7. Rezoning PUD 10 Ind Lots \� C I T Y O F PC DATE: 9/4/91 -.
CHANHASSEN
CC DATE: 9/23/91
ill k-� CASE #: 91-4 PUD
By: Aanenson/Krauss/v
II
STAFF REPORT
1 PROPOSAL: Concept Approval for Rezoning of Property from A-2,
Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development-
' Industrial for the Chanhassen Business Center
Z
1 amr LOCATION: Located south of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and
V Pacific Railroad and west of Audubon Road
I Om APPLICANT: Ryan Construction Company
700 International Center
900 Second Avenue South
IIQ Minneapolis, MN 55402
go, ial.V
II PRESENT ZONING: A-2, Agricultural Estate
fz, -• 1
ACREAGE: 93.7 acres , -" pI ,�"L �
-- ._ , .s
DENSITY: `___Wr/1/ _
ADJACENT ZONING AND i--a 3-g / _
I LAND USE: N - A-2; vacant
S - A-2; large lot residential
E - PUD-R; Lake Susan Hills 3rd Addition
IQ W - A-2 & IOP; Timberwood Estates/vacant
4 , WATER AND SEWER: Water is available for entire site, sewer is
I Q available for Phase I. A feasibility study
may need to be completed before approval of
..L.� Phases II and III.
PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : The site is currently being farmed and
contains a soybean field. There is a Class B
wetland on the site, protected by the City and
IArmy Corps of Engineers. Bluff Creek runs
through the western portion of the property.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: OI, Office Industrial
II
-1 RR
Ilk .
i
A R :OR g"
BOULEVARD R12 \ ''•'-s-
K = G•142 ri� RT • •
1 GLYNN R.= i. . ........1
Pp�1F .�
tOP .
��• t 1 a P
r 1011pealic.
wp -..:-.:2. P 0 is,i. ....„..: : 4„:-- ,
- ... ,-4te. . . sea .
.. •. ) PARK
. will —I ■ c3. Iralillt7'--.
\S4-CS-V - ...... t3 entrAirAr i
1116 i. ii
a
ill 111661„ itilralit 4t8" VA* -c4
1112 MI I
alika
daairt-p. digill dia.v.link Z.. Iti VI i 1 RI
.. -if%*omit „A. • 00,,,,,„ 1.k. _ i
u : kw'
' PARK 11r, a/I AM IVP 4 PUD
s
it 1 I - .:, ,
I
1 ' _ 1 /kIiIII
� 411111
1 4'
L! ‘s% -itptOrt -
dr HIE v-.. t Q TSAUhIL t IYMAN ? TVA'R(0:4,., ,., . ma
,,,..: i ,..,:.., i AL
-.., .---• .... ...., (7.7.:,:) t...)(
i I o
, L
, co i : A2 QQ., /
1 i 1 I
11
Ryan Construction 1
September 4, 1991
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant, Ryan Construction Company, is proposing to develop
a 12 lot Industrial Park on 94 acres of property. The proposal
staff is reviewing consists concept approval for rezoning from A-2
to PUD. Ryan Construction will be the owner and developer of the
Industrial Park/Business Center. This property is located south of
Highway 5 and adjacent to Audubon Road. The site is triangular in
shape; bounded on the north by the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul,
Pacific Railroad, on the east by Audubon Road, on the south by a
farm that is currently zoned A-2 but is guided for Low Density
Residential uses. To the east of Audubon Road is Lake Susan Hills
3rd Addition Subdivision zoned PUD-R, to the West Timberwood
Estates Subdivision and to the north so the subject site the
property is zoned of this A-2. This area is inside the MUSA line
recently expanded by the Metropolitan Council.
The proposed concept plan would result in the ultimate development
of approximately 700,000 square feet of office and industrial
space. It is proposed that this be developed in phases over a
period of several years and that some of the internal improvements
will also accordingly phased. Access will be provided by an
internal public cul-de-sac that would align with the future
connection of Lake Drive to the east. Due to site topography and
surrounding land uses, it is not feasible to construct a loop
street system or to connect this street farther to the west which
would otherwise be more desirable. One site located near the
Audubon Road bridge over the railroad tracks, is proposed for
direct access to Audubon Road due to its remote location from the
internal street system. Staff believes that this may be acceptable
but is looking at this matter in greater detail. Audubon Road will
provide the sole access to the property. This street was upgraded
by the City in 1990 in the expectation that traffic volumes would
be increased in the near future. Staff will be working with the
applicant to ensure that any necessary improvements to Audubon
Road, including the provision of turn lanes, will be constructed
concurrent with site development. I
At the present time, it is not possible to know who the ultimate
tenants of this park will be, with one significant exception. The
U. S. Weather Service has announced its plans to relocate from the
Minneapolis/ St. Paul International Airport to Chanhassen by
1993/1994. They have selected a site in the southeast corner of
the property along Audubon Road as their preferred location and
have been working with staff and the developer to prepare
appropriate plans. This use is somewhat unique in that it would
result in placement of a relatively small building and associated
radar equipment on a very large lot. Thus, most of the proposed
12 .5 acre site would remain undisturbed green space. We believe
that this is an ideal use of this corner of the site since this is
1
I
Ryan Construction
September 4, 1991
Page 3
where the industrial park will have its primary interface with
residential uses located east of Audubon Road and south of the
site.
Staff believes the concept plan to be quite well designed. The
most sensitive environmental area, located along Bluff Creek, will
' be preserved and staff is working with the applicant to protect a
recreational corridor through the area. We have located a large
underpass under the railroad tracks west of Bluff Creek that we are
hoping to utilize to facilitate connection of the recreational
trail corridor so that it ultimately can be constructed up to the
Highway 5 area, as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. While we
believe the design is a sensitive one, there are several issues
that remain to be worked out. The first concerns a proposal to
construct a storm water basin in the Bluff Creek Flood Plain. This
effort will need to be coordinated with other involved agencies to
ensure that this design is both allowable and compatible. Staff
11 has informed the developer that we will require that this pond be
designed to a standard that will provide not only storm water
ponding but also nutrient removal. The second matter concerns a
I/ Class B wetland area located near the railroad tracks near the
center of the site. This wetland is virtually indistinguishable
from the rest of the farm field but it exists none-the-less in the
National Wetlands Inventory. Staff would propose working with the
applicant to relocate this wetland to a more appropriate location
since we question that it has any real or potential value in its
current location. Staff has also informed that applicant that an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet must be submitted with the
formal plan submittals so that these and other issues can be
effectively evaluated.
The provision of utilities to this site requires some fairly
complex alternatives to be evaluated. As currently proposed, a
portion of this site would be served by existing utilities in
Audubon Road on a temporary basis. The availability of water is
not a particular concern, rather it is the sewer service that
causes some difficulty. Ultimately, plans call for provision of a
new city interceptor running somewhere in the vicinity of Bluff
Creek down to Lyman Boulevard, which will then flow from a lift
station back up to the Lake Ann Interceptor. Long term city plans
I call for most, if not all, of this site to be draining into the new
facility. As a condition of concept approval, the applicant should
be required to petition for a feasibility study so that work may
proceed immediately on the design and financing arrangements that
will be required for these very significant improvements that will
be a benefit to much of the newly incorporated MUSA area. The firm
of Bonestroo, Rosene and Anderlik, Inc. is already under contract
with the city to develop and outline of how these services may be
provided.
I
Ryan Construction
September 4, 1991
Page 4
Staff believes that the utilization of the PUD Ordinance to develop I
this property is an ideal use for this type of project. It allows
both the city and the developer to prepare well coordinated,
comprehensive and sensitive plans for a very large piece of ground
that will ensure that a high quality project will result. It is
particularly effective for use in instances such as this where
development is likely to proceed over a period of time. The PUD
Ordinance will provide a framework against which all future
developments on this property will be gauged. This will eliminate
most, if not all, the problems that could occur if this site were
simply rezoned to IOP and subdivided and developed in the usual
manner. We also believe that the PUD documentation is well
designed. Keeping in mind what we have before is a concept
submittal, we believe that most of the development issues have been
dealt with in at least a preliminary format and can easily be
refined further as required when formal application requests are
made. I
Staff recommends that the PUD concept review be approved subject to
appropriate conditions.
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL
General Site Plan/Architecture 11
The site is currently used agriculturally, soybean fields cover
most of the site. The farmed area consists of 67.6 acres of the
93.7 developable area. The 12 lots proposed are located in this
farmed area. There are two lots being created where development
will not occur; Outlot A, which will be approximately 14.3 acres
and Outlot B which will be approximately 7.8 acres. A storm water
retention pond is being proposed on a portion of Outlot A. The
balance of the parcel will be used to protect Bluff Creek,
associated flood plain and the only significant stand of trees
found on the site. Outlot B, located farther to the west, is
physically separated from the main portion of the site by Outlot A.
It is not feasible to access this parcel from Audubon Road without
causing significant environmental damage. There are no plans to
develop Outlot B at this time. It is envisioned that this would be
combined with other parcels guided for industrial use and accessed
from Galpin Boulevard. According to the National Wetland Inventory
Map, there is a marginal wetland on this site that is located
approximately where Lot 6 is proposed. Staff is coordinating any
necessary review with the Army Corps of Engineers. Staff will also
require a Wetland Alteration Permit be processed for this site.
Staff has requested that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet be
done for this site.
I
I
I/ Ryan Construction
September 4, 1991
Page 5
Since the site is essentially a large bowl dropping down to the
Bluff Creek corridor to the west, access is proposed to be provided
by a long cul-de-sac extension from Audubon Road. Staff would have
normally preferred to provide a loop street connection but this is
not possible for this site without impacting environmental features
or surrounding residential neighborhoods. Eleven of the 12
proposed development sites are clustered along the proposed cul-de-
sac or off a secondary cul-de-sac running north from the main road.
We caution the Planning Commission that, for the most part,
specific details concerning the exact layout of lots and of
buildings are highly theoretical at this particular time. These
will be developed in more detail as the project progresses. Lot 1
tis located in the northeast corner of the property. It is
difficult to access Lot 1 internally due to the layout of the site
and the elevation of Lot 1. Internal access is not impossible;
however, access onto Audubon Road may be acceptable. This matter
is being pursued further by staff.
