .......... ..................................................... * FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CHANHASSEN MAMOMASCHMAN ASSOCIATUrft INC. MP 1. PAnSCM TRAMPOWATIM UnOUP TH 5 South Fronta Boa R-4 Galpin Boulevard (CSAR 19) (fmmTWwwwd0f1"t*1MQ FIGURE I Galpin Boulevard Profile APPENDIX Cost Estimates E TH 5 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD Item Unit Quan. Cost/Unit Total Common Excavation C.Y. 55,700 5.00 167,100 Subgrade Excavation C.Y. 16,000 3.50 56,000 Granular Borrow (M C Y. 16,000 4.50 72,000 Aggregate Base CL 5 Ton 10,950 6.50 71,175 Bituminous Wear Course, Type 41 Ton 1,650 23.00 57,950 Bituminous Base Course, Type 31 Ton 5,700 21.00 77,700 B618 Concrete Curb and Gutter L.F. 8,100 7.00 56,700 Catch Basin Each 26 1,200.00 31,200 12" RCP L.F. 216 20.00 4,320 15" RCP L.F. 900 22.00 19,800 18" RCP L.F. .390 28.00 10,920 24" RCP L.F. 2,100 33.00 69,300 36" RCP L.F. 7001 46.00 32,200 48" RC Culvert L.F. 200J 80.00 8,000 48" RC Apron Each 2 900.00 1 Riprap C.Y. 18 50.00 900 12" DIP Water Main L.F. J 4,140 30.00 124,200 Hydrant w/Lead & GV Each 7 2,000.00 14,000• 12" RCP Sanitary L.F. 920 28.00 25,760 18" RCP Sanitary L.F. 740 33.00 24,420 Manhole Each 5 2,000.00 10,000 Outside Drop L.F. 12 250.00 3,000 Concrete Walk S.F. 32,400 2.00 64,800 Concrete Retaining Wall L.F. 600 250.00 150,000 Sod S.Y. 9,000 1.50 13,500 Arch Structure L.S. 1 300,000.00 300,000 Seed/Mulch L.S. 1 3,000.00 3,000 Mobilization L.S. 1 71,994.00 71,994 Subtotal 1,521,739 15% contingency 228,261 total construction cost 1,750,000 add 30% for engineering, legal, administration 525,000 Total Project Cost (without right -of -way) 2,275,000 11 u GALPIN BOUL EVARD (CSA 19) Item Unit Quan• Pavement Removal S.Y. 6,000 Common Excavation C.Y. 17,000 (TH 5 Temporary Connection) Subgrade Excavation C Y. 8,000 Granular Borow (LV) C Y. 6,000 Aggregate Base CL 5 Ton 8,250 Bituminous Wear Course Type 41 Ton 1,380 Bituminous Base Course Type 31 Ton 3,020 B624 Concrete Curb and Gutter L.F. 2,400 Bituminous Curb L.F. 1,500 Catch Basin Each 10 12" RCP L.F. 350 15" RCP L.F. 600 18" RCP L.F. 324 24" RCP L.F. 100 24" RC Apron Each 1 18" RC Apron Each 1 Riprap C.Y. 16 20" DIP Water Main L.F. 2,000 Hydrant w/Lead & GV Each 4 Concrete Walk S.F. 9,600 Bituminous Walk S.F. 6,400 Temporary Traffic Signal L.S. 1 Sodding S.Y. 2,800 LS 1 Cost/Unit 3.00 3.00 3.50 4.50 6.50 23.00 21.00 9.00 5.00 1,200.00 20.00 22.00 28.00 33.00 475.00 400.00 50.00 50.00 Seed/Mulch Mobilization L.S. 1 Subtotal ' 15% contingency total construction cost add 30% for engineering, legal, administration Total Project Cost (without right -of -way) 2,000.00 2.00 0.75 45,000.00 1.50 1,500.00 28 6 0 Total 18,000 51,000 27,000 31740 63 ,420 _ 21 _.__ 12,000 7,000 13,200 9,072 475 — 80 100 4,800 45_ -- 4 ---- 1,500 28,690 556,522 83,478 192,000 932,000 u s CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 5 1994 Prior to the regular meeting, the Planning Commission held a work session on the Highway 5 Corridor. Acting Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 8:45 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Diane Harberts, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Nancy Mancino and Jeff Farmakes STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director °e TURAL ESTATE TO OL OFFICE AND INDUSTRI DISTRICT AND � . CEPTUAL PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 107.69 S IJARE FOOT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND RECREATION/PARK COMPLEX AND WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD. Public Present: Name Address David Leschek Bob Rothman John Gockel Wallace & Maxine Otto Craig Harrington Patrick Minger James Dornholt Roger Schmidt Hammel- Green - Abrahamson Hammel- Green - Abrahamson Chaska School District #112 Waconia 8140 Maplewood Terrace 8221 Galpin Blvd. 8251 West Lake Court 8301 Galpin Blvd. Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Farmakes: Paul, can I ask you a question? Can you give me a quick synopsis? I didn't pick this up from the report. What is the positioning of this school overall in the 112 school system? Is this seen as a long term replacement with our elementary school over here? I know that's 30 -40 years old now, isn't it? 1.-s 1 F1 L n � 1 PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Krauss: It's not a replacement at all. It's supplemental to it. Farmakes: I realize that but I'm talking maybe 20 years down the line. How is this positioned to serve for instance, is it an expansion situation on the landscaping, what we're looking at now, is this something that's envisioned? Does this solve current problems and does it take into consideration future growth? These are the type of things that I did not pick ' up in the report so. Krauss: Well, I'm working off of memory here because this goes back to this committee that ' we served on with the School District and they had Barbara Luckerman fronL..Metro Council ... This should handle the growth, as I understand it, that they expect to be experiencing in this part of the school district. Ultimately they need another middle school in ' this area someplace but this should handle the elementary level growth into the foreseeable future. Now when they did their projection, we gave them what we felt to be the ultimate development of Chanhassen and there in fact parts of southern Chanhassen they may still use the Chaska Elementary School because they may be closer. Farmakes: That's the figure in about the low 30's somewhere? Krauss: Which one? Farmakes: That's the figure in the low 30's somewhere that you're talking about the ultimate development? Krauss: Right. Right. Long term the school district may well need another school out in Victoria. Victoria would prefer that this school be built in their community anyway but as long as they can project, it's my understanding, this would satisfy their elementary needs. ' ? Harberts: What is elementary Grades what? K thru 5? . Krauss: It's up to 5. Harberts: Middle school is 6 thru 8? Krauss: Yeah, except for kindergarten. Scott: Yeah, ECC. Yeah, 1 thru 5. With the City of Chanhassen getting involved in basically getting another school sited in our community, do you see the same process happening obviously if the middle school is needed? Have we gone through the same process and saying, well here's a good spot for a middle school and continue this process for that? VQ tD 2 1 E Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 1 Krauss: Well, as I said earlier, initially we thought that this was going to be the middle school because that was what they thought they needed at the time. We later found out that ' in the State of Minnesota, it gets pretty bizarre. If you're .going to locate a middle school, you almost need 70 acres because it takes so many football fields and baseball fields to accommodate it that we just couldn't fit it in here if we wanted to. They still have a long , term need for a middle school site. We've shown them, they've sat down with us a couple of times to � f e what exactly is available but the words available and land in Chanhassen don't ge i :,A.ymore and I'm not at all convinced that they're going to find a place for it in tl~ .::Uluty. We haven't identified one. Okay. Any other questions for Paul? ' Harberts: I have one. I don't know if this is to you or the applicant or the architects or whoever. How do they see the public transit buses integrating into this plan given the high degree of rides that are provided each and every day to the school site currently? Krauss: Well, maybe I can let them answer that. There are separate bus pull offs for this. ' It's a pretty ideal type of a site. I'd leave it up to Southwest Metro to figure whether or not we need a separate bus loading area. Harberts I don't know if we're asking about separate. I'm asking really was that a factor into the decision making process that it's an element that's there. extent that y ou're working ' Krauss: I don't know. To the y g with the school district now, I've got to believe it was because... ' Harberts: Okay. Maybe the applicant can address that Scott: Yep. Any other questions? I'd like to hear from the applicants if we could. Just for your notes. I know Paul mentioned that you folks would be talking about more specifically about the building design. Roof unit detail and information on grading. So if you can just cover those as briefly as you can and then we'll fire some questions at you. ' David Leschek: Good evening. Is this working okay? My name is David Leschek and I'm an architect with Hammel- Green - Abrahamson. With me tonight is Bob Rothman, also with HGA and John Gockel who is a representative