In the narrative prepared by the applicant and in discussions with
staff, general concepts of how this site is to be planned have been
developed. The applicant's narrative is a good starting point but
staff will work to refine these standards further for formal
adoption. For example, staff will be looking for requirements that
truck loading areas be concealed from off site views by building
massing or screening. We would also ask for additional definition
with regard to building materials. We realize that this is an
industrial park and that tip-up panels and the like are going to be
utilized; however, we want to ensure that the architectural
standards that are employed maintain the high quality image that
the city has tried to develop. The applicant has indicated that
the high quality, higher profile buildings are to be located on the
high ground along Audubon Road. These buildings are likely to have
a higher percentage of office uses. We will likely be asking the
applicant to clarify this matter further and approve PUD documents.
Sites located further to the west are likely to have a higher
percentage of warehouse, manufacturing or distribution space.
Lot 12, in the southeast corner of the property, is being reserved
for the U. S. Weather Service. As the Planning Commission is
aware, the U. S. Weather Service has announced that they are
planning to relocate the Twin Cities Weather Facility onto this
site by 1993 of 1994. We believe that this is an optimal location
for the facility since there would only be a 15,000 square foot
building on a 121 acre site. Much of the site would be permanent
green space which would facilitate the buffering of the industrial
park from adjoining residential areas due to the location of this
lot.
No specific site plan approvals are being considered at this time.
As development proceeds, each development proposal will be reviewed
1
I
Ryan Construction
September 4, 1991
Page 6
under the city's site plan review standards to ensure consistency I
with good planning practices and PUD requirements.
Street/Access I
The site is being accessed off of Audubon Road. Audubon Road was
upgraded in 1990 and is designed to accommodate higher traffic
volumes. Additional improvements, most likely incorporating turn
lanes, will be required to support this project.
Access to the 11 lots will be from the extension of Lake Drive
West. This street will be a long cul-de-sac, approximately 1700
feet. Lots 2, 3 and 4 will access off an additional cul-de-sac
from Lake Drive West. Lot 1 is proposed to be served by an
individual driveway to Audubon Road due to grades and its remote
location. The Engineering Department has stated that because
Audubon Road is a major traffic collector, according to the Eastern
Carver County Transportation Study, they would prefer that all
access driveways should be from interior streets to reduce access
points on Audubon Road. A detailed traffic study should be
prepared to determine what types of turn lanes will be required to
handle anticipated traffic volumes generated by this proposal.
Landscaping/Tree Preservation
The western portion of the site contains some unique vegetative
features. These features include Bluff Creek Flood Plain, ranging
in size from 150 to 1100 feet in width and a large stand of mature
trees approximately 6 acres in size. Page 5 of the site plan shows
the proposed treatment of these features and landscaping plan.
The applicants are planning to leave the existing mature stand of
trees which include oak, ash, basswood and ironwood ranging in size
from new growth to 30" caliper. As currently planned, the city
would take title to Outlot A and permanently protect this area.
The applicants are also proposing to alter the flood plain of Bluff
Creek to build a storm water retention pond. No development will
occur on Outlot A and B (except for the retention pond) . According
to the site plan, all open space, non-parking lot surfaces shall be
landscaped, rockscaped or coved with plantings and/or lawn
materials. The southern and eastern property lines will need
additional landscaping to provide an appropriate buffer from the
existing residential properties. Staff will require that all
landscape buffering be installed in the first phase of development.
Grading/Drainage
The conceptual site plan proposes to grade the entire site
exclusive of Outlot A which contains Bluff Creek. The grading I
appears to maintain the existing drainage pattern which is westerly
towards Bluff Creek Watershed. As part of this development, the
I
i
I/ Ryan Construction
September 4, 1991
Page 7
applicants propose to construct a retention pond. Because the
retention pond is proposed on the flood plain, it loses valuable
storage area and will require mitigation. The applicant needs
1/ approval of the DNR, Watershed District and Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) . Relocation outside of the flood plain is
likely to be required.
The storm water plan proposes conveying storm water runoff through
a series of storm sewer pipes which end up discharging into the
retention pond. Each lot is being provided with storm sewer for
future extension to the proposed individual developments. This
will eliminate the need to require individual retention ponds on
each site which leads to less maintenance. Staff is going to
require that the pond be built to "NURP" standards to maximize
nutrient removal. A formal erosion control plan will also be
required to protect water resources.
11 An existing Class B wetland is located on the site near the
railroad tracks. It is virtually non-existent and has been
cultivated for an extended period of time. Staff does not object
' to the proposal to fill it but mitigation, in the form of a
relocated wetland, is going to be required. The U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers is currently evaluating this wetland.
Utilities
Preliminary utility plans appear to be acceptable but this issue is
likely to be a fairly complex one that will require considerable
effort to resolve. Plans show the utilization of public water and
sewer and, for the most part, illustrations of how these services
would be provided on the site are reasonable. As would be
expected, detailed drawings and calculations will be required with
the formal submittal.
The provision of city water into the site is not particularly
difficult and staff agrees with the proposal to loop water services
internally to maintain pressure and emergency flows. The bigger
problem area concerns sanitary sewer. On a temporary basis, plans
call for the tapping into services on existing lines located in
Audubon Road. It appears as though these lines may have, at least
for the time being, some excess capacity. This condition will
continue to persist until other parcels in the area are developed.
Thus, on a preliminary basis, it appears to be reasonable that
temporary service could be provided for some of the lots. The
ultimate determination as to whether or not this is feasible or not
will; however, be contingent upon formal feasibility studies.
The larger issue with sanitary sewer relates to how the city plans
on providing services to a large part of the newly acquired MUSA
area which is located in what is called the Bluff Creek Drainage
I
I
Ryan Construction I
September 4, 1991
Page 8
Area. Originally, when the 1980 City Comprehensive Plan was 11
approved, this area was to be served by the Bluff Creek Interceptor
which would have been either a regional facility or one constructed
between the City of Eden Prairie and Chanhassen. Over the years;
however, the possibility of this line being built has become
virtually nonexistent, thus, the City of Chanhassen must work with
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to find viable alternatives.
Under the recently approved Comprehensive Plan, the MWCC approved
the placement of a lift station in the vicinity of Lyman Boulevard
into which this entire area could drain by gravity and then
utilizing forcemains to pump the sewage back up the hill into the
Lake Ann Interceptor. At this time, a consultant working for
Bonestroo, Rosene and Anderlik, the city's engineering consultant
on this matter, is exploring appropriate methods of how to serve I
this area. We expect to have their completed report shortly.
The most, if not all of the Chanhassen Business Center site along
with virtually all the other land located in the MUSA area south of
Hwy. 5 would probably be required to drain into this new system.
As such, they will need to participate in the construction of these ,,
facilities and would be expected to assume responsibility of paying
for their fair share of the improvements. Ryan Construction and
staff have been discussing this matter actively for several months
and this is reflected in the current concept plan submittal. As a
condition of concept approval, Ryan should be required to petition
the city to do a formal feasibility study for this project as well
as for internal utilities and streets. If the construction time
table for this project is to be maintained, it is imperative that
the feasibility study be completed as quickly as possible.
Park and Recreation I
The applicants have developed a loop trail system around the entire
site. The applicants are proposing to dedicate Outlot A and the
trail system in lieu of park dedication fees. The applicants are
working with the Park and Recreation Commission on this matter.
Initial indications are that the Park and Recreation Commission may
not accept the land in lieu of cash since most of this area is off
limits to development in any event. They are scheduled to review
the proposal in September.
REZONING
The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 94 acres from
A-2 Agricultural Estate District to PUD-OI, Planned Unit
Development Office Industrial. The following review constitutes
our evaluation of the PUD request. The review criteria are taken
from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance.
I
I
Ryan Construction
September 4, 1991
Page 9
Justification for Rezoning to PUD
Section 20-501. Intent
Planned unit development developments offer enhanced flexibility to
develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning
district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a
greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction
phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange
for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that
the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality
and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the
other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's
responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to
realized as evaluated against the following criteria:
Planned unit developments are to encourage the following:
1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space
and protection of sensitive environmental features, including
' steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic
views.
FINDING: In this proposed development the applicant intends
to save the existing stand of mature trees along Bluff Creek,
located on Outlot A. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
identifies the creek corridor as Park/Open Space.
2 . More efficient and effective use of land, open space and
public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and
development of land in larger parcels.
FINDING: The subject property is triangular in shape, bounded
by the creek, railroad tracks and Audubon Road. The shape of
the property prohibits design flexibility that one could find
with a flat square piece of property. The advantage in the
PUD proposal is that the city is gaining a totally planned
concept. If this were to develop separately as individual
parcels, many of these design considerations would not be
included. These design elements include an approved sign
package, uniform street and parking lot lighting, compatible
or cohesive architecture and building materials. The
coordination of site development will also improve the
efficiency and cost effectiveness of public improvements. For
example, the project is large enough to help facilitate a
solution to providing sewer service to the new MUSA area.
Also, the development of a single, comprehensive drainage
system will maximize the effectiveness of nutrient removal
efforts while reducing the city's long term maintenance costs.
1
I
11
Ryan Construction I
September 4, 1991
Page 10
3. High quality design and design compatibility with surrounding I
land uses, including both existing and planned. Site
planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect
higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the
community.
FINDING: The applicants are proposing to submit individual
building plans for each development lot. The city will
utilize its normal site plan review procedure for each. The
approved PUD documents will establish firm guidelines to
ensure that the site is developed in a consistent and well
planned manner. Higher quality development will result.
4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between I
different land uses and along significant corridors within the
city will be encouraged.
FINDING: This site is bounded on the east by Audubon Road. I
The Comprehensive Land Use Map calls for a 50 foot buffer yard
for additional buffering for the subdivision to the east. In
addition, the Comprehensive Plan calls for a 100 foot buffer
yard along the southern property line. This area will
eventually be developed with single family homes consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan. Concept plans call for
establishing an acceptable landscape buffer in the appropriate
areas. Site topography and tree cover will also place much of
the site beyond the view of adjacent residential areas. In
addition, the location of the U. S. Weather Service site along
Audubon Road will improve buffering. Most of this site will
remain permanent open space.
5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
FINDING: The Comprehensive Land Use Map identifies the
subject area as the potential land use of Office/Industrial.
The Land Use Map also identifies a Park/Open Space corridor,
300 to 400 hundred feet in width, running the entire length of
the property. This area is located in proposed Outlot A area
on the site plan. The Comprehensive Plan also identifies a
buffer strip 50 to 100 feet in width along Audubon Road and
along the southern side of the property line. The intent of
this buffer line is to help preserve and establish vegetation
to help mitigate the impacts of development to surrounding
properties. The proposal is fully consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
6. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may
be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be
consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail
plan.
I
I
11 Ryan Construction
September 4, 1991
Page 11
FINDING: The site plan shows a loop trail around the
perimeter of the site, terminating at the northern and
southern property line along Audubon Road. The applicants may
propose to develop only the south half of this loop, with a
connection then being made through the railroad tunnel and
onto the property to the north which is also controlled by
Ryan Construction. In addition, the Park/Open Space corridor
along Bluff Creek, including the mature stand of trees, will
be preserved. The Park and Recreation Commission will be
reviewing this proposal in September.
7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if
appropriate with the PUD.
FINDING: This provision of the PUD district is not applicable
to this proposal.
8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building
designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land
I uses.
FINDING: Ryan Construction intends to pursue the use of
railroad spur lines for Lots 2, 4, 6 and 7 during the
preliminary design stage. The applicants are proposing energy
conservation for the buildings in two ways. First, earth
mounding will help shield the buildings from the seasonal
weather extremes. Secondly, architectural treatment of the
building will attempt to capture the most efficient and
effective design related to energy conservation.
The lighting fixtures selected for use in the parking lot
areas and on the public streets will be outfitted with an
energy saving type of lamp. Additionally, they will include
photo electric cells to turn them on/off automatically.
9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the
potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads
and intersections may be required as appropriate.
FINDING: The main access to the site is off of Audubon Road.
Designated as a collector street by the City Comprehensive
Plan, it was upgraded last year. Traffic improvements such as
turn lanes that may be warranted to support the project will
11 be recommended as a condition of approval. This road is a
Carver County Collector. All access for the lots will be from
the proposed extension of Lake Drive West. The applicants are
requesting to have access onto Audubon from Lot 1. The
traffic study will also review this proposal.
1
I
f
Ryan Construction
September 4, 1991
Page 12
Summary I
Staff finds the request to be reasonable. We believe it will
result in a high quality development that is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, ordinance standards and the goal of creating a
project that is sensitive to its surroundings. As a matter of
courtesy, we would recommend that the applicant meet with area
residents informally and respond to concerns that they may have.
We note that staff expanded the notice area somewhat so that
residents in the Timberwood/Sun Ridge Court and south Audubon Road
area could be involved.
Staff has informed the applicant that an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet must be prepared to support the proposal. We believe it
is necessary to allow the city to conduct a realistic appraisal of
the project.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE ,
On September 4, 1991, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to
recommend approval of the PUD Concept Plan for the Chanhassen I
Business Center subject to the conditions in the staff report.
At the public hearing, the residents expressed some concern with
the industrial use abutting the residential use. The Planning
Commission stated they want to ensure adequate buffering through
appropriate means including landscaping. Traffic was also another
area of concern expressed by the residents. Staff reported that
the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) will be addressing
this specific issue and staff will be doing a careful analysis of
any findings. I
The Planning Commission felt favorable about the conceptual design
and the proposed zoning for the Chanhassen Business Center. 1
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the PUD Concept Plan for the Chanhassen I
Business Center be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the project
to be reviewed with formal PUD request.
2 . Petition the. City to undertake a feasibility study on
providing services to the site.
3 . Prepare a formal PUD submittal responding to issues raised in
this report, as well as those raised at Planning Commission
and City Council meetings, while working with staff on the
plan development.
I
I
Ryan Construction
September 4, 1991
Page 13
ATTACHMENTS
1. Memo from Mark Littfin dated August 28, 1991.
2. Memo from Dave Hempel dated August 28, 1991.
3. Planning Commission minutes dated September 4, 1991.
4. Narrative from applicant.
5. Concept plans.
I
1
1
I
i
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITY OF
if
I
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 1
MEMORANDUM
I
TO: Kathy Aanenson, Planner
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal 11
DATE: August 28 , 1991
SUBJ: 91-4 PUD - Rezone Agricultural District to Industrial (East of
Audubon Road, South of Milwaukee, St . Paul Pacific Railroad. )
II
Comments and/or recommendations :
1 . Cul-de-sac at end of street "A" & "B" must accommodate ,
turnaround for Fire Department Aerial Truck.
2 . Hydrants must be spaced at three hundred (300 ' ) foot intervals . I
3 . Additional Fire Hydrant needed 300 ' west of Audubon on proposed
street A. I
4 . Move hydrant on street B, 150 ' closer to street A.
5 . A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants , II
ie: NSP, telephone, gas .
6 . Street names must be approved by the Public Safety Department
and Fire Department .
7 . Indicate size of D. I .P. water main on "B" street .
II
11
II
II
II
I
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
014°;111 I
;= 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kate Aanenson, Planner II
FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician
DATE: August 28, 1991
SUBJ: Proposed Chanhassen Business Center
File No. 91-13 LUR
Upon review of the concept plans for the Chanhassen Business
Center located along the west side of Audubon Road lying south of
the railroad tracks , as prepared by Ryan Construction Company
dated August 9, 1991, I offer the following comments and
recommendations:
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
The site consists of generally rolling terrain and is employed in
agricultural uses . The concept proposes the entire site to be
mass graded as a part of the phase I construction. The grading
plan appears to overall maintain the existing site drainage
I/ pattern . The site currently drains westerly into the Bluff Creek
watershed. As a part of this development, plans propose
construction of a retention pond to collect the industrial park
storm runoff . The retention pond is proposed within the flood
plain which in turn loses valuable flood staging area and will
require mitigation. The applicant should be required to work
with the DNR, Watershed District and Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) in amending the floodway boundaries.
The plans proposed conveying storm water runoff through a series
of storm sewer pipes which end up discharging into the retention
pond. Each lot is being provided with ,a storm sewer lead for
future extension to proposed individual developments . This will
eliminate the need to require individual retention ponds on each
site which in turn leads to much less maintenance.
UTILITIES
The site is proposed to be serviced with municipal water and
sanitary sewer service in three phases . Service will be
I
I
I
Kate Aanenson
August 28 , 1991 1
Page 2
initially extended with phase I from Audubon Road at the I
intersection of future Lake Drive West. The water system will
eventually be looped throughout the business center back out to
Audubon Road south of Heron Drive. A detailed water analysis
shall be prepared by the applicant 's engineer to insure adequate
fire flow and good water quality . The final locations of fire
hydrants , which typically is based upon a maximum spacing of 300
feet, will be reviewed with and approved by the City when final
plans are prepared.
The plans also propose extending municipal sanitary sewer 11
initially from Audubon Road as a part of phase I. Both capacity
and gravity constraints will require the entire site eventually
be serviced by a future extension of a trunk line from the south.
This parcel is included with the City' s comprehensive sanitary
sewer study. This development should petition the City to
initiate preparation of a feasibility study to extend a trunk 11
sanitary sewer line to service this area and adjacent parcels .
As a part of phase I construction the concept plans propose that
Lots 1, 3, 10 and 11 be temporarily serviced by the City ' s
existing sanitary sewer in Audubon Road until such time as a
sewer line is available from the south. In addition, based on
as-built plans, it appears Lot 12 may also be temporarily
serviced through the City's existing sanitary sewer at the
intersection of Heron Drive and Audubon Road. However, the
watermain would need to be extended south along Audubon Road. I
Sanitary sewer design for this site should be evaluated with the
development 's environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) .
STREETS
The plans propose a single entrance to the business park from
Audubon Road. The access is aligned with the future extension of
Lake Drive West. The proposed street ( "A") becomes a very long
cul-de-sac of approximately 1700 feet with no plans for
extension. A detailed traffic study should be prepared to
determine exactly what types of turn lanes will . be required to
handle anticipated traffic movements generated with this proposal
at the intersection of Lake Drive West and Audubon Road. As the
final plat is prepared, detailed construction drawings of the
street improvements should also be submitted to the City for
review and approval . The roadway should be designed to the
City' s commercial/industrial standards .
The plans propose a driveway access for Lot 1 directly off
Audubon Road. According to the Eastern Carver County
Transportation Study, Audubon Road will be a major traffic
I
I
I
I/ Kate Aanenson
August 28 , 1991
Page 3
collector . It is recommended that all driveway accesses be off
interior streets in an effort to reduce access points onto
Audubon Road. If no feasible interior driveway access is
available, at a minimum the driveway access for Lot 1 should be
located in such a way to align with the existing driveway across
the street (Stockdal'e property) .
MISCELLANEOUS
11 The appropriate utility and drainage easements should be conveyed
on the final plat for utility and drainage improvements outside
of the street right-of-way . Additional right-of-way may be
required along Audubon Road (80 feet total right-of way width) .
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
1 . Storm drainage pipes shall be designed for a 10-year
frequency storm utilizing the "rational method" .
2 . Storm drainage retention and detention areas and outlet
piping shall be designed for a 100-year frequency, 24-hour
storm duration, single event using the "SCS method"
1 established for use in Minnesota. The discharge rate shall
not exceed the predeveloped runoff rate.
3 . All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in
accordance with the current edition of the City' s standard
specifications and detail plates . Detailed street and
utility construction plans and specifications shall be
submitted for City Council approval . Street improvements
shall conform with the City' s commercial/industrial
standards .
4 . The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the
Watershed District, DNR and other appropriate regulatory
agencies and comply with their conditions of approval .
5 . An erosion control plan shall be developed and incorporated
into the grading plan . Final grading and drainage plans
shall be prepared and submitted for City Council approval .
6 . The applicant shall relocate the proposed retention pond
outside of the flood plain or be required to work with FEMA
1 in amending flood plain boundaries .
7 . The watermain system shall be designed to insure adequate
' fire flow for the site. Detailed calculations shall be
submitted to the City Engineer verifying pipe sizing.
1
I
I/
Kate Aanenson
August 28 , 1991
Page 4
8 . The applicant shall petition the City to initiate preparation 1
of a feasibility report for the construction of the trunk
sanitary sewer to provide sanitary sewer service for the
entire site.
9 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with
the City and provide the financial security to guarantee
I/
compliance with the terms of the contract.
10 . The applicant shall prepare an environmental assessment
worksheet for the site .
11 . The applicant shall be responsible for construction of all
roadway improvements along Audubon Road necessitated by this
development, i .e. right and left turn lanes .