for the School District #112. Paul has covered fairly well the background information for the project as well as significant portions of the site. This plan that you have in front of you, as we refer to it in our submission to the Planning Commission, is a master plan for this site. Much as is the building at this time. We are at the design development portion in the phase of the project and we have just ' r Meeting - January Planning Commission g 5, 1994 received back our first design development level estimate. And as we receive that estimate, we then go back, what we do to go back and value engineer portions of the building or site, whether it be vegetation or some of the building materials the amount of case work that's in the building so that that budget then is eventually in line with the original project budget. ' What we have done here is taken an educational concept from the District #112 as well as a recreational program from the city of Chanhassen and developed those programs to their full potential and as we get into the design development and we begin to get the estimates back, we begin to value engineer those programs if you will, keeping the spirit as well as the intent of those programs intact but maybe in a smaller. Mancino: The execution might be different? David Leschek: Not different. The concept is there. For instance an example would be the plantings that we have indicated on our drawings were of a 4 inch caliper which is in excess of what the minimum standards would be for the city of Chanhassen which would only require 2 1/2 inch. So at that point then we would go back to a 2 1/2 inch for instance rather than a 4 inch, which would still be in keeping with the requirements of the city but yet less than what we have originally shown on our documents. As Paul mentioned, we have a bus drop to the south of the site. Staff parking as well as a service entrance off of Galpin to the west of the building. We have provided for, and this may answer part of your question Diane. We have provided for a looped drive at the front of the ISD portion of the building as well as a drop off area, for whether it be cars or buses. Harberts: Oh good. ' David Leschek: Whether it be for the youngsters or even the physically handicapped. As Bob gets up here and goes through the portion of the building, you will note that the Early Childhood Family Education portion of the building is located in close proximity to this drop off on the west side of the building. Harberts: Can you tell what the distance that is? From the drop off for the children as well as you said from an accessible perspective. And is this covered? t David Leschek: I'll get that scale and then I'll answer your question. To the south of the building we have this bus drop off which we envision is the bus drop that will receive the vast majority of the students. The individual houses which contain all of the classrooms are oriented to the south and off of that bus drop. So you will have students basically entering the building from the south. Staff from the west and you will have a community entrance back on the east side. We wanted to obtain that separation for security reasons as well as that was a requirement of the educational program established by District #112. This is 4 t David Leschek: I can't be certain at this time Diane. You know, I'm sure that our civil engineers have sized that not for a full sized school bus for instance but maybe one that would. S ' t Plannin g Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 about, well excuse me. This is about 90 feet from this drop off point here to the front doors. Closest to the. , Harberts: The main entrance? drop David Leschek: Yes that's correct. And we have approximately 180 feet from the bus One the reasons for that was that as a part of up to the student entrances at the houses. of the educational program for this building, exterior spaces wanted to be included in the ' educational program for the building. So for instance in this portion, this lightly colored area here that you can see has concrete lines extending into it, this is an area of prairie grasses be incorporated into the site plan and used as a teaching station for instance. which would Where a science class could go out, you know see the prairie grasses and develop some educational curriculum that would accent this space and incorporate it into that curriculum. Again, back on the east side of the building is the major entrance for the community Portion was desirable from all clients, or patties involved in , of the building and again the separation the project. Again another drop off area to access not only the community entrance to the building but also just to allow parents and what not to drop off maybe their children who are them to drop them off. Get them participating in activities that are going on and allowing going and then going to park their vehicle. Either side of the building contains, at this point we have developed again some exterior educational type classrooms, or courtyards. And is master for this portion of the project. t again I remind you that what we have here our plan A cafeteria located on the north side of the building. Again, a playground area that can both is ISD #112 athletic fields. service not only the park but also services ISD #112. This the As Paul has mentioned, their need for athletic fields is not nearly as great at an elementary school as it would be for instance at a middle school and that's how the city has become developing additional soccer, softball fields. An ice rink in this area. Two ice ' involved in rinks in this area and four additional tennis courts. Harberts: Could you just go through that lump again with regard to the public transit. I see where it would enter in. David Leschek: It would enter in at this point here. There's a, you can see how it was sort And then would loop back out. ' of recessed back at this point indicating the drop area. you Harberts: What's the radius turn on that loop? David Leschek: I can't be certain at this time Diane. You know, I'm sure that our civil engineers have sized that not for a full sized school bus for instance but maybe one that would. S ' t Plannin g Commission Meeting - January 5,J994. Harberts: 30 feet? 30 to 40 feet? That's what we're looking at. David Leschek: I do not think that it would be 30 or 40 feet: Harberts: Then it's not a public transit access point. So someone may want to talk to us or we talk to you about that. The only other thing is, is there the opportunity of using that turn ' around loop? David Leschek: There is the opportunity of using it which allows you to gain access. But again this turn around loop here has the same purpose as this one, because after hours when ' we require the vast majority of the recreational facilities being used, this staff parking lot would then become available to the community to use the park. Or to drop off their children ' and allow them access into the recreational area. Harberts: Okay. I'd like just to raise that as something to look at and to have further discussion with Southwest Metro. Thank you. David Leschek: Thank you. Any additional questions? Anything that I've missed? I do believe that we have also cut two sections. This one starting here will be up on that ridge ' that Paul spoke of by Timberwood Estates. The grade begins to drop down and you have that large buffer of existing trees. The boulevard area that you will see in this location, the bus drop off, our area of prairie restoration, which is this area in front of the plan. Harberts: Excuse me, where's the access boulevard? David Leschek: The access boulevard, well the access boulevard is actually here. Farmakes: Is this is an east/west angle that we're looking at the building? David Leschek: This is a north/south. Farmakes: North/south? ' David Leschek: That's correct. Scott: No, no. It's cut north/south but we're looking west. David Leschek: Yes , you're looking west. That's correct. The prairie restoration area. The . g building itself, we refer to it as a diamond terrace that is this portion just off of the cafeteria for the building and the playground which is off to the north side. And then the Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 athletic fields, and then eventually Highway 5. Farmakes: Can I ask you a question about the prairie grass? My only familiarity with using this and the treatment that you're using down below has been with corporate, and to be honest, over a period, a short period of time they converted it to, they got rid of it essentially. Is there precedent for this where this has been used successfully for this type of use? Intensive