12 . All lots shall be accessed from internal streets and not from
Audubon Road.
13 . Wiring conduits should be installed at the intersection of
Audubon Road and Lake Drive West as a part of this project to
enable the installation of a traffic signal in the future.
14 . Street lighting should be incorporated into the construction
plans for the development. Lighting shall be consistent with
the Chanhassen Business Park area and Lake Drive.
ktm 1
c: Charles Folch, City Engineer
1
1
I
1
1
I
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
September 4 , 1991 - Page 20
I/ Conrad: No .
IEmmings: Jeff?
Farmakes: No.
IIEmmings: Me either . Is there a motion?
Erhart: Now we know why we have seven people on the Planning Commission .
Emmings: Huh?
II Erhart: So you can get motions . That 's why they have seven people on the
Planning Commission is so they get motions fast .
Conrad: I recommend approval .
Erhart: Where are we?
IIEmmings: It 's on the first page .
Conrad: I know but there 's nothing .
IIOlsen: Because there 's so many different sections we just , you can just
say recommend approval of the bluff protection ordinance I think will
Isuffice .
Conrad: Okay , recommend approval of the bluff protection ordinance as
found in the staff report dated August 28th .
IIErhart: I 'll second it .
Emmings: Alright , is there any discussion?
Conrad moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Bluff Protection Ordinance as presented by staff in the
IIstaff report dated August 28, 1991 . All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
IPUBLIC HEARING
REZONING OF 94 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT TO
PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO CREATE 10 INDUSTRIAL LOTS LOCATED SOUTH OF
ICHICAGO. MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL AND PACIFIC RAILROAD AND EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD.
RYAN CONSTRUCTION.
Public Present:
' Name Address
I Kent Carlson Ryan Construction
Brook Lillestol 8460 Bittern Court
Rick Allerdings 8461 Cittern Court
IIJeff & Ann Kullberg 8480 Bittern Court
Mike & JoAnna Adler 8470 Bittern Court
I
Planning Commission Meeting I
September 4 , 1991 - Page 21
Name Address
Doug Barinsky 8731 Audubon
Don White 8850 Audubon
Mark Laaser 8037 Erie Avenue
Kathy Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Emmings: Is that retention pond taking water from what part of the site? II
Aane'nson: Pardon me?
Emmings: What part of the site would be draining into that retention pond? "
Aanenson: The entire project .
Krauss: The entire site would drain into it . We 've also asked that the
developer develop this pond to the NERPS standards so we 're not only
retaining water but we 're removing nutrients. i
Erhart: Excuse me . The pond's not shown on the plans at this point .
Krauss: No it is . If you look at the grading plan . 1
Aanenson: It 's on there . It's noted.
Erhart: Oh, okay . So it 's completely out of what we consider existing
wetland or it 's out of the existing wetland?
Aanenson: It 's in a floodplain .
Krauss: You mentioned that the wetland that 's located on the property . I
think we 've been out to the site several times and calling it a wetland 's a
little bit expansive . Right now it 's a spot in the soybeans where beans
don 't grow real well .
Erhart: Are you talking about Outlot A or are you talking about Lot 6?
Aanenson: Lot 6. 1
Erhart: Oh, I understand that .
Kathy Aanenson continued with her staff report presentation at this point . II
Chairman Emmings called the public hearing to order .
Kent Carlson: My name is Kent Carlson . I 'm with Ryan Construction Company ',
and I thought we 'd just maybe talk a couple of minutes about our
organization and the things that we see happening on the site over the next
few years. I 'll make our advertisement for our firm brief as possible but
to give you a little background on our firm , we 're 53 years old. We 're a
design-build construction development organization and we 're fully
integrated with our own staff of design people . Our property management
people . Our construction people. Financing and development people . We 've II
I
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
September 4 , 1991 - Page 22
IIbeen in the business for over ' 50 years . Started up in Hibbing in the coal
and lumber business and then moved down to the Minneapolis area in the
' early 60 's and since then have developed over 3 1/2 million square feet of •
property that we currently own and manage . During the boom years of the
80's we did a lot of development for our portfolio and a lot of third party
development . That ratio is about 75% for our portfolio and 25% for third
II party owners and our clients who own and occupy their own facilities .
Today the market's changed a little bit . We see a lot more of our business
70%-80% of it now being done for third party people and that's what we
II anticipate happening on this site . A number of build to suit projects
which would be homes for a lot of manufacturing organizations and warehouse
and distribution organizations . We do plan and have on the drawing board
several multi-tenant properties that we would own and manage ourselves
within our portfolio . With me tonight is Dick Koppe with RLK and
Associates and he is the engineer for the site. He is here to help us
answer more technical questions and with that I guess we 'll open it up to
IIyour questions . Thank you .
Emmings: Okay , thank you. This is a public hearing again. Are there any
IImembers of the public here who want to address this issue?
Brook Lillestol : My name is Brook Lillestol . My address is 8460 Bittern
Court . I have a couple of concerns . One was in doing this change , does
this mean that the road itself , Audubon Road is restructured as far as the�
amounr f trucks that can go through there as far as weight wise and
stuf� mean the road itself has gone dramatically over the past year as
II far ie amount of traffic I guess you could say and there 's nothing that
we c wally do about that but I guess my concern is, is there going to be
a re cture for I think there's a zoning like a 10 ton truck to go on or
Isometning like that?
Emmings: Let 's see , are you asking if there 's a limit on the size of
trucks that can use the road?
IIBrook Littestol : Yes , exactly.
I Hempel : Audubon Road has just recently gone through an upgrade . It 's been
built to a 9 ton commercial standard. It's proposed to be kind of a north/
south collector according to the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study
and we anticipate increased volumes of commercial traffic and normal
residential traffic on that road over the next 10-20 years . As far as
roads being built to accommodate such truck traffic, it's one of the
purposes of the recent reconstruction of it and upgrading .
' Emmings: Okay. Does that answer your question?
Brook Littestol : Yeah, I guess so . In other words it 's going to be up?
In other words there will be more truck traffic and there will be a higher?
I Hempel : Well potentially yes . From this development will increase the
truck traffic but the traffic study would probably give us a better
analysis of which direction they would be going I guess . My first thought
would be access to TH 5 versus going to the south however .
I
Planning Commission Meeting 1
September 4 , 1991 - Page 23
Emmings: Once 212 is built that could change .
Hempel : Exactly . I
Brook Littestol : Okay . The other thing I wanted to ask you was as far as
the long term effect and I 'm very new at this because of the fact that I 'm I
a new homeowner and I 've never owned a home before and as far as long term
effect . As far as property taxes . Does this at any point change? In
other words , with a development versus a residential area going in there .
Emmings: This property is right now it's zoned A-2, is that correct?
Krauss: Yes . I
Emmings: But in our Comprehensive Plan it was zoned as industrial property
and that 's the way we saw it 's use going . The effect on , now you live
where in relation to this property? You live across Audubon from this?
Brook Littestol : Yeah , right across . My backyard faces Audubon Road .
Emmings: Okay . And are you asking me if this project is going to have an 11
impact on the value of your property?
Brook Littestol : Right . I
Emmings: I have no idea . That 's a question for an assessor or somebody
like - -at . There 's no way for me to know . We do have also in the
comp- ensive plan realizing that there 's residential properties across the
stree , Paul actually_came up with this buffer yard concept where we
increase the setbacks for the industrial properties because we know that
there 's a residential development across the street . You get some
separation with the road itself but it will also put in this buffer yard
concept to get the buildings back even further away from the residential
areas. Trying to get as much open space as we could between those two very II
different uses . Maybe Paul can , what 's the difference between a normal
setback and the difference with the buffer yard?
Krauss: The buffer yard was designed to increase the setback area and to II
require that an area be set aside so it can be permanently landscaped to
serve as additional screening. Normally an industrial setback might be 50 II
feet . What the buffer yard does is along Audubon Road it adds another 50
feet that's permanently set aside with an easement and covenant so you have
a much greater setback . And internally where you don't have a street , that
buffer yard is 100 feet wide . This issue was explored quite a bit during
the Comprehensive Plan. Going back a ways, some of the people in the
audience , I know Doug Barinsky was here at that time. Originally one of
the versions of the Comprehensive Plan had the industrial property line or II
the industrial line going down to Sun Ridge Court . That was knocked out
after a lot of discussion because it was concluded that the high point on
the property , this area was right about here . There were some homes on 11 Audubon that this could most appropriate , the Rod Grams farm, be most
appropriately developed for residential uses . I believe your subdivision
is in this area right here that 's not showing up on our map.
I
II Planning Commission Meeting
September 4 , 1991 - Page 24
IIBrook Littestol : Right .
I Krauss: The IOP section picks up here. This is the site . There 's also an
industrial site , actually two of them along the as yet unfinished road that
separates your subdivision, between your subdivision and the railway
tracks . What else , another thing that helps this project is that there 's a
II 12 acre site right here that the Weather Service is looking at taking and
that 's really the highest ground in there . They're going to be moving or
they 're proposing to move the weather facility , the regional weather
facility out from the airport to Chanhassen . There is a radar unit that
comes with it that they 've shown us that has some height questions . It 's
not as high as we thought it would be but basically on a 12 acre site
I they're only going to be developing a tenth of it and the rest of it's all
going to be green space and that's the area that's the closest to your
subdivision . So we 're pushing everything back down behind the hill so it 's
down in that valley .
IIEmmings: And the land slopes down there so .
IBrook Littestol : Right .
Emmings: I think we 've tried real hard to try and find a way to minimize
the impact of that industrial area .
IBrook Littestol : Well it sounds like you guys have done some planning
obvic _-ly but my third question , which me and Dave had talked about this ,
II is a: the landscaping . As far as if this goes into effect , what kind of
land_- ding does it go in? You had talked about an easement on there and
ever: - ing else . Because I mean I really don't think they're going to put
Ihighway seed out there like you did in my backyard .
Krauss: No . To be honest we 're not, the plans haven't been that well
developed . This is a concept stage and we're not looking at the final
II details yet . They'll be coming back through again and we 'll have more
information on that . But the development itself is obligated to do some of
the work and additional work would be done on individual sites . Individual
sites we won 't know until they actually come in with them but the buffer is
going to be established along some sort of phasing program so that 's up and
running as the properties are developed. What we 're going to be getting
II and the ordinance , I don 't know exactly what it's going to be because we
haven 't had it laid out but the ordinance talks about a combination of
berming and landscaping and preservation of topography, wherever that's
useful to do that to separate direct views . I can't tell you you're not
going to see anything there because you probably will but I know that the
homes are sort of located on the other side of the street and the street
goes up and then starts going down on the other side. We 'll do everything
Ipossible to screen it . There's probably going to be some . . .