children and so on. Leschek: We have an ongoing L"�- roject with IBM at Rochester. P Farmakes: I'm familiar with the building. ' David Leschek: A corporate client and they have asked us to develop this sort of prairie restoration at their facility and we have found that it works quite well for them and see no ' reason why it would not work very well for the school as an educational tool. Farmakes: Is that location in front of the building? Or it would be facing Highway 53 then? ' That you're talking about IBM. David Leschek: I believe it faces Highway 53 as well as, you'll probably forgive me. I'm not that familiar with the project, although I do know that we are involved in it. " I believe it is that portion that faces Highway 53 as well as I believe some of their courtyards are now being done. Farmakes: To the north? ' David Leschek: Right, exactly. Farmakes: Has it been used again in a school situation with elementary children accessing a ' point? David Leschek: I can't tell you that we have done that, no. ' Farmakes: Okay. Does this have to be burned every so many years? , David Leschek: It would have to be burned every so many years. I believe it's every 3 years and we have in fact discussed that with the buildings and grounds people with the District ' and they see no adverse affect doing that as far as from a facilities standpoint. .C114 7 1 Meeting - January 5, 1994 Planning Commission g ary I Farmakes: How does that affect the other trees? Just curious, being that trees aren't normally in a prairie situation? David Leschek: Well I think what you find is that this lighted portion here is the prairie and we do have. Farmakes: I don't think we can see you over the podium there. David Leschek: I think the site section that you see here is a little misleading with the trees that I'm showing. You may be seeing, I believe you would be looking from this direction this way and you would be seeing this back drop of the trees but for the most pwt..sort of on the perimeter of those prairie grasses. Farmakes: Actually I was more concerned about the trees in the front. The primary one here is from the northwest and I'm just curious if you're going to torch that, how that would affect the other trees. We do have, I think a couple of cases. I think DataSery at one time when it was CPT did prairie grasses and burned it off. I'm not sure that that's still the purpose of DataSery but I think Eckankar also does a prairie grass. It's an attempt in the early stages of ' prairie grass restoration in front of their place. Mancino: Well there are red oaks right in the middle of the prairie grass. There are quite a few of them according to your enlarged plan of the bus drop off sheet. That these all are red oaks in through the prairie grass so we'd have to make sure they're shielded. Farmakes: That was my concern. Because about once every 10 years we get very dry around here and just, I believe these types of maintenance issues have been problems in the past with other sites. And that's why I was asking if we have any precedence on this type of thing. John Gockel: We have not at an educational building. Farmake s: Oka David Leschek: This concept has been developed along with the District at this point. That's as much as I can tell you. Any other questions? I want to get back to, I have one additional site section that takes us east and west through the site looking to the north. Galpin Boulevard in this area and we begin to slope down to the staff parking and drop off that we had discussed with Diane. The front entry more or less to the school. The school itself, the entrance to the community portion of the building and then the site begins to drop away to Bluff Creek. So we have tried to maintain that natural slope of the site as it goes and works I VQ �-,� 8 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5 199 I it's way east towards Bluff Creek. And You can see the o proposed the master plane mains above our site and the trees that we would, that wfor the Highwy 5 corridor and again this Highway 5 in keeping with the development plan have access underneath Highway 5 along the corridor area back here is where Paul had h would run north and south along Bluff Creek. and that's, it looks like on my enlarged Mancino: I have a question about the landscaping , plan, between the, let's see it's facing the south access boulevard is mostly sugar m correct? Da vid Leschek: Yes. ' Mancino: They are very sensitive to salty soils so what's going to happen in a few years hen there's a lot of salt that's been snowplowed up i nto that area? This is a unite tye st �" to landscape plants and the one that they piece that I have about the salt injury le, which you have on Galpin• sensitive is the sugar maple and also the red map Leschek: I am not able to speak for the landscape architects that have developed our Dav id 've taken that into consideration. I can landscaping plan. other than to say that I'm sure they additional address that to Paul along with addressing Diane's BcerobRn thman of our offic who will take questions? If not, I'll turn the presentation over to you through the building as well as the elevations. ' you. As Dave mentioned, there are three primary entrances to the Bob Rothman: Thank y I'll briefly run Yo and building. For the school district, for the s ed for 625 students and that is 125 students per through the building. The school is design ade in an in Proms so family cluster. Family cluster is first grade through fifth gr proximity to the bus they would be mixed within their cluster. So that occurs down f their day down in that area drop off. Because the feeling is the students spend a majority INC which is the media of the building • In the central hat be the portion tion of the building, Across the corridor fr om u that is the art was the library. ' center which, when I was growing p d music. We designed this, we felt that the art, musi c , lib�dis of open and accessible l cases and an open library this one common area with some lisp Y rox ity to the front entry is the administrati on for to a ll students. Behind that, with close p and going and that obvious reasons. For general t entry we've located the ECFE, whn of the school Whogs s the Early Childhood sort of thing. Also by the front entry we night time sort of program So and Family Education which is a 7 day a week, behind that we have some of the back again that desires to be close to the main entry. And located onto of the house. The boiler room. The electrical i r`ootm' as D described, play g1OUnd and fields the main access of the building is the cafeteria 9 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 1 i 1 1 to the north of that which the students, you know gobble down their sandwiches and get out and hit the playground. To the east of that we've got the gymnasium which is a shared gymnasium. Half of it is during the day, half of it, the southern most half would be used by the school district with the northerly most half being used by the community of Chanhassen. Also in this area we've got a series of four meeting rooms which are expandable into, can be paired or used singularly or as one large meeting room. We also have a fitness room and aerobics room and corresponding locker rooms and some storage areas for both meetings areas and the gymnasium. One of the challenges of this building was, due to the educational program, we were left with what seemed to be the best opportunity to be a one story building. As I said, one of the challenges is with the large building of this 112,000 square foot facility, is trying to break it up in mass and form. To give it some interest so it doesn't feel quite frankly like a pancake. And so how we've chosen to do that, this is the south elevation. We're looking at developing each cluster as it's own mass who each has it's own identity so there's the four, or the five rather are all fine and it gives us a nice sense of rythym and shade and shadow as well as using these spaces for defining the entries to each of those houses. The primary material of the building is kind of a molded brick which is very traditional in feel. If you're familiar with Jonathan Elementary, this is the brick that's used on that. It was the District's desire, as well as our's, to try and provide a family of buildings within the District. This is also brick that we're looking at using on the new Chaska High School so that it can be identified as a community building. Primarily we've got a flat roof. I can turn the model here. Primarily we've got basically a flat roof building but a few areas where we've chosen, would it be better if I. Scott: Apparently if the stand, I don't know if our camera can get down low enough. Can you, should he put it on the easel? Bob Rothman: This is primarily a flat roof building. Where we've chosen at the family cluster centers to raise that. Mancino: Where are we supposed to be looking? Scott: It doesn't work in the monitor so I guess the folks at home are going to have to pass then. Bob Rothman: So mainly we've got each of the clusters defined by a half vaulted room form, which will help give it a little bit of mass and a little bit of rythym. Farmakes: And we're seeing it from the view now where we would be on Highway 5. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Bob Rothman: Right. You're coming off of Highway 5. And keep in mind that Highway 5 is about the same elevation. It's slightly higher at Galpin and then you'd be dropping down ' to actually below the floor level. Or below the floor level of. the building as it's coming up. Some of the other roof forms. The gymnasium is just an extruded form with of course a higher building mass. Cafeteria again, because of the larger volume of the room, we've ' brought the roof up slightly. Within the INC, again we're going to use some bow ... trusses in there and make it kind of a nice, interesting space as again one of the harder programs being the INC. And Paul mentioned the. , Mancino: Is that a glass dome? Bob Rothman: N o , it's not. It'd be a metal roof. Farmakes: You're showing lighter colors there. What would that, Bob Rothman: It would be a metal roof with some clear story lighting. Farmakes: Okay. The tan areas y that ou're showing next to the brick, what would that material be? Bob Rothman: Those are the circulation areas. That would be a burnish masonry material. Again, to help define the circulation. ' Farmakes: Like Target? That's the description of that. Krauss: The burnish block? Farmakes: Yeah. .' Krauss: There is some burnish block. Bob Rothman: I'm not sure what Target is. We have got some samples - Some eS sa oncept of the site with defining We've ' here. And again, that's keeping in the c carried that through conceptually within the building also. Paul addressed the issue of these penthouses. We're looking at trying to bring those down. Those would be developed in probably a synthetic stucco material. These two and some of these other ones and this will be brick. Mancino: What's a synthetic stucco? 11 F L i Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 I Bob Rothman: It's called ethos. It's a plastic material. ' Mancino: You put it outside and its impregnated with color or something? Bob Rothman: Right. So actually from where, you wouldn't see that much of it anyway but ' where you would, it would probably appear to be brick. Mancino: Okay. But from what I see right here, this elevation. I mean it's almost as tall, ' proportionally as tall as your one level. Bob Rothman: The one thing that's a little bit misleading about elevations is the fact that you're never going to see the building in that angle. Again, you're seeing everything straight on. As you approach the building from this way, you're going to be down and plus, unless you're 16 feet tall, you don't really see those things straight on. So they'll be recessed back ' in the background. And again we are looking, working with our mechanical engineers to bring that down. Are there any other questions? Farmakes: With the elevation of this building, to TH 5, you actually even with trees in there filled out, you will be able to see down into that a bit. Krauss: Highway 5 is pretty much at the building elevation. It's not too different... ' Bob Rothman: You can see right here. David Leschek: As the site goes to the east, it begins to drop below Highway 5. Bob Rothman: You see Highway 5 is approximately the same elevation of the. L� David Leschek: The building elevation itself is at 958 and I believe that Highway 5 at the west end of the site is approximately 960. So it's approximately only 2 feet higher than the main floor elevation of the building. But then as the site begins to go towards Bluff Creek, it begins to drop. It begins actually to step and we terraced the athletic fields to be in keeping with the Lake Ann complex which has been developed by the city of Chanhassen and that concept there was to try to get a little additional interest in the landform by terracing the land that the fields sit on. So we have done that same thing as something that the Parks Department wants to make as their signature, if you will, of their parks. To accomplish a terraced feel to that. Mancino: What about from Galpin? Galpin is lower? 12 E Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 her. I think if you refer back to the site section David Leschek: No. Galpin is actually higher. here, you will see that Galpin is actually right here and it is actually higher. As the road. , Bob Rothman: It starts to come down at this point. Again, as Paul mentioned, this being the high point of the site and it starts to drop down at that p ' Mancino: Where that southwest wall is? , Bob Rothman: Right. Correct. So when you're down here, directly south of the building, you're actually what, a good 8 feet below. ' David Leschek: Well you're about 6 to 8 feet below the building. Bob Rothman: First floor elevation. ' Mancino: So when you stand by McGlynn's Bakery, you're going to be looking down onto the top of this building? Krauss: I don't recall ... McGlynn's Bakery... , Mancino: I'm just trying to get perspective. David Leschek: One of the concerns that Paul listed in his staff report was the idea back and ' rooftop mechanical equipment and one of the reasons why we re now having g adjust some of our mechanical penthouses is because d oha P equipment into P S rt of uipmechanical up these penthouses. So the roof is devoid Y there. It is all self contained within the penthouses of the building. penthouse. Mancino: Equipment in a P By on the dining terrace. One of the things that, I know that a Scott: Peanut butter and je ' ol district is currently studying is the concept of what's nua�4��er of the buildings in the scho called multi -age grouping. And what I wanted to hear from you is how the potential of that conce t being used at the elementary level, district wide, was utilized to design this particular ' P building. John Gockel: What it is is that the houses consist of 5 classrooms. What we have here is. Bob Rothman: Grades 1 thru 5 are all in each of the clusters. 13 ' '1 i Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Scott: So you have five groups or 1 thru 5? ' Bob Rothman: Exactly. So instead of one of these clusters being out here as here's one all grade 2, they're all integrated with each and the school district will then develop their programs on using that notion. David Leschek: I have to apologize for not having a larger scaled plan. However if I could ' lay this here, and again we'll let the folks at home use their imagination. You asked the question about the multi-age groupings that this facility could occur, or could occur in this facility. This is an enlarged plan of two of the houses within the building and the houses themselves consist of 5 classrooms with a teacher planning area and one larger classroom in this location here which is designed to be, or could function as a kindergarten classroom in the future if they were to ever have kindergarten here at this facility. This building is currently proposed to handle only 1 thru 5. Mancino: Where does kindergarten go? David Leschek: y k: The use the Earl Childhood Center in Chaska currently. Which you know they've just done an addition to which houses first graders now but may in the future ' eventually contain additional kindergartners. In the center of the house then is a team center, as we refer to it, which is used by any one or all five of the classrooms. The classrooms for instance, I mean they're grouped in five because you have 1 thru 5 grades here. So when you're talking multi-age, you could have a house could consist of 1 thru 5 or it could consist of five groups of 3rd graders or they may actually mix or match 1st, 2nd grades and 3-4 someplace else. The flexibility has been designed into each house, whether it be through the number of classrooms or the types of spaces. Whether they be larger spaces, such as this, or the smaller spaces so that they can accommodate large as well as small and function for ' grades 1 thru 5 or all fifth grade or a multi-age grouping of 2nd and 3rd graders. Scott: Also, another modeling you're probably familiar with is the inclusion model for ' unique learners. Where are the, and this is great but usually there's an area, and I think most people are familiar with special education. Where is that particular area located? I think I may have missed that. ' David Leschek: That particular area is located throughout the facility. So when we talk about for instance teacher planning areas, this is where the teachers are for this particular ' house and included in that staff, if you will for this house, could very well be a special education teacher. So that what they want to develop here is this interaction between not only the teachers of that particular school but also that special ed person who may be responsible for that person so they can better coordinate that curriculum for that person. 14 � ti� Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Scott: Okay. David Leschek: Any additional questions? Scott: If there are no additional questions. Mancino: I have a couple more. Was there some stone detailing on the building? Did I read that somewhere in the staff report? Bob Rothman: Yeah. Again, going back to the, as Dave had mentioned. As we get our budgets in, one of the things we listed was stone as with a...alternating. So we're looking at these. Originally we had hoped that these would be stone and now we're looking at burnish masonry but we are looking at some stone accents. For instance window sills might be a Mankato stone or something of that nature. Mancino: Chaska stone. Bob Rothman: Or Chaska stone. Mancino: Yeah, that would be really nice to pull that in. Okay. And what's the green that I saw on the. Bob Rothman: That's a metal roof. A standing seam metal roof. Mancino: Do you happen to have a sample of the color of green? Bob Rothman: No, I'm sorry I don't have one. Mancino: Is it a dark? Light? Medium? Bob Rothman: Probably looking at a dark, kind of a forest type green. Any other questions? Thank you very much. Scott: Good, thank you. This is a public hearing and members of the general public are encouraged to, ask questions, express opinions. These_ are the applicant, the representatives of city staff, Planning Commission members. Are there any members in the audience tonight who would like to address the Planning Commission or any of these other parties? Let the record show that there are no members of the public who wish to speak. Can I have a motion please to close public hearing? 15 s i Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Farmakes moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Farmakes: I'll go back to the landscaping, to begin with. I'm concerned, as you brought up ' some points here on some of the trees that are adjacent to road salt areas of the, I believe it's Galpin and the entryway for the buses to the south to the structure. And I think that that should be looked at The Arboretum here, the report that she has here and I went to the same conference she did. There are established trees that are tolerant to salt and I realize that you're not here to talk about that tonight or you don't have representatives of that, but we did have several landscape people there and the Arboretum of course is a well known authority ' with that kind of stuff. And you may want to look at the survivability of those trees. The other issue, the prairie grass area. I think that that sounds good. The teaching things also may sound good on paper. I'm wondering how translatable that is to practicality and I would ' advise the school to look closely at that. It is, it has been used and it is being used in some locations here in Chanhassen. They haven't been terribly successful as of yet. As I understand it, and the prairie grass area that I visited in Illinois. They have a park there that ' they're trying to redo prairie in Illinois where they had bison and it's a lot more rolling acres and so on. As I understood the educational part of that, for prairie grass to truly be prairie grass, there is a lot of different species and there is a total ecosystem that goes with that. Failing that, there is a lot of artificial maintenance that has to be done to maintain it and I'm wondering if the educational value of that may be better served with a wetland or a pond. Or something of that nature that's more indicative of what's here. I also understand that for true prairie grass to thrive, it needs little human contact and as I understand it, all of the kids will be dropped off right in front of the prairie grass so there are some practical aspects to that ' that you may want to review. The second issue, and the city report touched on this a little bit, is how the movement of people translates to some of the park areas adjacent to the creek. Bluff Creek. And how that works up into some of the recreational facilities on the school ' property. And I'm not sure that I'm seeing anything there but did the Park Commission look at this? Krauss: Oh, yes. Farmakes: So they looked at this closely and they're satisfied that what they see is integrated ' well? Krauss: Yes. Farmakes: Okay. These fields, these are K thru Little League? Is that the type of fields that they're going to be? W planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Krauss: The ballfields are, You're right' They're not adult size. , Farmakes; They're 60 footers for baseball. The one thing t hat ey'v one from what would be view of the facility from Highway 5. I like the view that they've ' the front of the building facing south and from the east. Or excuse , c° o g and I like what they've done with the different forms. Making up for a��arly it seems like all the things that you often don't see on a � are these , big blocks. ' ones in the suburbs here built m th Mancino: And that's what you see from TH 5. ' hap to be what was being built back then. I like this 'much better. Farmakes: Well, this ha . I am somewhat concerned looking Maybe 5o years from now they'll be complaining about it. ' at it from the north and from the east, as you come. look at it from the no When You look �e back o flat it like exp on the roof line and when you area where school. And if there is something that possibly could be done behind the gy ' those windows are to take that facade a nd break it up a little bit. That would be on this side. Mancino: Now, isn't there a planting there though? ' Farmakes: Well there's several plantings inbetween it. ' David Leschek: And a vine of sorts too. To so rt of help break up• F A veining situation coming up the side of the school, yeah. , hek: Yes. And you realize too that that space being a gymnasium space requires David Lesc , that mass. So we tried to address that. to break up the roof line. The tangent line that runs F Even if it was something did at the U of M works nice to ' across that large scale box. I know that from the stuff they y ou talked about and that effect. The other issues I think I'll leave e t s So I'll let o a u take over. I'd just be repeating it and I don't want to , Oh thanks, I just wanted to add one more tree for you to check salkt Pp�ean° d the salt Mancino: O sensitwe to a yo sensitivity. And that would be the red oaks are very y' min that northeastern area. So if you have the red oaks on the, lets see east side of Galp' l questions for you. How does this could check with your architect about that. Paul, a couple q roved this site plan? I mean process work? I mean has the Scho ouncoil� Do D e School Board? ' as it comes to City Council . cit C 17 , Commission Meeting - January Planning Comiri g ary 5, 1994 Krauss: It's not a sequential process. It's not very neat. ' ckel: The School Board is not, they've approved the schematic design. Wha John Go t you're looking at now is about 90% of design development. That will go before the School Board ' approximately the end of January. Mancino: And what if we have things, if the City Council has suggestions that they want changed in what they see, does the School Board recognize those changes? I mean what happens? ' John Gockel: The School Board recognizes that it's an ongoing process. One of the things to be aware of is that the, what you're looking at is two separate ownerships also. There's District ownership and there is the city ownership. For example, the gymnasium form that you were talking about is not the District's property. It would be the city's property so there's a blending here. In order for the school to be open in the fall of '95, it has to be under construction this spring so we're going down several parallel paths at the same time. One with the District. One with the City. One with the Planning Commission and various other bodies. Another parallel path that we're going down is the purchase of the land. That ' should take place. by the end of January. The joint use agreement and joint powers agreement and development agreement, all these things are taking place