Brook Littestol : Okay , thank you .
' Emmings: You bet . Is there anyone else here who wants to?
Jeff Kullberg: My name 's Jeff Kullberg. I live on 8480 Bittern Court . My
IIfirst concern , what sort of restrictions are there and what types of
I
Planning Commission Meeting 1
September 4 , 1991 Page 25
businesses will be allowed to locate in this park?
Krauss: As an industrial park , you know our industrial park , the best
example of our industrial park is to go see what 's in the existing parks
that we have right now . There's a cross section of office/manufacturing/
research and some warehouses . Now this one is somewhat more unique because "
we're going with a zoning category that allows us to basically have a
contract established with the developers of what will go in there . But it
probably will allow full range of industrial uses . We would expect to have
prohibitions against smelting plant or that kind of a heavy industry . We II
would be looking at the high tech, lighter industry stuff and possibly Kent
might want to expand on that but I 've got to believe that this will look a
whole lot like what we already have on the ground right now. ,
Jeff Kullberg: The thing I 'm concerned about is things, any sort of retail
development . Any kind of thing that could pollute the ground water or that 'll
is very high buildings which could be aesthetically unpleasing .
Krauss: Height is something that's regulated. We would establish some
regulations on that . Right now I believe you can have a 50 foot height
limitation in the industrial district. It will probably be something
consistent with that . Of course there 's buildings rolling off down the
hill and you 're fighting grade so you 'll see less and less of it . We would "
also work with them to do things like shielding truck loading areas. . .
building mass to , to bury them towards the back . There 's a lot of things
we 'll be working with in fine detail .
Emmings: He asked about retail .
Krauss: Oh , retail would not be allowed in this district . Also we should II
add too that the premise that the developer 's working under is that the
sites that are along Audubon Road , because they have the visibility, are
higher quality sites and would tend to be a higher percentage of office as
we read the proposal . The more intense uses or the more square footage
intensive uses would be down in the valley.
Emmings: You mean office . . . '
Krauss: . . .higher percentage of office along Audubon. The higher profile
buildings . I
Emmings: Okay .
Jeff Kullberg: Okay, another concern we have is presently where McGlynn's I
is located now . There are times we drive by there , there's a dozen semi
trucks parked along Audubon Road and we were just wondering, is that same
thing going to move down to adjacent to our houses now as they 're waiting II
to be serviced in these distribution facilities? Is there going to be any
no parking signs on Audubon?
Krauss: There is no parking . In fact McGlynn's is doing it and I 've seen II
it during construction , they shouldn't be doing it . In fact we 've also had
some questions arise when Paisley Park is doing a movie they park along
there . Those are both situations that should not exist and are not
I
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
September 4 , 1991 - Page 26
allowed . We do try to work with these people and when McGlynn 's was under
construction they . . .out there . If there's a concern or a problem , let us
1 know and we 'll respond to that . That 's not permitted.
Jeff Kullberg: Okay . That's all I have . Thank you .
Emmings: Anybody else?
Ann Kullberg: Yeah , I guess I have .
Emmings: Would you like to give us your name?
I Ann Kullberg: I 'm Ann Kullberg and I live at 8480 Bittern Court . I have a
comment to that because as of right now I believe there are no parking
signs along that street . I have a concern because my lot backs up to
Audubon and when I have children I do not want them running up to that and
having semis there . It's very dangerous at night driving along that
street . I 've driven along there several nights when there 's been over a
dozen semis . I had a neighbor tell me today when I talked to her about
coming to this. meeting tonight , that she saw children running along inside
around those semis . It 's a very dangerous situation and I guess that 's
something that I wish you would include is possibly putting up no parking
' signs along there .
Emmings: Okay , thank you .
' Doug Barinsky: My name is Doug Barinsky . I live on Audubon Road just
south of there and as Paul pointed out , I did spend quite a bit of time
last year in the land use plan when you determined what we were going to do
l here and we were against it but that 's been decided and that really isn 't
why I came tonight but I think that this issue of traffic is what I was
really kind of interested in and the way this has been laid out I think
will work . As long as we don't end up with variances down the road
II allowing all those lots along there to have direct access onto Audubon .
I 'm glad our Mayor is here tonight because this is a significant safety
hazard that 's going on out there right now with McGlynn's. Paul just
I acknowledged here that it 's not allowed but yet for some reason the City is
ignoring it . There are at least on some nights a dozen trucks double
parked on both sides of the road. They start right at the driveway of
' McGlynn's . Totally block the viewpoint of anybody entering or exiting into
McGlynn 's driveway and so my input or my reason for even standing up here
is this is approached and obviously will increase the truck traffic. This
is going to have to be dealt with and I would hope that the City Council
I and the Planning Commission would be very adamant about when they approve
the entrance to this whole program, that it be locked in day one in a very
clear understanding that there 's not going to be variances offered later
' similar to what happened I believe with PMT this last year . There they
came along and wanted an expansion and got the okay to have a separate road
onto Audubon . So I drive it every day both ways . I think a lot of these
' people here do too and we're going to have more residential out there which
is going to add to the problem. So I hope that if somebody can pass that
word onto our safety commission , .this has got to get dealt with before you
allow more industrial development out there . So thank you .
1
I
Planning Commission Meeting I
September 4 , 1991 - Page 27
Emmings: Thank you . I
Mark Laaser : Again my name is Mark Laaser . We are proposing to build next II
spring on Sun Ridge Court which is again south of the proposed development
here. I need to say yeah, one of those lots there you just put up. I have
no specific objection to this . I mean I trust the reputation of the
developers . I have just a general observation to make and the meeting
tonight allows me the opportunity to make it . That is this . One of the
reasons people like us move to communities like Chanhassen is that we want
to be in proximity to the advantages of the city and yet enjoy the rural
quality of the community in which we live. The thought that I would like II
to share is I had the opportunity to drive back to visit relatives in the
Chicago area and I grew up on the west side of Chicago in a suburb called
Downers Grove and we have a rather well known toliway. Of course Illinois
does not do anything without charging a toll for it but , called the East/
West Tollway and since I have been a teenager I watched that whole area
between basically Oakbrook , Downers Grove , that area and Naperville , if any
of you are familiar with these areas, develop from a rural community
exactly like Chanhassen and Waconia and Chaska and all these other places
into a major league industrial corridor . You know the havoc that it has
created has been , to me anyway , unbelieveable to the point of raising
office buildings there with no parking and creating traffic jams that are
something unknown to us at this point in Minneapolis . So my comments are ,
directed toward 10-15 years into the future as well as this specific area
which T hope the Planning Commission takes those kinds of things into
consi&ration . I would hestitate or I would hate to think that TH 5 is
9011 - o become like the area I 'm describing. I don't know if any of you II
knot. is area in Chicago . It 's probably a grieving issue for me because
- ;en sad to see a rural area develop into high tech. High tech is
valuable and all of that but so anyway . i
Emmings: Maybe we could make Audubon Road a tollway . . . Would that help?
Mark Laaser : Well , to be quite honest with you , I mean I had every I
opportunity in the world to move back to Chicago and take a job there as
opposed to take a job in Minneapolis . We chose to move to Minneapolis
because it doesn't present the hassles that Chicago does . We could have
gone right back to Downers Grove and one of the reasons we don't is because II
of the way that area has developed. Your dealing there with 9 or 10
different suburbs who cannot get their act together to plan anything in
unisom and as a result there have been high rise white elephants go up like II
you can 't believe that I 'm sure they're a tax advantage for someone because
they're losing money but well anyway. I 've said what I needed to say.
Emmings: Well thanks for sharing your thoughts . You know those are a lot I
of the things that we talk about . We spend a lot of time talking about
here . We hope we 're addressing them . Any other comments? 1
Jeff Kullberg: I 'm Jeff Kullberg again. I have one more question. With
the advent of the proposed 212 coming in in 1996-998 or whenever . How will
that affect the traffic flows and the access to this proposed industrial
park as traffic then comes south? Actually starts going north on Audubon
toward this and then the access, as you proposed is on the north end . All
the traffic would be diverted past our house instead of going in. Is there II
I
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
September 4 , 1991 - Page 28
IIgoing to be any access from the south to keep , for these residential areas
or from the west?
IEmmings: Is there going to be any access to what from where? Would you
say that again .
IIJeff Kullberg: This industrial park other than the one spot shown?
Emmings: No . The one spot .
IKrauss: Highway 212 will affect , we go back quite a ways . One of the
reasons the Planning Commission looked at this favorably as an industrial
I site was the desire not to put all the traffic onto TH 5. Was the desire
to orient at least a portion of it from Hwy 212.
Conrad: Thanks Paul .
IKrauss: Well I thought it was a good idea .
IIEmmings: I think it was your idea Paul .
Krauss : But the access to 212 is to come over here to CR 17 which is
Ifurther , goes off my map but there will be a stub of CR 17 that will drop
south of Lyman and there will be an interchange down what is now a
cornfield down there . Some of the traffic no doubt will find it expediant
to run out that way . Some of it to come up . The idea is to split the
1 burden so that it 's not focused on any one point. Ultimately there 's
going to be a signalized intersection of TH 5 and Audubon . Also we have an
internal system here where we have the Lake Drive extension . The road
II that 's serving this project is designed to come out through our existing
industrial park and we 're trying to basically find alternate routes for all
that traffic to go . You're right , when 212 opens up there will be a
reversal of some of the flow. We 've got some initial projections of that
11 in the Eastern Carver County study . The numbers aren't perfect but it does
try to take that future system into account. We're going to try and get
some better numbers from the developer as part of the development process .
IIWe are looking into that further .
Jeff Kullberg: How about presently on TH 5 when you're turning to go south
I on Audubon . There 's now a turn lane . There's a paved shoulder which
people go around right now . Will that be corrected as a part of the
current widening of TH 5 or with this residential park? Will the 4 lane
highway extend out past Audubon or those turn lanes be added?
IIKrauss: Unfortunately the existing TH 5 program doesn't go out that far .