simultaneously. Mancino: Now when the City sells the land to the School District, is it obligatory of the School District to build an elementary school there by 1995, and that's the only use it can use it for? Is the whole contract and the whole... predicated on that? And if it doesn't happen, if ' there's not a school being built on it, it's null and void? John Gockel: The District is purchasing the land. That's an agreement. The City and the District will have a joint developers agreement to develop the site. To put buildings out there and ballfields and roads and so forth. That's a second agreement. Not dependent upon the first. The third agreement would be the long, the agreement with a long life and that is how the two governmental entities jointly use the property. Maintain it. Mow the grass. Plow the snow and so forth. Krauss: You're raising an interesting point. I don't know exactly how that will be ... I've got enough to deal with ... but you raise an interesting point. From what I understand about the process, there's relatively little chance of that happening ... I mean there's a $45 million bond ' issue that was approved... What I'd be a little more concerned about, and I'm not even too concerned about that is, what if the School Board comes back and says gee, this is much too ' expensive. We've got to go cinder block. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Mancino: Yep. Krauss: At that point, I mean the School Board is a free agent, same as a developer is. I ' mean you can come up with conditions that you impose on a developer and they can decide to walk. If the School Board, you're approving a project here. It's like any other project you ' approve. If radical changes come about, for whatever reason, between now and the time it's built, then we have to make a call whether or not this is consistent with what you approved and if it's not, it's got to come back. I think that's always the bottom line and nobody's ' really talking radical changes. I mean it's a massive project. There's going to be a lot of fine tuning. But if something really went out of kilter, you still have the site plan approval. It still has to be consistent with that. It's being zoned office institutional so there's not a , whole lot else that can go here, which is why we picked that district. Farmakes: Well if there's joint ownership, isn't also the City part of this applicant process ' right now? Krauss: Exactly and we will continue to own 20 acres of it. Farmakes: But also structure as well, correct? Krauss: A portion of the structure. Mancino: I can't remember, I lost it. Thanks. Oh I know what it is. If we do rezone to IO, ' it limits that to schools, public buildings, offices and related uses. What are the related uses? Krauss: Whatever we construe them to be. It's the ordinance gives me the authority to make ' some interpretations. Failing agreement on that, my call can be expanded by the City Council. It's never been a question. I mean it's a pretty restrictive district. Mancino: I just want to know worst case. Krauss: Well I suppose worst case would be an office building. I mean if you had an office building go on this site, you could say that a daycare center is ... It wouldn't be a truck transfer terminal. ' Mancino: Going to wetlands. On the grading sheet here, there were some wetlands designated and I assume that those wetlands that were put on the grading sheet are those that ' are drained. They're not operational. But they are on here and I just wanted to make sure. X19 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994'' Krauss: Yeah, it's kind of confusing. They really don't belong on there and that's what we've done over the last two months, three months of clarifying. It's a very confusing subject. It's, by State law you're supposed to use the 1989 Army Corps Handbook. I've ' been told by people—that they can go into your back yard and find there's a wetland using that Handbook. So you've got everybody and their mother out there selling services now. There's long standing firms that have been in the wetland identification business and now ' every surveyor, every engineer is all of a sudden a wetland expert and you're getting woe of conflicting information. We went the extra mile on this and sent our experts back and consulted Frank Svoboda who helped us write our ordinance. We've bounced it off ' the Army Corps and obviously they're comfortable with what we're doing. Conrad: But these were not mapped on our official wetland map? ' Krauss: We had notes, survey notes of the thing. Of at least one of them on our map and we identified it as a drained wetland. And when we went back in there, the State log, the i historical definition of how long had it been ra m aa wetland and turn around ayear later and a disincentive for example for authority sell it as developable. But these have been drained as long as anybody can recall. We even checked the Soil Conservation Service and they said, they've been supporting farm measures on this for decades. Mancino: The south, let's see. The widening of Galpin. When I read your report it said that Galpin was going to be, there's four lanes from the south access boulevard up to Highway 5. When I read the Barton- Aschman report that we got, its from Timberline Drive up to Galpin. ' ' happening is the road, Krauss: I think what's happe g you don't just go to 4 lanes. You've got to Y taper it. And the taper does start about that point. Mancino: Okay. I didn't see anywhere in that Barton- Aschman report...I didn't see anything in the discussion for berming and landscaping. Krauss: There isn't and that was a point that was raised by ... City Engineer and it's going to be taken care of. Mancino: Okay. The other, I thought I read it in the Barton- Aschman was that there was no mitigation wetlands for that south access boulevard where in your report there is a 5/10 of a ' mitigation that needs to happen where it crosses the creek. Krauss: Yeah ... there may be some and the jury's, we don't have a final—grading plan. How much is going to be impacted. You know, as I say, we've been trying to figure out...exactly U-0 11A Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 I where the wetlands are. By and large the wetlands cease to exist at the property line between Timberwood and the farm fields ... So the road may in fact not What, the road does not cross , any standing any wetlands but it does cross Bluff Creek and Bluff Creek at that point ceases to be a very channelized creek as far as ... what is a wetland. So I think there is some and we'll clarify that. ' Mancino: And it will be a 2 to 1 mitigation, starting in '94? Yeah, , Krauss: We've got to figure ou pp t. It's supposed to be as of last Friday or whatever. January 1. This is a project that's been in the hopper for b months. We've heard of a lot of communities that willy nilly kind of pre - approved all kinds of project before the deadline. , We haven't done that. But in this case we're comfortable with the fact that we've worked... It was a project that was submitted to us in October. For a number of reasons we pushed it back and we'll have to see. ' Mancino: Well I'd like to compliment staff on two concerns that I had that you brought up and were very well written in the report about the penthouses and how big they are. I would like to see those scaled down also. And also the reclamation of the corridor creek. I think that's wonderful and I hope we do it north of Highway 5 also. That if there is going to be development, that we do have that 100 foot buffer of get it back to the original native ' whatever that is. So I commend you on that. My last thing has to do with bees. I don't know where the bees came up but I don't know. That was very interesting. I looked at some to of the trees and said, you know crab apples, yeah. They have flowers and they're going ' have bees. Lindens. American lindens have flowers. They're flowering. Washington It hawthorns are. Clover. I mean we're going to have bees around this area. I don't know. So I like the crab apples and I like the lindens , just doesn't seem to me to be that important. and I like the hawthorns. I like the use of them. I wouldn't want anybody who's allergic to get stung. There's no question about that. But I don't have a big problem with the flowering plants and the trees. And that's it. , Scott: Alright. Ladd. I Conrad: Not too many questions. I like what I see. The parking seems to be a long way away from ballfields and stuff like that. I assume we've checked it out for ambulance access ' and it's there. It can get, we just don't have a problem Okay. Picking up on the last point in the staff report, or just the point we just covered. Restoring Bluff Creek. Paul, your staff report says, in the recommendations it says per the staff report but basically you .are saying , per DNR standards. Or whatever DNR says. So that's really what we're saying is talk to the DNR. Restore. 21 ' 1 Plannin g Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Krauss: Right. If I knew the answer to that ahead of time, we would be more specific. We don't but we're working with people who I think will tell us. Conrad: Okay. I think that's a neat piece. The only other thing I've got is Bluff Creek access. I'm not a real, I really don't understand the whole corridor but I know you need access to utilize it. For real people to get there and, is this going to me? Scott: News flash. Conrad: It's a news flash. I can't talk and read at the same time. But anyway, here we have ' an education site that connects to Bluff Creek which is, in my mind, just a perfect place for a real access to Bluff Creek. Now maybe there are other accesses with parking lots and what have you so you can really utilize the corridor. Maybe there are. I don't know that but here ' we have one. It connects. It's at a school. It should really be integrated into Bluff Creek. Right here. So again, I love what I see. My only comment is, if we want to make use of, if we really believe in Bluff Creek and you want to put a lot of attention to it and restoring, let's make sure people have a way of getting there and a place to park their car. This looks like to me the place to do it. That's all I have. Scott: Good. Matt. Ledvina: Just a couple more things to add. I think, I'm very concerned with the construction of this south access boulevard as it relates to the trees along the south property boundary. Now as I read the engineering plans, there's more than a 10 foot fill in the lowest spot where that quasi wetland area is. And if the roadway is going right up within the dirt line of the trees and you've got a 10 foot fill, that's not going to work. So without damaging those trees and I don't know the extent of that tree line and what significance that would have to the ' folks associated with Timbercreek but I guess what I want, and I know that's not at issue here today and I know that that will all be revisited but again, I just want to raise my concern as it relates to the grade of that road and potentially the alignment. I know perhaps it could be ' shifted just slightly to the north to accommodate retaining walls or fill slopes or whatever is necessary there. But again. Krauss: The City Engineer and I have looked at that and we had the same question and we're pretty certain that if need be, and we need to get the details on that, that the road could be routed 15 -20 feet north in most places and not really compromise anything on the school ' site and just going to provide that separation in the roof lines. Ledvina: There's also some grade changes that can be done to reduce that fill down. I don't ' know how much but you know maybe 2, 4 feet. Every little bit helps when you're in that 22 1 23 ' Planning Commission Meeting -Jams ary 5 , 1994 situation. Let's see. I guess the only other thing I have to add, and we've touched on this as it relates to Bluff Creek and I see the plan calls for grading within 20 feet of the center line and I wouldn't want to see the plan move forward. The grading plan in this fashion. I think that may be too close to the center line and if we are looking at essentially an all dirt drainageway here, we are trying to restore it, well then that has merit and there would be ' grading right, all the way into the center line if that's the case. But when I looked at this, these plans I assumed that the channel was in it's natural condition and maybe that's not -the case so, through filling, you know erosion and sedimentation of the agricultural areas here. I could see that. I would definitely support the restoration to the original conditions for the corridor. , Scott: Diane. Harberts: I guess I look at it from a public safety perspective. I know schools are very in ' tune to the whole public safety liability. Has our Public Safety Department, committee taken a look at this? Do they need to? Krauss: I don't know if the Public Safety Committee has. We've circulated copies of the plans to the Public Safety Department. ' Harberts: That might be redundant because I'm certainly aware of how much it's scrutinized by school districts or schools. The only other comment I made earlier was that I'd like to see ' a recommendation number 8 added with regard to working with Southwest Metro in the designing of the drop- off/pick -up turn around elements for public transit because it is so heavily used by the elementary kids. , Scott: What's the status of the trail system? And I'm thinking from the standpoint of having kids from adjacent neighborhoods who will be walking or will any child in this, you might ' now know this right now but will every child who goes to that elementary be taking the bus? Krauss: I think basically, well I don't know ... In terms of the trails, with the upgrading of , Galpin ... the County does their piece and the County by the way is using city money ... Turn back of TIF dollars so we can finance the upgrade of Galpin ... If that happens, we'll have a trail down Galpin. Basically from Highway 5 to Lyman Blvd. We've already had Hans ' Hagen build a portion of it. With the east/West collector, which is also .... by the time the school opens, we could well have the trail I hope basically over to Audubon. There's a chance, or shortly thereafter when the school opens. And with what's happening on the ' Centex property and the Opus property, we may have it over to TH 41 on the other side. What we won't have in the near term is a way to get across Highway 5. But you will have a signalized intersection at Galpin. ' 23 ' Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 199.4 Harberts: I have a question for Paul. Or maybe John. You know I've been working with some of the school districts with regard to the shortings that they have in school bus funds and when you put a location like this out in the sticks a little bit, has the school looked at the access by kids walking? By kids riding their bikes. You know have they looked at it from ' how practical will that be? Is there a safety issue that they have to address with that? Has that been part of the discussion in terms of the design like this? You know what's the current track? Is it to have the kids ride bikes or whatever, and if we're going to have community ' facilities like this, you know what's that element like too in terms of that kind of access because with what we're seeing for growth, with what we're seeing you know earlier tonight in terms of land use. You know some single family, multi- family even adjacent to that. ' What's the trail system going to be like to like I said, make that more pedestrian friendly access like that? Has that been integrated into the discussion at all? ' John Gockel: Yes. One of the attractive aspects of this particular site was it's proximity to anticipated trail systems. As far as, you know obviously safety is very important to the district. We, I think we almost came to blows over who was more concerned about caring for the kids and the school. Whether it was the parks commission or the principal. They both claimed to be the end all of being concerned about that. You know as far as kids riding bicycles to schools like many of us probably did. We don't live in those kinds of communities any more. We're all out in the suburbs with people spread all over the place and roads separating. So most of the kids will come by bus. Like I said, one of the attractive aspects of this site was it's proximity to the trail systems. Many sites didn't even ' offer that potential. So this building, this facility is not in the sticks ... as some of the sites we looked at. ' Harberts: Are there going to be bike racks put into this facility? ' John Gockel: There will be some bike racks. Harberts: But it's not the feeling that there's going to be a lot of access, at least for school ' class time by bike but maybe Paul by, for the community or the city rec. Krauss: Oh yeah. I think when you look, when this place opens up, by the way, we may ' also have the link completed if this Chan Corporate Center develops and comes in, we might have the link down to Bluff Creek railway crossing which would mean that—and all the industrial, the people working there will be able to hop on that trail and go up to the ' ballfields and yeah. That kind of thing will occur... Harberts: You know recalling my younger days which weren't so long ago, right? You know