It should have and it's a long story as to why it doesn't but it wasn 't the
II City's fault . The question you raise is a valid one and we're going to ask
the developer to respond to some of that with their traffic study . Now
we 're probably not in a position to say to the developer , there's a problem
a half a mile away you 've got to fix it all but it 's certainly becoming a
II problem now before these guys go in there and it 's something we 're going to
want to address as a part of this program . I 'm not sure how that will come
about or what exactly will happen over there but we 've got a long standing
IIrelationship with MnOot trying to work these things out and . . .
Planning Commission Meeting I
September 4 , 1991 - Page 29
Jeff Kullberg: Okay , thank you . 11
Emmings: Thank you . Any other comments or questions? I
Erhart moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Emmings: Comments , Jeff? Do you want to start this one?
Farmakes: I always get real uneasy when I hear about industrial being
adjacent to single family areas . I think the City's in the lot addresses II
itself somewhat to buffering the east side of that road. Audubon. I 'm
still , can you clarify the issue of why it's 50 feet on Audubon but 100 to II
the south? The buffer zone?
Krauss: Commissioner Farmakes, that goes back to some of the discussions ,
that were held during the development of the Comp Plan. It was felt that
the street right-of-way itself provided physical separation. I believe the
right-of-way is 80 feet at minimum over there and it may be larger . And
then the homes themselves are set back beyond that so you 've got the home II
setback . You've got the right-of-way for Audubon and you 've got the 50
feet buffer yard and then you've got the setback for the industrial . That
takes in quite a bit of land. The only thing that will block the direct
visual contact is the buffer itself but I believe , my recollection of it
was that it was felt that that much distance compensates , you get more than
the 100 foot setback .
Farmakes: The reason I 'm concerned about that is that most of the homes
that you talked about have very flat yards . There's little or no
obstruction . They 're new homes that are put into what used to be a farm
field I 'm sure . There 's very little in the way of tree growth back there . II
And I 'm looking at this proposed tree line up here and it 's all deciduous
trees so at least in the wintertime they're not going to provide much in
the way of cover . Particularly on Lots 10 and 11 . They still would face II
the residential home area . Lot 12 , leaves more open space but I think
potentially if a building was put on Lot 11 say , there 's not a lot of room
there . It would potentially be pretty close up there to the highway and I II
believe that particular section is still fairly high before it slopes down
isn 't it?
Krauss: Lot 11 I believe has the high point. The buffer yard, the 1
landscaping that they've developed to date is conceptual and we really
didn't review it for content. Your comments as to the coniferous trees
being necessary there are well taken . In fact we would also look for
grading on that site that 's sensitive to that . When that site is graded
for development , in all probability that knoll is going to be knocked off .
It 's going to be flatten out and I 've always visualized having the ability ,
to retain some of the height along Audubon with the building set down
behind it . We are asking for those elements to be further refined when
they come back before you .
Farmakes: Do you feel that if the buffer zone was increased to the 100
feet that it is to the south, that Lots 11 or 10 would be uneconomical to
be developed? I mean was that a part of the discussion? 1
11
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
September 4 , 1991 - Page 30
IIKrauss: It wasn't a part of the Planning Commission's discussion. I 'm
sure it has some economic consequence to the developer . I guess our
I feeling is we want to have the buffer do the best job. Do the job it 's
intended to do . We think we can accomplish that in 50 feet . We also •
accomplish it in a lot less . The room should be adequate to do what we
think needs to be done .
IIFarmakes: My general concern would be Lots 10 and 11 . Again, not so much
12 but 10 and 11 . The other comment I had I guess was in relationship to
' the traffic •area . I 'm really concerned about there is heavy traffic
generated there or there is there even presently even though it's not part
of this development . I get really nervous when, if there is equipment that
' is being parked and running , a lot of times those things are left running .
Being adjacent to a single family yard where kids play. That makes me very
nervous to hear that . I would hope that we do something about that . I
also on the issues of obviously if there 's past the construction period, if
II these are offices , you 're not going to have a lot of semis coming in but do
they have any other tenants at this point other than what 's listed here?
II Krauss: We are not aware of any specific tenants. Ryan may wish to
comment on that . Normally when we deal with something that 's phased over a
3 to 6 period , or whatever it turns out to be , we won't know for quite a
period of time who most of the tenants are . But I don't know, do you have
any idea?
Farmakes: In office development there 's a particular marketing plan . If
II it 's . 11 manufacturing or warehouse or perhaps office spaces . There 's a
lit - different types of traffic . I realize it 's a long term plan. I 'm
jus* ondering if there is any other tenants on the horizon for this piece
' other than?
Kent Carlson: We 've talked to a number of users about this particular
II park . . . industrial park than we will with a pure office park . . . This will
be a high tech business park .
Farmakes: But it still would generate a fair amount of truck traffic?
IKent Carlson: A fair amount is relative . I don't know what you would
consider to be a fair amount .
Farmakes: I guess I would be concerned about the truck traffic that would
be heading to the south on that road. Further road improvements take place
to the south there , which very well could be the case . A lot of semis
IIrolling down that road .
Krauss: The road was upgraded last year and the City Engineer and I worked
II together quite a bit . He was fully aware of what our expectations were . I
don't know what percentage of the traffic on Audubon Road will be
contributed by this project yet . We have considerably more residential
I development that 's going to occur . Audubon Road already serves as one of
the prime accesses to the City 's major industrial park and the McGlynn's
area which is a separate area and then the portion south of McGlynn's
that 's owned by Amcon so it is a major traffic artery in the city and we 've
IIdesigned it accordingly . Traffic volumes are high and they 're going to get
I
Planning Commission Meeting I
September 4 , 1991 - Page 31
higher . I dare say that would happen without this but yes. The concern 11
for trucks is a valid one . We're asking for some more specific detailed
information but the road was designed to handle it .
Farmakes: I was thinking of the aesthetic again to those homes to the east
that are along there. There 's very little if anything obstructing any of
that . I
Krauss: It 's quite true .
Farmakes: So the City has an easement along that road to the homeowners? II
Is that right? Has an easement along that highway?
Emmings: For the road you mean? '
Farmakes: That 's correct . On Audubon Road .
Krauss: I think you know , also with 20/20 hinesight the next item on your II
agenda will fix some of the problems that we're having with that
subdivision. I mean the developer of that subdivision should have and I
think some of the Planning Commissioners felt was obligated to do some
berming and landscaping there. That 's a situation that shouldn't have
existed . Now we can make Ryan do the best job we know how to do on their
side . It doesn 't fix the other side . Hopefully , if we can get that
ordinance through , the landscaping improvements, we can address that more
directly in the future .
Farmakes: That 's the end of my comments . '
Emmings: What he 's talking about there with the berming along Audubon it ,
was , this came up some time ago but when we approved your subdivision, my
specific recollection is that the developer was obligated to put berms up
all along Audubon and plant them . Apparently it got lost in the wash .
Brook Lillestol : Exactly . That 's exactly right.
Jeff Kullberg: We were told that when we purchased our lots that he would II
put in landscaping also.
Emmings: No. And apparently it 's no on the plans or the approval that we 11
gave but some of us who were here at the time remember doing it. Remember
requiring it but it got lost someplace . For them too, I think they should
know about our process here . This is the first very preliminary stage when
we're looking at this strictly as a concept . Now it's going to comeback II
to us again?
Krauss: Yes. I
Emmings: For what stage? What 's the next stage called so they know.
Krauss: It's called a PUD preliminary plat . We are probably going,
depending on the developer request , we're probably going to combine the
preliminary and final stage .
a
II Planning Commission Meeting
September 4 , 1991 - Page 32
IIEmmings: And there will be another public hearing at that time?
Krauss: Correct . And then as each site develops , when the weather station
I comes in or when somebody comes in on the adjoining lot , there's additional
hearings held on those specific plans so there's a series of opportunities
that you 'll have to provide comment and hopefully we can make adjustments
' as need be to resolve them.
Emmings: It 's very sketchy now but it will get more and more detailed as
those things happen . Okay . Mr . Conrad .
IIConrad: Are you going to follow upon the McGlynn's issue Paul?
' Krauss: Yes certainly .
Conrad: Okay. I think that 's important . I like the trail in here . Both
I the south . I really like that . I 'd like to see that in as we go through
this process . I think a trail system, recreation for employees and this
could handle a significant number of employees . I really like that . I
would hope our landscaping standards are set . I 'm not going to echo what
IJeff said but I will . I think we need to pay attention to the east side
and the south side . Buffering residential areas. Just absolutely and the
applicant should be aware that that 's what a major intent is . I like the
' plan . I guess I 'm starting out on a negative side but I like the plan very
much . ? think it 's interesting or it's a good thing for this particular
area a ° e way I see it . One concern that I do have on it , we're talking
aboL- rather station . We're talking about a lot of area but I see the
buii , on the far south really close. Now is that where the radar unit
fits . . ght on top of that pad?
I Krauss: Mr . Conrad we don't know. They haven't come up with a specific
plan . When I met with the weather station , Ryan was at one of those
meetings . Their plan was a computer generated thing that was pretty
' conceptual . In fact they showed direct access to Audubon Road which we
said we would recommend against strongly. The radar tower does not need to
be on the highest portion of the site . In fact they said it shouldn't be .
It sets somewhere down the slope to the west . Exactly where we don't know.
IConrad: And that tower can be how high?
I Krauss: Our information is that , first of all the FAA will only allow it
to be 140 feet high . Now that 's the same, the Cellular Telephone tower was
originally approved at 180 feet at Lyman and Galpin. The FAA lowered that
Ito 140 feet so if you want to see what it looks like, or potentially what
the height looks like , look at that tower . Now it's going to be somewhat
down the hill . Certainly it's going to be seen from a distance . There 's
no question about that but it 's going to be sitting basically in a 12 acre
' green space . One of the reasons why they have to have such a large green
space is that one of the things they'll do from this site is they have a
small building that they will release sounding balloons once a day . They
Iactually needed enough land area for the balloons to clear all obstacles
before it departed the property . These things go up 40,000-50 ,000 feet .
So it 's kind of a nice use for the site . It 's a high profile, white collar
jobs . 60 professional employees . There 's no manufacturing. There 's no
Planning Commission Meeting
September 4 , 1991 - Page 33
smoke . It 's kind of a nice high profile type of user for the City . You 'll II
get your time and temperature and if it 's snowing in Chanhassen on the
radio all the time . So we 've been talking favorably with them. I
Conrad: And I recognize this is not a site plan and this is just a concept
stage but on that Lot 12 , the radar unit is literally , it is not on the
building or it is on the building?
Krauss: No. None of the plans I 've seen ever showed it on the building .
Conrad: So it's not there. So the building is tucked in pretty close to II
the east and south property line . There 's not a radar?
Krauss: No . That's a small brick , 15,000 square feet office building . 1
Conrad: A small brick , so it 's a one story?
Krauss: One or two .
Conrad: And again, I know that this is not a final deal but I just want to II
make sure you know our comments before you get down too far .
Kent Carlson: The plans of weather service plans changed significantly.
This was . . .access off of Audubon would not be approved so they've gone back II
and m - :" fied. The plans currently show the road, their access entering off
of o,_ 11-de-sac and the building would be positioned approximately where
you the tower shown on your plans and the radar would be pretty close II
to k` it 's currently shown . . . But the tower and the building have been
moved away from . . .
Conrad: Well that 's good and that again is just a general sense , I like
that a lot . Landscape , our new ordinance will probably apply to this right
Paul? Okay . We have a new landscape ordinance and you're talking a lot
about that . It 's pretty , I think it's nice for Chanhassen residents . I
think you 'll like it . I think we can apply it to this property . I think
it will , I can't say that this is going to increase the value of your
residential area . My objective is to make sure that there 's not an impact. I
It's certainly , I don 't think commercial elevates any residential property.
We 've got to be real direct and obviously the other thing is , there 's going
to be truck traffic out there . There is . There's just no doubt about it II
but we 've paid a lot of attention to traffic . We're kind of , as we 've gone
through some designing of where industrial and office park goes , we've kind
of paid attention to the traffic patterns so if nothing else , it may not be
perfect for you but at least we've thought about it in advance and
hopefully can take care of most of the issues or concerns. Safety in one .
Noise is another and I think landscaping is another and I think we 've taken
care of , at least I feel comfortable that we 've taken care of some of
those . But again for the developer , I think the landscaping on the east
side against Audubon is real important to me. And keeping that trail in .
I 'd sure like to keep that in. That's it . '
Emmings: Okay , Tim.
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 4 , 1991 - Page 34 •
Erhart: You 're proposing not to put a thru street through the western half
of this which is very inconsistent with all the industrial area along the
track . By doing that you 're going to increase the traffic on Audubon. But
not putting a thru street on there . I 'm wondering is it clear that the
problem with going through the Bluff Creek , I assume the problem is going
1 through the Bluff Creek flood zone is why you don't want to do that . Or
some other reason .
' Aanenson: The existing stand of. trees that are there.
Erhart: You could go south of those .
Krauss: Then you're into the residential area to some extent .
Erhart: Isn 't on our Comp Plan the area to the west also industrial?
1 Krauss: Outlot A to the west is .
Erhart: Let 's go back here . Isn 't that industrial?
Krauss: This is high and this is high and here 's the large wetland, the
floodplain that comes through here and separates the residential from the
I industrial . The former City Engineer and I looked. . .it 's advantageous to
have a looped street . I think as you 're aware , staff usually recommends
those wherever possible . Our concern was that we have some very
I significant environmental areas . Sensitive environmental areas down here .
There 's very dense tree cover down in this area . We have the floodplain
for the creek itself . There 's a desire to preserve the creek for a
' recreational as well environmental amenity . It 's not impossible to make the
connection but you 're really going to devastate that area to do it . We
also even at one time looked at the possibility of laying out a street
connection that jumped back across the railway tracks . I think the one we
II originally laid out came like that and hooked in right over here. This is
a residential site and it just really didn't adapt itself very well for the
road. We would have preferred to have that option . We just didn't feel
like we could recommend it .
Erhart: I think we would agree to having it there would reduce the amount
of traffic on Audubon Road because a lot of the UPS and those services ,
IIthey have a route .
Krauss: One of the reasons why we liked the idea of the thru street was
II that this then becomes an extension of Lake Drive which is the City's south
alternate to TH 5. It goes all the way over to the Eden Prairie city line .
But it just didn't seem the continuity that we would get was worth the
' environmental damage that would ensue. That's where we 've taken it .
Erhart: Well it 's the thing that comes to mind with me . Having it thru
would have , right now if anybody wants to go from the future western
II industrial park to the eastern industrial park , I mean west and east of
Bluff Creek has to now drive around on Audubon Road.
II Krauss: No . I don 't know that I can , what we did though as an alternative
to that southern route was we laid out a collector street section on our
I
i
Planning Commission Meeting
September 4 , 1991 - Page 35
Comp Plan that comes through here . So traffic could come up through our
industrial park and come over that way rather than go all the way around
south.
Erhart: Okay . Essentially in this process that we 're looking at here with "
the PUD , the first thing that goes in is the street . . . .we see is the
street goes in first .
Krauss: Well keep in mind that the project will be phased so it will be
graded .
Erhart: The whole thing, well it will be landscaped. Will all the
buffering landscape go in right away?
Krauss: That 's a matter for some discussion. That is what the ordinance
says . That the landscaping go in up front. I 'll be honest and say that I II
had a discussion with the applicant today who was concerned about the cost
implications of doing it all up front and maybe doing it in phasing is
something that they would propose but that 's for you to determine . I
Erhart: Okay , I would regarding the landscaping. This whole thing with
not getting that berm and the landscaping on that residential area . The
residential PUD across the street is really unfortunate and I was really
shocked when I saw as those houses started going up , and as I 'm sure
everybody is . So I guess it seemed to me that we would at a minimum want
to put this landscaping in along Audubon with the first phase . I agree II with Jeff and I think it was Jeff that stated i.nat most of it is deciduous
here ')eciduous used for the buffers and I 'd like to see at least half of
that coniferous . Also go beyond that , because of that situation and the II
fac t we 've got a 50 foot buffer , that somehow we find a way to go
bey Jur new landscaping ordinance where we have trees every 30 feet to
put two rows where the trees would alternate even if we have to
participate in that effort or some way give credit to park or something .
Somehow find a way to get at least across from that residential area to
increase the landscaping beyond what's in our ordinance . And I guess if
it 's going a PUD , maybe that 's the opportunity for us to find a way to get II
that accomplished . I also agree, I agree with you . Let 's not try , we
shouldn't be trying to make wetlands out of things that aren't wetlands.
That area in Lot 6 , that 's tilled and not really wetlands that's found on a ,
map someplace , we don't need to take advantage of that. We can work with
the developers more positively than that so I agree with you there. I
think that 's , I think it looks good. I think obviously we're a long way
from seeing anything specific on it . I guess the other thing is it really II
lends some weight to our effort to get something put down regarding the
Bluff Creek greenway because now we're actually talking about some
development which includes that area. I realize that's on one of our work II
items but we need to get on with it here and make sure that this is going
to fit with that . I like the trail . I could even use this trail from my
office . I think it makes a lot of sense . I think when you go into other , ,
nicer communities. Industrial parks like out in Seattle, which I spend a
lot of time at , they 've got a lot of trails and a lot of evergreens with
trails through them and they 've made their industrial parks really quite
humane . I wish we would have done that in the industrial park that we 're II
in, although the street 's certainly easy enough to use . You see a lot of
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 4 , 1991 - Page 36
joggers . To have a trail . Off street trail would have been really nice .
Emmings: Okay . I don 't have much additional . I agree with most the
comments that have been made up here. I was wondering where that underpass
under the railroad is in relation to this property .
IIKrauss: It 's actually right over here. It 's on the west side of the creek
and I would imagine it 's kind of the park board 's area and to get to it
we 'd have to structure some kind of nicely designed wooden bridge or
I
something across the creek to get there. We had heard rumors , or I had
heard rumors for the last few years that this thing existed but we never
found it until we went searching for it one day and the applicant went
searching for it .
Emmings: I was curious about the recommendation that the developer should
I be required to petition for the feasibility study . What 's the significance
of that?
Krauss: Quite a bit and it actually goes beyond this specific property .
I
There 's a need to build infrastructure most importantly in this case is the
sanitary sewer system that will serve a large part of the new MUSA
expansion . Virtually the entire area located south of TH 5. That area was
I supposed to drain into a metro interceptor called the Bluff Creek
Interceptor which only exists in the figments of the imagination of the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. They've largely done away with that
I ever happening and when they approved our Comprehensive Plan they approved
our concept of , going back to this one of park; ng up a lot, of basically
putting a lift station down here with a pipe running up . Pipe running up .
Howev'- r they run it and letting everything flow by gravity down along Bluff
I Cre== -.:,omehow and then lifting it either up Audubon Road or what we 're
loo- , at right .now , out Lyman to TH 101 and back into the Lake Ann
Interceptor which has the capacity to do that . That 's how we got our
II Comprehensive Plan approved. Now this system serves a large area far
beyond the Ryan proposal and we have the firm of Bonestroo looking into a
general concept plan of how sewer and water might be provided but there
I needs to be a more specific . . .study to that to say how exactly, where 's the
system going to go . What 's it going to cost . What we 're asking Ryan to do
is petition it . Petition the study so the Council can get it kicked off
and we 're asking them to pay their fair share towards that . Now we don 't
II know what that fair share is right now but clearly there are a number of
properties beyond their site that benefit from this so the City Engineer
and City Council will have to think up some equitable way of distributing
I it . But until that study 's done , we don't have a long term answer for how
to serve this area .
Emmings: And you want them to initiate it for what reason?
IIKrauss: The usual procedure we operate in Chanhassen is that the
developer , the proponent petitions the study and assumes some of the
1 financial cost .
Emmings: Alright . That sounds like a good reason to me . Park and Rec is
talking about not accepting land in lieu of cash. Is the land that they 're
not accepting Outlot B? Is that what 's being offered? Or is that being
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting
September 4 , 1991 - Page 37 1
dedicated anyway?
Krauss: Outlot A .
Emmings: Or Outlot A? ,
Krauss: The Park Board hasn't officially acted on it yet . All we can tell
you is what the Park and Recreation Director , Todd Hoffman's recommending
at this point . It 's his feeling that Outlot A will be protected .
Emmings: Is that what we 're talking about here?