with that pedestrian bridge that's going over on Highway 5, I can see people from the 24 Plannin g Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 north side of town, central city here, crossing over and riding, walking, Rollerblading, or whatever even down to that location. It's not really that far if you're out on a Sunday afternoon or whatever. And if there's activities like that in the summer, that's the kind of thing and that's why I see that pedestrian bridge being real key too in terms of that kind of trail system. I mean that's not that much of a hike. It's probably going to be a nice walk or however they want to use it. So I guess that's, and I guess part of that public safety, you know like I said, I'm very well aware of it and how well school district's scrutinize that but it's just a question. That's it. , Scott: Okay. Can I have a motion? Harberts: I'll make a motion. Scott: Okay. ' Harberts: Let me look at my page 13. I'll recommend that the Planning Commission approve Site Plan Review #93 -6, Rezoning from A2 to OI and Preliminary Plat for the School ' District #112 /City of Chanhassen Recreational Complex, subject to the following conditions. Number 2 we would add letter (e). To revise the landscaping plan as follows. To address the salt spray with some of the landscaping elements suggested in earlier comments. Number ' 8. That the applicant work with Southwest Metro in the designing of the drop off, pick -up, turn around element that will accommodate public transit. I just have one question for Matt before I close. Did you want to have anything with regard to supporting that it's restored to ' the original conditions of the corridor that you talked about? Ledvina: Sure. , Mancino: Isn't that inhere? I Harberts: I'm not sure if that's fully covered. Scott: Well number 4 doesn't quite address, because it just says stay out of the flood plain ' but that has nothing to do with the restoration. Ledvina: No, that'd be appropriate. ' Harberts: Yep, and how would you like to see that worded? ' Ledvina: I would think that. 25 I Iva planning Commission Meeting - January 5 1994 Harberts: This would be added to number 4. Ledvina: I would think that we could state that the applicant shall investigate the feasibility of restoring the Bluff Creek corridor to it's original alignment and. Krauss: I'm sorry but does 2(b) get to that? Harberts: It's hard to say. Ledvina: Provide plans that respond to the goal, I would think so. I'm sorry. I didn't see that. Harberts: Okay, so you're comfortable. Mancino: You could put it on page 7. Harberts: Okay, as described in the staff report on page 7? Ledvina: Sure. Scott: Is that strong enough? Okay. Harberts: Okay. So basically we want to amend 2(b) to add that in the staff report as outlined in page 7. And I'll move that recommendation. Scott: Okay. Is there a second? Mancino: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Farmakes: What about the roof line on that gym? Harberts: On the west side? No, it wasn't on the west side. . Farmakes: It'd be on the northeast corner. The gym and the city portion of the building. Harberts: Yeah, is that covered in number 1 or not? I wasn't sure. Farmakes: I'm not sure it does. 26 January Planning Commission Meeting J ary 5 , 1994 r Mancino: ... a little bit better specifically? t, city Farmakes: We could maybe word i the ci should look at alternatives to dealing with the ' tangent massing roof line created by the gym and the support areas. , Harberts: Considered as number 9. Farmakes: We could add it as a separate motion. ' Scott: We'll skip the friendly amendment stuff. I think you're. Harberts: That would be added number 9. What Jeff had just stated. r Scott: Are we all comfortable voting on that motion? Do we all understand what the intent ' is and so forth? Farmakes: The reason I bring it up as an intent is I'm wondering from that particular comer ' of the building, based on what we've been reviewing with other applicants, whether or not we approve that I look at it as say Target. I don't think we would approve that and why ' is the city any different? Harberts: Are you clarifying the intent of number 1 then? Or are we. ' Farmakes: Well I didn't see that as, I saw that as more towards the issue of penthouse but if you want to interrupt massiveness. ' Krauss: You're spanning the scope of 1. I think the ... came up with and just tack it on to. Farmakes: Tack it on? Harberts: Okay, as number 9? ' Krauss: Or rather as expand 1... ' Harberts: Oh, just expand 1, okay. I understand that intent. Scott: Okay, so basically expand item number 1 to include reviewing the external treatment ' of the gymnasium section so that it appears. Farmakes: Break up the roof line. 27 ' s I I 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 Scott: Break up the roof line. Farmakes: Alternatives for breaking up the roof line. Scott: Okay. We've moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? I think we just had discussion. Harberts moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve Site Plan Review #93-6, Rezoning from A2 to OI and Preliminary Plat for the School District #112 /City of Chanhassen Recreational Complex, subject to the following conditions: 1. Revise architectural plans to verify that all rooftop HVAC equipment is concealed from Highway 5 and other views by enclosed penthouses, respond to staffs proposals for minimizin the massiveness of the penthouses and make provisions for a concealed trash enclosure as outlined in the staff report. Also, that the applicant look at alternatives to the external treatment of the gymnasium section to minimize it's massiveness. 2. Revise the landscaping plan as follows: a. Provide reforestation for the knoll located in the southwest corner of the site. b. Provide plans that respond to the goal of restoring Bluff Creek Corridor as described in the staff report on page 7. c. Provide a chain link safety fence between the roadways and bal fields. d. Revise parking lot landscaping as required to meet current ordinance requirements for tree species and green space. e. To address some of the landscaping concerns as related to tolerance to salt spray. 3. Provide a trail connection between the terminus of the creek trail at soccer field #2 and extend it to the access boulevard. Provide a sign indicating the presence of a temporary dead end for the trail component running north from soccer field #2. 4. Provide final grading, utility, erosion and ponding plans for City approval. No building or grading is to occur until final plans have been provided. Grading plans are to be revised to protect the Bluff Creek Corridor and stay out of the flood plain. 5. Project approval by the Riley/Purgatory/Bluff Creek Watershed District. 6. Revise the plat to describe the right -of -way for Galpin, the access boulevard, to the outlot and the future right -of -way needed for Highway 5 widening. Revise plans as necessary to 28 L E Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1994 . I stay clear of the future Highway 5 right -of -way and Galpin Boulevard right -of -way and maintain a minimum 35 foot setback from Galpin Boulevard. ' 7. Relocate the staff parking lot as required to maintain 50 foot setback. 8. Work with Southwest Metro Transit in designing the drop -off, pick -up and turn ' around elements to accommodate public transit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1 Scott: And this will be going to the City Council? Krauss: On January 24th. APP ROVAL OF MINUTES: ' Farmakes moved, Mancino seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission t meetings dated December 1, 1993 and December 4, 1993 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. , ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS. Mancino: You know this packet, the two letters you wrote to Brad and to Mr. Hiscox. ' You're talking about our schedule for the next two months or, my life is planned now. On February 2nd my question is Paul, we're going to look at a Chanhassen Corporate Center concept PUD. Will that have some conflict of again Highway 5? And having the Highway 5 ' draft approved and everything? Krauss: Well it puts you in the same ballpark that you were in when you reviewed Opus and ' you reviewed Centex. That you're being asked to do something and ... a concept and anything you do would be contingent upon adoption... ' Mancino: Okay. Just so close to Highway 5, I was wondering if we'd want to wait and do anything on Highway 5 until after City Council is done. Okay. Scott: Okay. Any other administrative approvals or open discussion? Ledvina: I had a question on the Industrial Performance Standards. Why was this review ' initiated? 29 '