Krauss: Basically. That that lot would be protected by the City in the
normal course of events . That it 's mostly floodplain or wetland anyway and
we do not normally accept that type of acreage as park . There may be some I
sort of an offset for some of the trail expense because this is a trail
that 's going to be a benefit to the public as well as the residents of the
park . Long term we envision this trail of hooking into the Bluff Creek II Trail and people being able to access hopefully the new middle school site
or Lake Ann Park . I mean lots of things . So there's a benefit to that
and maybe some kind of an offset will be figured but the Park Board hasn't
acted yet officially . '
Emmings: I guess that 's all I have on my comments . Let 's see , anything
else of anybody up here? Did you have any response to anything you've been "
hearing?
Kent Carlson: Ah yeah if I could make a couple of comments in regards to
some of the things we 've discussed tonight and mention a couple of concerns
that .- have after reviewing the staff report and before we get your
hope= ly preliminary approval on our project . . The wetlands issue , I
apprc - _ate everybody's, on item number 6 . Or Lot 6. That small area
that 's been identified . I guess we 'd like to encourage us to wait and see II
what the Army, Corps of Engineers come back and says. If it is, we have
additional land out in Outlot A that we could mitigate that area and work
with them there . With regards to your feasibility study for the new sewer
system , we fully intend to pay our prorated share and we're committed to do
that also . Jeff mentioned some concerns about Lots 10 and 11 and the
landscaping and the berming that we would do there . I think as part of the II
development agreement Paul and I have talked about incorporating the
landscaping requirements , the berming requirements in the developer 's
agreement so in the future as lots develop we have a standard to maintain. II
That's one of the nice things about going through the PUD process is that
we will develop standards that will carry through as tenants come along and
we build buildings for them or they enter into a multi-tenant building . It
creates value for the park. It creates value and it insures the existing
users in there that the balance of the park will be developed in a quality
fashion. Unfortunately these folks something happened in the process and
the berming and landscaping that was originally promised didn't happen. We II
are willing to and we have agreed to provide that assurance to the
community that that will be done . We would like to phase our landscaping
as we develop. I think we can work on some of the areas along Audubon but I
some of those areas on the southern part of the property it could be very
expensive to come through and have to do all of the landscaping and the
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 4 , 1991 - Page 38
I
berming initially so we would like to work with you on that . As far as the
access to Outlot A . Or Lot number 1 off of Audubon . We've shown that as a
direct access to Audubon . We spent a lot of time working on the
preliminary plan coming up with some concepts on how we can develop that
particular area , especially the area adjacent to Audubon with a higher
I quality standard . We envision those buildings to be a little shorter in
height . The clear height within those projects would be lower . The front
of the buildings were more likely to have better image . Maybe a decorative
I block or burnish block along with perhaps some brick materials. We don't
know what those standards are going to be yet but they tend to be a little
smaller . They're going to be projects more the high tech space if you will
with the higher quality , higher percentage of office and a little higher
quality look . With that comes smaller projects and that's why you see that
cul-de-sac coming in off of ours . It develops those 4 small lots . It
leaves us that one lot up on that northeast corner that becomes a little
II bit difficult to access . In our desire to screen and present the best
possible image to the street and to Audubon we've kind of clustered those
four buildings so we can keep all of the loading facilities and the truck
' maneuvering areas within the backs of those buildings okay. And that
leaves us that one lot up there that we would like to put the front of the
building facing Audubon with the direct access to Audubon and then again
allowing us to screen the truck access and maneuvering areas to the backs
of the buildings that would be on Lots 2 and 3. So that 's kind of the
reasoning behind that . Again we 're going to go through a process with an
EAW to determine the traffic implications of our development and I think
II that will give us a pretty good feel of that but we'd like to consider
that . The trail system that we're showing, we developed these preliminary
plans b,-Fore we found the big crossing underneath the railroad tracks and
' agair think we 're going to modify the trail system to try to incorporate
ever: . y joining up with the other trail systems that are in your
comp- -isive guide plan and so we may lose the trail along the railroad.
We k.: _ of provided a loop here in our preliminary plans . If we do have
II rail access to a couple of the sites in the rear of the property, it won't
make sense to have a jogging path along it. So that 's one of the things
that you may see changing over time .
IIConrad: The point is just as long as the trail goes someplace . It's got
to be a useable trail and whether it 's here where I see it on the map or
whether it 's connecting . As long as there's a valid place that it goes . A
purpose.
Kent Carlson: Yeah , and again we need to work with the Park and Rec
II Department to determine what the trails would be like and things like that .
So let 's see , anything else. Well we'd appreciate your assistance with the
landscaping too Ladd. That 'd be very nice . Along the berming and that
' area so we 'd be happy to work with the staff on that . So thank you .
Emmings: Thank you . Okay . You want a motion on this I guess huh? On
' page 12.
Conrad: I make the motion that the Planning Commission approve PUD concept
plan for Chanhassen Business Center subject to the three points listed in
IIthe staff report . Is there anything else that should be included?
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 4 , 1991 - Page 39
Emmings: I 'll second your motion and let 's open it up for discussion.
Whether anybody else feels there ought to be any additional conditions to II
approval .
Jeff Kullberg: Can I ask a question? '
Emmings: Sure .
Jeff Kullberg: I heard a lot of different things being batted around like II
the possibility of thru traffic through the development and for setting
back the buildings from 50 to 100 feet and the economic feasibility of that
and that we supposedly instead of getting berms on our side of Audubon , we 1
got a walking path that will now be parallel to another one that could , if
it is going to be parallel to another path , could our path be replaced with
berms as a contingency of this development?
Emmings: You 're talking about a path that goes down along the east side of
Audubon presently?
Jeff Kullberg: Yes .
Emmings: There 's not envisioned one to be on the west side. That one goes
into the project . It doesn't run along Audubon. Not at least the way it 's '
on the plan right now . And as far as all those other things you heard ,
whether it 's 50 feet or 100 feet or all those , all of those are open
questions at this point . We know it 's got to be at least 50 and I think
Jeff was suggesting that maybe it should be even more but as a practical
matter I don't think that 's going to happen but those are open questions
still . ,
Farmakes: I think the point is that we 're concerned about where that abuts
your property . It is an issue the city and the developer are working to
solve .
Jeff Kullberg: How about the past misunderstanding with Joe Miller about
whether this should be berms and landscaping on our side as opposed to just
a path that somehow got approved?
Emmings: What about it? I mean that's got nothing to do with this plan . I
Except we realize that you .
Jeff Kullberg: It directly impacts our .
Emmings: Yeah. You don't have screening on your side and we're trying to
take care of it on the other side but we can 't go back and do anything
about that at this point . I 'll tell you , we 'll just finish our work up
here . Now we 've got a motion and it's been seconded . Is there any
discussion on the motion or any further conditions anyone wants to add?
Erhart: Did you have some in mind? 1
Emmings: No , I don't . Do you?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
September 4 , 1991 - Page 40
Conrad: I didn 't have any. I think again this is a concept type thing
11 and I think that 's what we're approving generally here the concept of what
they 're trying but we 're not very specific yet . It 's still up to the
applicant to come in here with a specific recommendations and absolutes and
' then we 'll be maybe a little bit more critical but right now the applicant •
is saying hey . Here 's a concept . What do you think . That's what we 're
giving him feedback on. Trying to give him a flavor for the things that we
care about and the things that maybe aren 't so important but at this point
in time I think the conditions in the staff report are just fine .
Ann Kullberg: What are the conditions?
Conrad: That 's a good question. We keep you in the dark so you think
we 're smart .
Emmings: These things are available . I 'll read them to you. Number one
is the applicant prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the
project to be reviewed with a formal PUD request. They have to petition
1 the City to undertake a feasibility study and providing services to the
site . The third one is , prepare a formal PUD submittal responding to
issues raised in this report as well as all of them that had been raised at
I the Planning Commission and City Council meetings while working with staff
on the plan development . And I tell you , you can wear yourself out
thinking about this hypothetically . When they come back next time it 's
going to be hopefully a whole lot more specific and you 're going to get
I able to get your teeth into it a little better and so are we. Right now
we 're looking at it as a very conceptual matter .
II Conre.,71: On the other hand, yeah as long as you say that I think we 've
give- he applicant sort of a green light to say that the National Weather
Sere should be in the southeast corner .
IEmmings: Yeah . Well .
Conrad: That 's the kind of things that we 're saying subtley because we
II haven 't really complained about it . We 're saying hey , that 's not a bad
place for that .
Emmings: And I think they 've heard your concerns and our desire that they
be sensitive to your concerns . So I think you 'll see in their plans that
they 'll take you into account. Alright, I 'm going to call the question on
the motion.
Conrad moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the PUD Concept Plan for Chanhassen Business Center subject to
IIthe following conditions:
1 . Prepare an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the project to be
reviewed with formal PUD request .
2. Petition the City to undertake a feasibility study on providing
services to the site .
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
September 4 , 1991 - Page 41
3. Prepare a formal PUD submittal responding to issues raised in this
report , as well as those raised at Planning Commission and City Council "
meetings , while working with staff on the plan development .
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: I ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTIONS REGARDING
LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS.
Chairman Emmings waived the staff report on this item .
Emmings: There was just one thing I wanted to look at but otherwise it
looks like they've taken everything into account.
Conrad: It looked that way to me but I 'm surprised Dick Wing left .
Farmakes: I had one question on this whole thing .
Emmings: There was one issue that came up that we argued about quite a
bit .
Farmakes: I just wondered if when the ETA for the list of trees is.
Olsen: We did have the DNR forester look it over and he said it 's fine . He
said it 's got the typical trees that most other cities have. We also sent
a copy to the Halla Nursery . We haven't heard any response back from them . I
So right now we 're not really going to be changing the list but maybe
organize them the way you were discussing with the hardwoods .
Farmakes: Did the DNR have any recommendations as to what would be '
compatible with their study that they did or what 's presently in
Chanhassen?
Olsen: We haven 't gotten that far with that . That 's more for like the
reforestation . We 're not ready to . . . I think you were going to talk about
what we discussed and.
Emmings: There was one issue that came up where we were kind of split .
Olsen: That was whether or not , I think it's on page 4 . '
Farmakes: 2 or 3 trees .
Emmings: No .
Farmakes: Yeah it was conifer . Whether to have it conifer . '
Emmings: Well that 's one of them .
Olsen: It was where you require the caliper inches to be replaced and if I
they removed trees that shouldn't have been removed , like were outside of
I
I